# Does it matter who the biological father is?



## Graywolf2 (Nov 10, 2013)

I’m the one who tells guys to DNA their kids. Some people po po this and say that it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter who the biological father is then why does it matter who the biological mother is?

"Two French women who discovered 10 years after giving birth that their babies were switched in hospital blunder are awarded 2 million euros by court"

France's Sophie Serrano in babies switched at birth case tells her story | Daily Mail Online

Families of babies switched at birth awarded £1.5m by French court | Daily Mail Online


----------



## KingwoodKev (Jan 15, 2015)

Graywolf2 said:


> I’m the one who tells guys to DNA their kids. Some people po po this and say that it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter who the biological father is then why does it matter who the biological mother is?
> 
> "Two French women who discovered 10 years after giving birth that their babies were switched in hospital blunder are awarded 2 million euros by court"
> 
> ...


If for no other reason, if the child isn't really the husband's then he can force the OM to pay child support. God I hate the concept of cheating. It just F's up so much. So many lives. Why don't cheaters stop to consider this?


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

Graywolf2 said:


> I’m the one who tells guys to DNA their kids. Some people po po this and say that it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter who the biological father is then why does it matter who the biological mother is?
> 
> "Two French women who discovered 10 years after giving birth that their babies were switched in hospital blunder are awarded 2 million euros by court"
> 
> ...


yea and if it DOES NOT MATTER why was the 2 million awarded.

the answer it does matter


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*In a plethora of legal jurisdictions, in most all of these states, if a legitimate question arises as to the paternity of a child, the court, much more often than not, will order the test!

Truth be told, they are just not doing that for their health, either!

DNA evidence was greatly ushered in by heralded appellate attorney Barry Scheck in the early 1990's. Ever since then, the bulk of your State Courts have nearly universally adhered to it, as well as your Federal Court system!*


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

If you cut emotion out of it, the medical history knowledge is also potentially important.

For instance, my mom's side of the family had a history of early colon cancer. My maternal G'Ma died of it in her 50s. My mom was then soon diagnosed, and had major colon surgery that she was lucky to survive at 42.

A wise doctor saw this in my medical history, and I had my first colonoscopy at 34, and already had precancerous polyps. Had I waited to have my first colonoscopy in my 40s, it could have been disastrous.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

I agree from the medical info standpoint. That the exact paternity is useful information. 

Regardless though...If I was to find that one of boys was not my own. They are still my boys. While the other man should live in fear....forever. I would not, could not love my children any less. 

Not sure how I would react in terms of my wife though....Don't even like to consider that.


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

It does because the devastation will be far worse on both the BH and the OC, if the vile deception perpetrated by the WW is discovered years later. And legally, by that time, even the courts will mandate that he continue paying the WW child support because in most places, even a child born during the marriage, is considered a child of the marriage even if the father is not biologically related. The BH will have no say and no choice as to whether he wants to develop a relationship with the OC.


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

Before this turns into one of those 20 page locked threads because of people talking about cheating and illegitimate children, I will say YES!!!

My dad is an illegitimate child. 
Half my cousins on his side of his family, that no longer talk to me, are more related to Tonto than me. 

As for a relationship stand point, I don't care really. 
The man that is my father is a worse father than Darth Vader. If I never see him again, I'll be happy. 
Being a father/mother figure to a young kid is different than having "Surprise and Forced adoption!" 
If the parent wants to maintain a relationship with the kid, and can psychologically do it without suffering problems, then I say go for it. 


BTW, you might want to change the title of the thread to MOTHER and not father. 
Because this is one of those freak cases where the biological mother raised a kid that wasn't her's. 
It is 100x more common for men to raise kids that aren't theirs than the other way around.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

KingwoodKev said:


> If for no other reason, if the child isn't really the husband's then he can force the OM to pay child support. God I hate the concept of cheating. It just F's up so much. So many lives. *Why don't cheaters stop to consider this?*


* Well, it primordially stems from the fact that a cheater, rarely if ever, has those thoughts on their mind when they're furiously banging away, trying to turn that dopamine high of theirs into a full-fledged raging orgasm!

They may, however, give a scant more thought to it, more especially in the pleasant afterglow of the moment!*


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I would still love my kid no matter what. It would be important to know so I could divorce my skank wife so fast it would make her head spin!

Incredibly vile to pass a child conceived in adultery off as your husband's.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## KingwoodKev (Jan 15, 2015)

arbitrator said:


> * Well, it primordially stems from the fact that a cheater, rarely if ever, has those thoughts on their mind when they're trying to turn their dopamine high into a full-fledged raging orgasm!
> 
> They may, however, give a scant more thought to it, more especially in the pleasant afterglow of the moment!*


It's just amazing that people will destroy theirs and others' lives for a nut.


----------



## Ripper (Apr 1, 2014)

What's worse is that paternity testing is banned now in France.

Paternity Testing Ban Upheld in France | IBDNA UK

_"The reasons for which the Government said the ban should remain were related to the preservation of peace within French families. According to some online articles, Germany, has also banned (or plans to ban) paternity testing for similar reasons. French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology." _

Yeah, who the biological parent is doesn't matter. Unless its the woman being duped, then sue away. I'm still waiting for equality to kick in and for paternity fraud to actually be prosecuted through both civil and criminal court. Will be waiting a long time apparently.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

KingwoodKev said:


> It's just amazing that people will destroy theirs and others' lives for a nut.


*Amen, Kev!*


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

Ripper said:


> Yeah, who the biological parent is doesn't matter. Unless its the woman being duped, then sue away. I'm still waiting for equality to kick in and for paternity fraud to actually be prosecuted through both civil and criminal court. Will be waiting a long time apparently.


Paternity fraud...
The only fraud you not only profit from, but can't go to jail for!


And people wonder why I don't want to get married or have kids...


----------



## Retribution (Apr 30, 2012)

Ripper said:


> What's worse is that paternity testing is banned now in France.
> 
> Paternity Testing Ban Upheld in France | IBDNA UK
> 
> ...


Seriously. Where's Al Sharpton, the ACLU, Code Pink, and moveon.org on this one? We talk an awful lot about "equal rights" yet BS, especially men, get the short end of the stick right up their a$$es more often than not. Is it any wonder so many of us are bitter damaged Dr. Houses instead of the happy-go-lucky Lloyd Christmases we used to be?


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

Ripper said:


> What's worse is that paternity testing is banned now in France.
> 
> Paternity Testing Ban Upheld in France | IBDNA UK
> 
> _"The reasons for which the Government said the ban should remain were related to the preservation of peace within French families. According to some online articles, Germany, has also banned (or plans to ban) paternity testing for similar reasons. French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology." _


And wait.....

So...wouldn't this stop this from happening?

Because it was discovered by a paternity test. So...This can't happen again.


----------



## user_zero (Aug 30, 2013)

Graywolf2 said:


> I’m the one who tells guys to DNA their kids. Some people po po this and say that it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter who the biological father is then why does it matter who the biological mother is?
> 
> "Two French women who discovered 10 years after giving birth that their babies were switched in hospital blunder are awarded 2 million euros by court"
> 
> ...


I think the context is very important here. people (family , friends , ... ) could be the trigger of many different emotions in us. for example an adopted child in family can trigger emotions like compassion, love in their parents. because their presence at their family is the result of decision to adopt that child which in itself is the result of compassion and love associated with that decision.

but in the case of infidelity the child represents betrayal, pain, selfishness and reminder of that traumatic experience. now before anybody attacking me I'm not saying its the child's fault and he doesn't deserve a family to love them. I actually agree to that and for that reason I believe that if BS realize he/she can't handle this situation (and I won't argue with them) then they should sooner begin to move on before the child gets attach to them emotionally. I know it's a very hard decision. and nobody can make this decision without feeling guilt. and guess what? if you have guilt about it, it's good. because it means you are a normal human being with a healthy mind.

I think the advice to DNA test the kids were given for several reasons : 1- to see how much deep the betrayal go. sometimes it's the only way to get any sold evidence about what happened 2- if they are not the bio dad, they should contact the bio dad for his family medical history for health reasons. (not to mention his right to know he has a child) 3- to make their WS understand that how seriously their trust in them is shaken. 4- child support

about the people who doesn't like this advice : I think must of them are female and have experience somehow with the adoption process. perhaps they've been adopted or have adopted children, or perhaps they have half-siblings, ... .
some of them are (f)OM/OW , (f)WS which means they have problems with empathy and perhaps they are conflict avoiders. the important thing is they fail to consider the male BS point of view. they fail to put themselves at their shoes at the moment of their disagreement with the decision to DNA test the kids.


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

Moral of the story "Don't marry a French woman"


----------



## user_zero (Aug 30, 2013)

Ripper said:


> What's worse is that paternity testing is banned now in France.
> 
> Paternity Testing Ban Upheld in France | IBDNA UK
> 
> ...


conflict-avoidance behavior. they can't get the men/women in their society to respect the idea of marriage/vow/starting a family , .... so they rather close their own eyes (and the eyes of everyone no matter what their personal choice is) and not face the problem. they saving their own face. amazing..... :scratchhead:
world is getting more messed up everyday.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Does anything matter?


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

It absolutely matters if the hospital gets it wrong as in the case in japan......nature vs. nuture where two baby boys were switched one to a rich parent and one to a poor parent...the out come was alarming..

Japanese man born to wealthy parents is accidentally switched at birth and endures life of poverty - Telegraph


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

It matters.

I had my daughter tested far later than I should have, had no real reason to suspect she wasn't mine.

Before opening that PDF from the lab I took a very long time just sitting there wondering if I really wanted to know.

During this conversation with myself I decided if for some reason I wasn't her father there was no way I could lose that little girl.
I felt secure knowing the courts couldn't take away my parental rights just because a DNA test came back against my favor.

I would have divorced my wife immediately however.

I opened it, I'm still married.

It matters.


----------



## TRy (Sep 14, 2011)

Graywolf2 said:


> I’m the one who tells guys to DNA their kids. Some people po po this and say that it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter who the biological father is then why does it matter who the biological mother is?
> 
> "Two French women who discovered 10 years after giving birth that their babies were switched in hospital blunder are awarded 2 million euros by court"


 Two major independent studies, of men that believed that their wive's had never been unfaithful (with the ones suspecting the possibility that their wives may have been unfaithful not being counted), determined that almost 4 percent of men in the US are unsuspectingly raising children that are not biologically their own. Why is it that if a women unsuspectingly raises a child that is not her own, it is worth 2 million euros in suffering, yet if men unsuspectingly raise a child that is not their own, not only is there no payment due from the wife, but they are usually still stuck with paying child support for the child as if it was their own? The fact that the hospital ones were errors, while the wife ones are deliberate fraud, makes this even worse.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Unknowingly doing it is the problem moreso than anything else. I wouldn't dump a kid if I found out but there should be a consequece for the fraud inflicted by the mother.


----------



## Jung_admirer (Jun 26, 2013)

Paternity testing a newborn is completely different than paternity testing a 10 yr old. There should be a status of limitations related to the certification of the biological father listed on the birth certificate. The rate of paternity fraud is in the 2-5% range (average of credible studies). If I were a father, I would test every child of mine at birth. The fact that any society ACTIVELY suppresses any consequence for paternity fraud (and infidelity) amounts to nothing less than forced servitude. I honestly do not know what to say ...Does anyone support the French paternity testing ban?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Jung_admirer said:


> ...Does anyone support the French paternity testing ban?


Shame on France and it sounds like Germany soon as well. It speaks volumes about what law makers think about their female population.


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

It hasn't outright banned it but paternity testing is regulated by the state and only allowed in certain cases:

1. Without a court order the the express consent of the person must be obtained in writing before the carrying out of the examination, after the person has been duly informed of its nature and its purpose.

2. With a court order (if consent could not be obtained)

Oh and Germany has followed suit so that means "Don't marry a German woman" as well.


----------



## Maria Canosa Gargano (Jan 30, 2015)

I just want to make a point about France...

and I love my Frenchies

But they have been known to always have extremist family policies as all sides of the political spectrum believe the family is the core unit of the nation.


----------



## sidney2718 (Nov 2, 2013)

TRy said:


> Two major independent studies, of men that believed that their wive's had never been unfaithful (with the ones suspecting the possibility that their wives may have been unfaithful not being counted), determined that almost 4 percent of men in the US are unsuspectingly raising children that are not biologically their own. Why is it that if a women unsuspectingly raises a child that is not her own, it is worth 2 million euros in suffering, yet if men unsuspectingly raise a child that is not their own, not only is there no payment due from the wife, but they are usually still stuck with paying child support for the child as if it was their own? The fact that the hospital ones were errors, while the wife ones are deliberate fraud, makes this even worse.


The two cases are entirely different. A woman unknowingly raising a child that is not biologically hers stems from serious hospital error or the like. And it robbed at least one child (more usually two) of the ability to grow up with their biological parents, through no fault of the parents.

However if the husband is not the biological father things are very different. The wife has clearly been guilty of infidelity (there are other minor possibilities as well, but never mind those). The husband has grown emotionally attached to another man's child and very often does not want to give the child up to the biological father.

As for the court decisions, the law on that was written long before DNA testing became definitive. It needs to be changed. But it is based on the correct (I think) notion that the child should not be made to suffer from something they had no hand in and no control over.


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

Retribution said:


> Seriously. Where's Al Sharpton, the ACLU, Code Pink, and moveon.org on this one?


Converting the cash to their own shizzle!

Sheesh. That bunch would rob graves if they weren't so lazy. Plus, they have easier marks.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Ripper said:


> What's worse is that paternity testing is banned now in France.
> 
> Paternity Testing Ban Upheld in France | IBDNA UK
> 
> ...


Hmm. Fixed ^that^ for you.

Anyway, this is utter and complete bullsh*t. Any man who finds -- or even suspects -- that he is raising or has raised another man's biological offspring should have the freedom to decide *for himself* what it means to be a father.

Sooo... the lesson here, for me, is to never visit, live in, have sex in, have children in, get married in, or even go anywhere remotely near France.

ETA: Or Germany.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

sidney2718 said:


> The two cases are entirely different. A woman unknowingly raising a child that is not biologically hers stems from serious hospital error or the like. And it robbed at least one child (more usually two) of the ability to grow up with their biological parents, through no fault of the parents.
> 
> However if the husband is not the biological father things are very different. The wife has clearly been guilty of infidelity (there are other minor possibilities as well, but never mind those). The husband has grown emotionally attached to another man's child and very often does not want to give the child up to the biological father.


I'm torn on this. On one hand, I hope that I'd continue to be a father to the child that I'd spent years loving, raising, and providing for.

On the other hand, I know myself well enough to know that I'd have to fight off the urge to give him my wife AND child.



sidney2718 said:


> As for the court decisions, the law on that was written long before DNA testing became definitive. It needs to be changed. But *it is based on the correct (I think) notion that the child should not be made to suffer from something they had no hand in and no control over.*


It's an unfortunate reality that, in at least some of these cases, the child(ren) will be forced to suffer as a result of their mothers' immoral decisions. But I sure as Hell won't be the guy that tells another man that he HAS to continue providing for a child that he's been duped into believing is his own.

Additional thoughts...

I can't help but wonder whether or not mandated paternity testing would be an effective deterrent to both infidelity and paternity fraud.

Hmm... probably not infidelity so much, but _maybe_ paternity fraud. 

I also wonder if it would lead to more abortions.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

sidney2718 said:


> The two cases are entirely different. A woman unknowingly raising a child that is not biologically hers stems from serious hospital error or the like. And it robbed at least one child (more usually two) of the ability to grow up with their biological parents, through no fault of the parents.
> 
> However if the husband is not the biological father things are very different. The wife has clearly been guilty of infidelity (there are other minor possibilities as well, but never mind those). The husband has grown emotionally attached to another man's child and very often does not want to give the child up to the biological father.
> 
> As for the court decisions, the law on that was written long before DNA testing became definitive. It needs to be changed. *But it is based on the correct (I think) notion that the child should not be made to suffer from something they had no hand in and no control over.*


Then the original argument still holds. The child had no hand in a hospital error so why would that be treated ANY differently than a lying POS parent who did the exact same thing. I'm sorry but there's no excuse for for a parent intentionally cheating a child and parent of each other. It's disgusting and despicable. It's one of the few things that I will judge a person as being bad to the core for doing. Now a hospital that making a mistake out of negligence is actually less of a problem than someone who does it deliberately. It's a disgusting thing for someone to do and there's no excuse for the lack of punishment of the criminal.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> I can't help but wonder whether or not mandated paternity testing would be an effective deterrent to both infidelity and paternity fraud.


The reality is that many men would be afraid the results and would choose to not see the results. Beyond that, some men would see the results and make the choice to stick with the wife and child no matter. There would be a minority of men IMO who would just cut ties. All around though, that would be a better route than what we have now and as time passes it will move in that direction.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Graywolf2 said:


> I’m the one who tells guys to DNA their kids. Some people po po this and say that it doesn’t matter.


People who say that it does not matter who the biological father is are not saying that it is ok for a woman to lie to her husband about him being the father of a child. What they are saying is that once a man has raised a child and has a bond to the child, they believe that biological paternity would not, or should not, matter because most men would love the child that they have raise. 



Graywolf2 said:


> If it doesn’t matter who the biological father is then why does it matter who the biological mother is?
> 
> "Two French women who discovered 10 years after giving birth that their babies were switched in hospital blunder are awarded 2 million euros by court"
> 
> ...


I think it's very clear as to why there is a difference between this case and a case in which a woman has an baby from an affair and leads her husband on to believe that it's his child.

In the linked story it was a big money institution that was negligent. They allowed a drunk/alcoholic nurse who was drunk on the job to take care of the babies. She accidently swapped babies. Any time an institution with big bucks knowingly allows an incompetent, drunk employee to carry out gross negligence, they can and probably will be sued for millions.

There are cases here in the USA where this happened. Husband and wife sued the hospital and were granted a pretty big payout. This sort of case is not about women having more rights. It's about incompetent hospitals and medical staff.


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

Jung_admirer said:


> Paternity testing a newborn is completely different than paternity testing a 10 yr old. *There should be a status of limitations* related to the certification of the biological father listed on the birth certificate. The rate of paternity fraud is in the 2-5% range (average of credible studies). If I were a father, I would test every child of mine at birth. The fact that any society ACTIVELY suppresses any consequence for paternity fraud (and infidelity) amounts to nothing less than forced servitude. I honestly do not know what to say ...Does anyone support the French paternity testing ban?


maybe not when it comes to medical reasons.

and if the bio father wants to press the issue he may have right too, if he even knows or would find out.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

GusPolinski said:


> Additional thoughts...
> 
> I can't help but wonder whether or not mandated paternity testing would be an effective deterrent to both infidelity and paternity fraud.
> 
> ...


No doubt that it would lead to more abortions.

I doubt that it would decrease infidelity much. People who cheat, both the men and the women, are not thinking about anything but themselves when they cheat.


----------



## KingwoodKev (Jan 15, 2015)

GusPolinski said:


> Hmm. Fixed ^that^ for you.
> 
> Anyway, this is utter and complete bullsh*t. Any man who finds -- or even suspects -- that he is raising or has raised another man's biological offspring should have the freedom to decide *for himself* what it means to be a father.
> 
> ...


Yeah, these laws seem very bizarre to me. Talk about a true nanny state.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> People who say that it does not matter who the biological father is are not saying that it is ok for a woman to lie to her husband about him being the father of a child. What they are saying is that once a man has raised a child and has a bond to the child, they believe that biological paternity would not, or should not, matter because most men would love the child that they have raise.


There is one villain and it's the mother and all adverse consequence is on her and no one else. Not the bio, not the step, not the system, just her. So if the general consensus is that most men would love the child that they have raised abyway (which I agree) then where's the rub? There are a lot of victims to this crime and only one perpetrator. The biological father is a victim, the child is a victim, the extended family are all victims. The extended family is cheated by a selfish choice by the mother. I would hate to think I have grandchild and nieces and nephews out there who I'm not able to be part of their lives.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Thundarr said:


> There is one villain and it's the mother and all adverse consequence is on her and no one else. Not the bio, not the step, not the system, just her. So if the general consensus is that most men would love the child that they have raised abyway (which I agree) then where's the rub? There are a lot of victims to this crime and only one perpetrator. The biological father is a victim, the child is a victim, the extended family are all victims. The extended family is cheated by a selfish choice by the mother. I would hate to think I have grandchild and nieces and nephews out there who I'm not able to be part of their lives.


I don't recall ever saying that there are no victims in this type of situation. 

I do think that in most of these cases that the bio father does not care about the child. Sure some don't know. My bet is that most do and they dump the WS as soon as they find out that she is pregnant.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> I don't recall ever saying that there are no victims in this type of situation.
> 
> I do think that in most of these cases that the bio father does not care about the child. Sure some don't know. My bet is that most do and they dump the WS as soon as they find out that she is pregnant.


I suppose where I have an issue with this is that those who know the truth (bio mom and bio dad) are given a pass to deceive some guy who doesn't know the truth. That's seems like the definition of predatory fraud yet there's not penalty and no crime. It doesn't make sense.


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

Thundarr said:


> I suppose where I have an issue with this is that those who know the truth (bio mom and bio dad) are given a pass to deceive some guy who doesn't know the truth. That's seems like the definition of predatory fraud yet there's not penalty and no crime. It doesn't make sense.


I am not defending OM (Bio dad) here Thundarr but sometimes he may not even know. 
So BS, OM and the child could are all be deceived.


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

Thundarr said:


> I suppose where I have an issue with this is that those who know the truth (bio mom and bio dad) are given a pass to deceive some guy who doesn't know the truth. That's seems like the definition of predatory fraud yet there's not penalty and no crime. It doesn't make sense.


:iagree:


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

convert said:


> I am not defending OM (Bio dad) here Thundarr but sometimes he may not even know.
> So BS, OM and the child could are all deceived.


Yes I agree. And to be fair to women in this situation, sometimes they don't know one way or another either so there are exceptions where my judgement is tempered with empathy for a girl who just doesn't know and maybe she's young and embarrassed. Sometimes it's more of a timing issue than flat out infidelity. Still there's many clear cut deception scenarios and there's no penalty for those. Again it doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Thundarr said:


> I suppose where I have an issue with this is that those who know the truth (bio mom and bio dad) are given a pass to deceive some guy who doesn't know the truth. That's seems like the definition of predatory fraud yet there's not penalty and no crime. It doesn't make sense.


I agree that it is predatory fraud. 

Our laws on this come from old laws that existed prior to DNA testing. In the past there was no way to prove that the husband was not the biological father of a child born to his wife unless there was something extremely obvious... like a strong racial difference. And even then, it's possible that people have the genetics from some racial group that they are not aware of.

Society and law takes a long time to catch up with things like the rapid changes in science.

There is something similar that can happen to a woman. Her husband has an affair gets the AP pregnant. If she AP sued him for child support, the wife will end up contributing to the care of the child. Even if she divorces him, the divorce settlement will most likely reflect that he has another child to care for. So the wife ends up financially burdened for 18 years.

While it's not quite the same as everyone in that case knows how the bio dad is, it does force a burden on the wife... I think that it's form of fraud/theft from which the wife has no recourse.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

What those women went through isn't as bad as what a BH goes through when he finds out he's a cuckold.

First off, at least those women still know they have a bio child. It was a mix-up, and their bio-child is out there. After the mix-up, they no doubt will have some level of interaction with their bio-child. 

Not so for a BH who later finds out about his WW and her sperm milkshake she got pregnant by. One day he's daddy. The next he's not. He goes from a family to emptiness. About the only way a woman with a mixed up birth would be equivalent is if her bio-child died at 7 and she never go to see, meet, or hold them.

Secondly, the child the parents she raised until finding out aren't a daily reminder of infidelity. They're a reminder of some hospital workers screwing up. The BH can either remain in the kids life and have a constant daily reminder of what his WW (or exWW) did. Or he can cut himself out of their lives and have a hole where they were. Either choice sucks.

Thirdly - Mens Rea on the reason for the mix-up. The mix-up wasn't done with malice. Not so with a WW cuckolding her man. It's the worst way possible for a woman to disrespect a man.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Ripper said:


> What's worse is that paternity testing is banned now in France.
> 
> Paternity Testing Ban Upheld in France | IBDNA UK
> 
> ...


France is no surprise. Remember, this is the country where the "men" allowed themselves to be rolled over twice by Germany. 

I guess Germany has been pussified too if they are considering this.


----------



## Jung_admirer (Jun 26, 2013)

sidney2718 said:


> The two cases are entirely different. A woman unknowingly raising a child that is not biologically hers stems from serious hospital error or the like. And it robbed at least one child (more usually two) of the ability to grow up with their biological parents, through no fault of the parents.
> 
> However if the husband is not the biological father things are very different. The wife has clearly been guilty of infidelity (there are other minor possibilities as well, but never mind those). The husband has grown emotionally attached to another man's child and very often does not want to give the child up to the biological father.
> 
> As for the court decisions, the law on that was written long before DNA testing became definitive. It needs to be changed. But it is based on the correct (I think) notion that the child should not be made to suffer from something they had no hand in and no control over.


The seeds of suffering were planted with the infidelity. Infidelity has consequences that touch all members of a family. Pretending this is not true only exacerbates and prolongs the pain.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

tacoma said:


> It matters.
> 
> I had my daughter tested far later than I should have, had no real reason to suspect she wasn't mine.


What led you to do the test then tacoma?


----------



## Jung_admirer (Jun 26, 2013)

convert said:


> maybe not when it comes to medical reasons.
> 
> and if the bio father wants to press the issue he may have right too, if he even knows or would find out.


Agreed. I was thinking at Elegirl's point... Once a paternal bond is established the situation is much more complex.


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

Jung_admirer said:


> Agreed. I was thinking at Elegirl's point... Once a paternal bond is established the situation is much more complex.


:iagree:


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

I'll point out that in the US there has been significant reform in the last 15 years because of DNA testing. In about 1/3 of the states, the cuckolded father can immediately terminate future child support payments after a court supervised DNA test.

Because of federal law, the man can't get past due payments forgiven.

In most of the others, there is some level of wiggle room by a judge. The judge gets to consider "the best interest of the child" and can f-over a guy if the judge is having a bad day. 

Three states don't allow the dad out. I used to have the link that summarized all of the states, but I lost it. I know Michigan was one of them, but I can't remember the rest.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> There is something similar that can happen to a woman. Her husband has an affair gets the AP pregnant. If she AP sued him for child support, the wife will end up contributing to the care of the child. Even if she divorces him, the divorce settlement will most likely reflect that he has another child to care for. So the wife ends up financially burdened for 18 years.
> 
> While it's not quite the same as everyone in that case knows how the bio dad is, it does force a burden on the wife... I think that it's form of fraud/theft from which the wife has no recourse.


That's an interesting angle that I haven't put enough thought into. My first empression is that it at least forces exposure and leaves everyone in the know.


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

Thundarr said:


> Yes I agree. * And to be fair to women in this situation, sometimes they don't know one way or another* either so there are exceptions where my judgement is tempered with empathy for a girl who just doesn't know and maybe she's young and embarrassed. Sometimes it's more of a timing issue than flat out infidelity. Still there's many clear cut deception scenarios and there's no penalty for those. Again it doesn't make sense to me.


good point I not thought of that


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Thundarr said:


> Yes I agree. And to be fair to women in this situation, sometimes they don't know one way or another either so there are exceptions where my judgement is tempered with empathy for a girl who just doesn't know and maybe she's young and embarrassed. Sometimes it's more of a timing issue than flat out infidelity. Still there's many clear cut deception scenarios and there's no penalty for those. Again it doesn't make sense to me.


Timing issue? Nah...

It's flat out dishonesty to tell the dude she wishes was the father that he *IS* the father if there are several contributors to the sperm c0cktail. A woman needs to be SURE that there is only one potential dad or advise all of them that they are in the co-running.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

One more factor for a BH - Unless his WS put him in cutoff out of loyalty to the OM, the BH now gets to know that he had sloppy seconds from the OM.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

larry.gray said:


> Timing issue? Nah...
> 
> It's flat out dishonesty to tell the dude she wishes was the father that he *IS* the father if there are several contributors to the sperm c0cktail. A woman needs to be SURE that there is only one potential dad or advise all of them that they are in the co-running.


I don't want to defend the accused but I'llat least clarify. Tell me about a married woman becomes pregnant during an affair and also about a girl who has sex with a couple of guys while she's not officially exclusive to either and I'll tell you which one I have more contempt for as it pertains to their actions. The key word is "more" and if you notice in my previous post I only said some scenarios would "temper" my judgement. In no way does that mean it would make me justify the actions.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Thundarr said:


> That's an interesting angle that I haven't put enough thought into. My first empression is that it at least forces exposure and leaves everyone in the know.


Yes it does force exposure usually. So there is not usually that part of the fraud. But it does impact his wife and her children some of his income is now diverted away from his family.

There is also the issue that on top of the financial issues, if the wife stays with him, she usually ends up having to parent the child when the husband has visitation. So now her time and energy is also taken up with a children that was forced on her. (Not wanting to be mean about a child, just the reality that the a wife will pay a big price also if her husband has a child with an AP.)

I've read posts here and on other forums where a man lies to his wife for years while he's diverting marital income, thousands a year, to support a child that he had with an AP. The most famous case in recent years is Arnold Schwarzenegger's.


----------



## loopy lu (Oct 30, 2013)

WW, BH, AP rights, child support, blah blah blah..

Why do we always forget the child?

Why not consider THEIR RIGHTS

Everyone has the right to know their own parentage. Everyone. 

Honestly, don't those rights matter most... the truly innocent party?


----------



## KingwoodKev (Jan 15, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> Yes it does force exposure usually. So there is not usually that part of the fraud. But it does impact his wife and her children some of his income is now diverted away from his family.
> 
> There is also the issue that on top of the financial issues, if the wife stays with him, she usually ends up having to parent the child when the husband has visitation. So now her time and energy is also taken up with a children that was forced on her. (Not wanting to be mean about a child, just the reality that the a wife will pay a big price also if her husband has a child with an AP.)
> 
> I've read posts here and on other forums where a man lies to his wife for years while he's diverting marital income, thousands a year, to support a child that he had with an AP. The most famous case in recent years is Arnold Schwarzenegger's.


Separate finances facilitates this. I've never understood married people that keep separate finances.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> Yes it does force exposure usually. So there is not usually that part of the fraud. But it does impact his wife and her children some of his income is now diverted away from his family.
> 
> There is also the issue that on top of the financial issues, if the wife stays with him, she usually ends up having to parent the child when the husband has visitation. So now her time and energy is also taken up with a children that was forced on her. (Not wanting to be mean about a child, just the reality that the a wife will pay a big price also if her husband has a child with an AP.)
> 
> I've read posts here and on other forums where a man lies to his wife for years while he's diverting marital income, thousands a year, to support a child that he had with an AP. The most famous case in recent years is Arnold Schwarzenegger's.


Your comment seems minimizing of paternal fraud as if it's like many other deceptions in marriage and that's the problem. Partners split up all of the time because one or both were not living up to expectations but there's an opportunity for a new start after that. In the case of paternal fraud, fundament rights that are lost can never be regained. A biological father can never see his kid grow up if s/he's already grown. A child who finds out who thier biologic parent is later in life can never have memories of that parent being part of their life growing up. It's an extreme case of intentional malice and selfishness and control on the part of any parent who fools everyone around them for their own comfort. I don't understand why so many who believe in accountability and live their lives that way but then decide this is one realm where there's no accountability, no punishment, no shame. For example not keeping up with child support is a bad thing and as such it's a criminal offense and public record. How many little "most wanted" or "crime stopper" type papers have mug shots of men who owe support? I think that's a great thing but I want to see "paternity fraud" mug shots as well. What's good for one is good for the other. In this case there's no argument about how it affects the child that doesn't also apply to the child in the other case.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Retribution said:


> Seriously. Where's Al Sharpton, the ACLU, Code Pink, and moveon.org on this one? We talk an awful lot about "equal rights" yet BS, especially men, get the short end of the stick right up their a$$es more often than not. Is it any wonder so many of us are bitter damaged Dr. Houses instead of the happy-go-lucky Lloyd Christmases we used to be?


I am sorry, but for such a real issue, this is dumb. when the US bans paternity testing, then you can complain about their silence, but expecting them to react to every little thing another country does is dumb.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> There is also the issue that on top of the financial issues, if the wife stays with him, she usually ends up having to parent the child when the husband has visitation. So now her time and energy is also taken up with a children that was forced on her. (Not wanting to be mean about a child, just the reality that the a wife will pay a big price also if her husband has a child with an AP.)


But that is a choice she makes, just like a man who decides to forgive an affair and stay with his wife and raise the child as his own. One made with eyes wide open.



> I've read posts here and on other forums where a man lies to his wife for years while he's diverting marital income, thousands a year, to support a child that he had with an AP. The most famous case in recent years is Arnold Schwarzenegger's.


This is more similar to me, to the extent that the couple has agreed to pool all assets.


----------



## TRy (Sep 14, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> I do think that in most of these cases that the bio father does not care about the child. Sure some don't know. My bet is that most do and they dump the WS as soon as they find out that she is pregnant.


 Many of the bio fathers do not know because the cheating wife never intended to leave her marriage when she cheated, so she ends the affair without telling the bio father. Many bio fathers that do know are often married and also never intended to leave their own marriages; these bio fathers often let the husband raise their child, only to tell the child later when the situation changes, such as when the bio father gets a divorce and the child becomes an adult. 

A primary reason for the cheaters keeping it a secret is that the cheaters want to continue the affair, and telling the husband the truth would mess that up; what is best for the child is an afterthought to them. There is one case where a husband found out that he was not the father when he was tested to be a donor; further testing determined that he was not the father of any of his children. The mother denied the husband and the children the truth to continue with her cheating, with no legal or financial consequences to her. There is another sad case that I just read about where the husband found out that his boy was not his at a little league game. The bio father was at the game cheering so loudly for the young boy that he stood out. When the husband looked at the man and looked at what he thought was his son, he realized that his son was the spitting image of this other man that was there to cheer on the boy. DNA testing confirmed that the husband was not the father of the boy. In this case the mother and the bio father worked together to secretly keep the bio father in the son's life. The mother and the bio father got to know the truth as they played the unsuspecting husband for the fool. In another case that I read about, even though the husband wanted the non-bio son to stay in his life, the non-bio son stopped interacting with the non-bio father at 18.


----------



## TRy (Sep 14, 2011)

The question that has not been directly answered is, why does the hospital have to suffer financial consequences when it is found out but the cheating mother does not?


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

there's a difference a big difference between the statistics of men who think they're not the biological father and men who don't know or never wondered. men who think there's a question right about their suspicions 15-30% of the time. for men who this doubt or question has never surfaced the odds are something like 90% in their favor.


----------



## Retribution (Apr 30, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am sorry, but for such a real issue, this is dumb. when the US bans paternity testing, then you can complain about their silence, but expecting them to react to every little thing another country does is dumb.


Where's the "dislike" button here?

I wasn't just referring to the articles mentioned on banned paternity testing in other countries. I'm referring to a general attitude on how BSs are treated everywhere. These groups supposedly exist to help create an equality for all, yet their actions are clearly more politically motivated than based on any real equality.

If you read up in the comments you'd also see evidence posted by larry.gray that many states in the US don't really allow or use paternity testing as a solid way to favor the BS in court decisions. So, yeah, this does happen in the US. Again silence from those groups...or could we say they're "dumb", seeing as the actual definition for dumb is an inability to speak?

Last, my comment was really meant to be more of a rib at politics than any real polemic. Lighten up a little.

I'm sorry, but if you attack me, I'm not going to be "dumb" as you've suggested.


----------



## Retribution (Apr 30, 2012)

TRy said:


> The question that has not been directly answered is, why does the hospital have to suffer financial consequences when it is found out but the cheating mother does not?


I'm not sure what you think about her answer, but I thought EleGirl hit the nail right on the head. Follow the money, my friend. A lawyer is going to be far more interested in the payday from suing a huge multi-million conglomerate than some poor housewife or even most professional women that didn't have sense enough to keep her legs closed for the wrong guy. Translation: "You BS schmucks are too poor to give a rat's a$$ about."


----------



## Q tip (Apr 15, 2014)

someone asked my W and I if we had any kids.

I said "none that we know of..."

paternity testing should be required at birth. its just a service. you can ask for it at birth anyway. before the birth cert is filled out.

who gives a sh!t what society and feminazis want you to do. if you want to, get it done.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Retribution said:


> Where's the "dislike" button here?
> 
> I wasn't just referring to the articles mentioned on banned paternity testing in other countries. I'm referring to a general attitude on how BSs are treated everywhere. These groups supposedly exist to help create an equality for all, yet their actions are clearly more politically motivated than based on any real equality.
> 
> If you read up in the comments you'd also see evidence posted by larry.gray that many states in the US don't really allow or use paternity testing as a solid way to favor the BS in court decisions. So, yeah, this does happen in the US. Again silence from those groups...or could we say they're "dumb", seeing as the actual definition for dumb is an inability to speak?


Then make that point. Heck, your point above is a reasonable one (even if I don't think all of it applies).

But complaining that the _*American *_Civil Liberties Organization does not protest a law enacted in France is dumb. No other way around it.



> Last, my comment was really meant to be more of a rib at politics than any real polemic. Lighten up a little.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if you attack me, I'm not going to be "dumb" as you've suggested.


No it wasn't. It was a shot at groups you don't like and not any sort of joke. Own your posts.


----------



## Retribution (Apr 30, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Then make that point. Heck, your point above is a reasonable one (even if I don't think all of it applies).


Sigh. I did make that point. Because you choose not to see it is not my problem.



Tall Average Guy said:


> But complaining that the _*American *_Civil Liberties Organization does not protest a law enacted in France is dumb. No other way around it.


Twice you've called me dumb, and I have no idea why. Are you an ACLU lawyer? In that case you've proven your intelligence by your improper, though common, use of the word dumb. Would it make you feel better if I had only quoted the last paragraph of Ripper's post before I wrote what was clearly meant to be funny?




Tall Average Guy said:


> No it wasn't. It was a shot at groups you don't like and not any sort of joke. Own your posts.


And who are you to dictate what I meant by my post, your majesty? Just because you read malice and hatred in a *ribbing* doesn't constitute a responsibility on my part to own your imagined fictions. I'm guessing you really are an ACLU lawyer now.

With all this said, I'm prepared to offer a truce, provided you stop insulting me.


----------



## TRy (Sep 14, 2011)

Retribution said:


> I'm not sure what you think about her answer, but I thought EleGirl hit the nail right on the head. Follow the money, my friend. A lawyer is going to be far more interested in the payday from suing a huge multi-million conglomerate than some poor housewife or even most professional women that didn't have sense enough to keep her legs closed for the wrong guy. Translation: "You BS schmucks are too poor to give a rat's a$$ about."


 There are plenty of lawyers that work the divorce payday. Why not follow the money in the divorce that is brought on by such a discovery, where the cheating wife that defrauded the husband into raising a child that was not his biological child could pay out of her 1/2 of the assets or out of her alimony? 

I am so tired of the men are just meal tickets to be used thought process of the current system.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

larry.gray said:


> What led you to do the test then tacoma?


Insecurity.

I had discovered that there were many things my wife lied to me about at the beginning of our relationship in order to "get" me.

I needed to know how far those lies went considering the promise of a child was the one thing I absolutely needed in order to agree to marriage.

This was the one thing that I couldn't have forgiven.


----------



## Retribution (Apr 30, 2012)

TRy said:


> There are plenty of lawyers that work the divorce payday. Why not follow the money in the divorce that is brought on by such a discovery, where the cheating wife that defrauded the husband into raising a child that was not his biological child could pay out of her 1/2 of the assets or out of her alimony?
> 
> I am so tired of the men are just meal tickets to be used thought process of the current system.


I'm tired of that as well. Far be it from me to guess the inner machinations of lawyers' minds.


----------



## Janky (Nov 26, 2013)

Would be nice if states would make DNA testing a requirement after birth before signing a birth certificate.

At least nowadays the court offers a test when the custodial parent files for CS.


----------



## Ripper (Apr 1, 2014)

Janky said:


> Would be nice if states would make DNA testing a requirement after birth before signing a birth certificate.


I agree.

The state is already fully involved anyway. If the government is going to mandate child support and decide custody, it might as well go all in and require mandatory paternity testing right up front.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Retribution said:


> Sigh. I did make that point. Because you choose not to see it is not my problem.


Not in that post you did not.



> Twice you've called me dumb, and I have no idea why.


Actually, I called your post dumb.



> Are you an ACLU lawyer? In that case you've proven your intelligence by your improper, though common, use of the word dumb. Would it make you feel better if I had only quoted the last paragraph of Ripper's post before I wrote what was clearly meant to be funny?


If you think being an ACLU lawyer makes you dumb, you don't know what they do for you or others. You should look into it, rather than the talk points you hear that reinforce your view.



> And who are you to dictate what I meant by my post, your majesty? Just because you read malice and hatred in a *ribbing* doesn't constitute a responsibility on my part to own your imagined fictions. I'm guessing you really are an ACLU lawyer now.


I don't know about malice or hatred, but to pretend it was anything other than political snark to try and score a cheap point ignores what you posted.



> With all this said, I'm prepared to offer a truce, provided you stop insulting me.


Again, I am not insulting you. Your first post responding to me made good points. But that post I responded to was dumb. People post dumb stuff all the time (me included). Does not mean they are dumb, nor does it mean that people calling them on it are calling them dumb.

But I agree it is a distraction and will no longer post about this. No issue if you want the last word.


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Not in that post you did not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you call a post dumb you are essentially calling a poster that type the post dumb.
if you don't like a post most if not all other posters will type that they do not agree and usually explain from there.
On forums you have to word things careful as to not attack a poster which is essentially what you did.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> People who say that it does not matter who the biological father is are not saying that it is ok for a woman to lie to her husband about him being the father of a child. What they are saying is that once a man has raised a child and has a bond to the child, they believe that biological paternity would not, or should not, matter because most men would love the child that they have raise.



Then they should have that CHOICE. But, for those that do NOT choose to continue in the paternal relationship, then they should not be forced.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Oh I only hate criminals the former mayor Rich Daley is not one of the chosen.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> I agree that it is predatory fraud.
> 
> Our laws on this come from old laws that existed prior to DNA testing. In the past there was no way to prove that the husband was not the biological father of a child born to his wife unless there was something extremely obvious... like a strong racial difference. And even then, it's possible that people have the genetics from some racial group that they are not aware of.
> 
> ...


No, the comparable burden to your example would be if the wife got pregnant from an affair partner and for whatever reason, the OM affair partner ends up with custody of the child. 

Then the betrayed husband suffers from the depleted resources when his wife pays child support, or, if they divorce, the settlement will reflec the child she has to care for.

Paternity fraud is far, far worse. Especially emotionally.
It is a manifest injustice to perpetuate the fraud and even reward the woman for it by giving her money (in the form of child support for a child that is not the man's). And, by affecting his ability to support other children he might choose with a new, loyal wife, his reproductive choices are affected.

Biological ties MATTER to many people. That's why they spend money on infertility treatments to have a biological child instead of just adopting or taking on a foster child.

The "best interests of the child" (referenced by others and used by many courts) is a cop-out. It is in my kid's best interest to take all of Bill Gate's money. But he doesn't get to do that. Why not? Because it's not Bill Gate's RESPONSIBILITY. Likewise, it is not the responsibility of the hoodwinked man to pay for being a victim of paternity fraud.

Actually, I don't believe children have more rights than parents. Instead, parents have responsibilties, and those responsibilites are what should be enforced during custody/support/child welfare, etc. court cases. I think the current system used by many courts is morally incorrect.

And, obviously, I do not believe it is morally defensible to assign responsibilities to a victim of paternity fraud, just on the basis that the perpetrator was previously successful in her deceit.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> P
> 
> I think it's very clear as to why there is a difference between this case and a case in which a woman has an baby from an affair and leads her husband on to believe that it's his child.
> 
> ...


Well, the difference is that the paternity fraud is actually WORSE.

The hospital was negligent to allow a drunk employee work in a position in which she could switch the babies.
However, in paternity fraud, it is an INTENTIONAL malicious deceit, not mere negligence.
Intentional deceit trumps negligence on the scale of evil, as far as I am concerned.

As far as the victims, the reason for the payout (or any payout) is compensation for damages. What are those damages? The emotional trauma of finding out that the child you have been raising is not really yours. That emotional trauma was worth a huge amount of money to this French woman in the story. The emotional trauma is AT LEAST AS BAD for a man who is a victim of paternity fraud; in fact, it is probably worse, for the reasons of "intentional deceit" I referenced above.


----------



## *LittleDeer* (Apr 19, 2012)

It really would not make much sense to test every baby and would be a very costly exercise. 

The fatherhood myth • Inside Story

Everything I have read points to 1-3% of mistaken paternity. 

I am more concerned about the men who don't take responsibility for their children, try not to pay child support and generally do everything possible just to make their exes lives difficult. This does happen quite regularly and far more often then paternity fraud.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

*LittleDeer* said:


> It really would not make much sense to test every baby and would be a very costly exercise.


It would be costly on a grand scale but it's pretty inexpensive individually.
I think every man should invest the couple of hundred bucks it takes to test his children.



> Everything I have read points to 1-3% of mistaken paternity.


Honestly, these are simply useless stats that cannot possibly be close to correct when you consider the definition of the problem is based upon a lack of knowledge.
If you don't know the truth how can you survey for the truth?
If the majority of men actually tested their children then we would have the data that would enable objective stats.



> I am more concerned about the men who don't take responsibility for their children, try not to pay child support and generally do everything possible just to make their exes lives difficult. This does happen quite regularly and far more often then paternity fraud.


That is a very big problem but it's not the focus of this thread.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

This thread would have been be downright nasty a few years ago. Now it seems that we see a little common ground. Or at least some venting is seen as venting and less offense is taken. I think this problem will statistically get better over time (in the US anyway) just because technology makes testing available. So long as there aren't extremes on either side of the issue like mandatory testing or banned testing. Those both are incorrect IMO.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

*LittleDeer* said:


> I am more concerned about the men who don't take responsibility for their children, try not to pay child support and generally do everything possible just to make their exes lives difficult. This does happen quite regularly and far more often then paternity fraud.


Fine, then make a separate thread about that.

This is an example of what I posted in another thread; the attempt to minimize a legitimate grievance. In the other thread, I used the example of a Latino complaining about discrimination, and an African-American retorts that the experience of discrimination against his ethnic group is much worse. Although true, that doesn't mean the Latino's complaint unimportant. However, that one-upmanship type of retort is solely designed to minimize the legitimate complaint. You did that on the other thread (men being victims of abuse by women who then laughingly posted about it on Jezebel), and here you do it again.

By your own admission above, you're not very concerned about a wrong committed against men.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

*LittleDeer* said:


> It really would not make much sense to test every baby and would be a very costly exercise.
> 
> The fatherhood myth â€¢ Inside Story
> 
> Everything I have read points to 1-3% of mistaken paternity.


Well, about 4% is actually the median number for most reliable studies of the general population. Here is actually a scientific review paper, rather than a pop article that you quoted:
http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/749.long

Obviously that is much lower than 10-35% you find in studies from reviewing testing from paternity labs; in most of those, the number is higher because of the selected population (i.e, father suspected something was wrong, so arranged for testing).

But 4%, or even 3%, 2%, etc. is NOT insignificant. At 4%, that means, on the average, in a classroom of 25 kids, one will be the product of paternity fraud. At 3%, that's about 1 in a class of 33 kids. 

In another comparison, about 2% (some studies say 3%) of men are exclusively homosexual (Seidman SN, Rieder RO. A review of sexual behavior in the United States. Am J Psychiatry 1994;151:330-341). That means a man has about the same, or slightly greater chance of being a victim of paternity fraud than being exclusively gay.

I guess that, since you think the percent of paternity fraud victims is too small to be concerned about, you must think the same of the gay population.

As far as cost, yes, it will entail cost. Even using less than 4% rate, compare that to the cost savings of the frauded man for raising someone elses child for 18 years. Let's say it costs $250,000 over 18 years (about $13,800/year) to raise a child. The at-home tests cost about $150. So the savings of ONE detected case pays for over 1600 tests ($250,000/$150 = 1666.66). Even at a 1% incidence of paternity fraud, the cost-benefit favors testing. At 1%, a $150 test means $15,000 to catch one Paternity Fraud. At 4%, it costs $3750 to catch one paternity fraud. Do you think it costs the frauded man more than $3750 or even $15,000 to raise someone else's kid to age 18?

Also, compare the incidence of paternity fraud which uses this ONE TIME test, against other health care screening, some of which need be be done repeatedly:

Paternity Fraud: Overall, about 3.7% incidence 
PKU (all babies tested in the US): incidence 1 in 15,000
Colon cancer: 4.49% Female, 4.84% Male Lifetime incidence 
Cervical Cancer: 0.65% lifetime incidece
Lifetime Risk of Developing or Dying From Cancer

So, even at a 1% incidence, Paternity Fraud screening compares favorably to other conditions we screen for, and only need be done once. But you seem to think the incidence is too low to screen for; does that mean you also think that PKU should not be screened for, or that people should not get colon cancer or cervical cancer screens?


----------



## *LittleDeer* (Apr 19, 2012)

tacoma said:


> It would be costly on a grand scale but it's pretty inexpensive individually.
> I think every man should invest the couple of hundred bucks it takes to test his children.
> 
> 
> ...


The majority of men are not concerned about this, probably because they aren't paranoid. 

I imagine that most healthy relationships do not want to have children tested. 

I guess if you talk a lot to angry bitter men and MRA groups you see a lot of that talk and it feeds the paranoia. 

To me it's absurd. 

My partner is divorced and his wife was a cheater etc and I asked him if he felt a DNA Test was necessary and he he laughed. He said if his ex was cheating at the time or he had suspicions that she was, then maybe. There would have to be evidence that it was necessary. 

I myself don't accuse my partner if cheating when there is no proof or evidence. That would just be crazy.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

*LittleDeer* said:


> The majority of men are not concerned about this, probably because they aren't paranoid.
> 
> I imagine that most healthy relationships do not want to have children tested.
> .


The majority of men are not victims of Paternity Fraud. Using the 3.7% number (the median of a scientific review I linked above), that means over 96% percent of men are not victims of Paternity Fraud. 

It's the other roughly 4% that should be concerned. (A rate higher than other conditions we screen for, such as PKU). By definition, they don't know about it. That's why it is a fraud.

And, by definition, if their partner is committing Paternity Fraud on them, they don't have a healthy relationship. They just don't know it.

But that is not the point of the OP. The point of the OP is that Paternity Fraud IS a serious event when it happens. Being falsely told that someone else's child is yours was emotionally traumatic enough that they compensated the French woman in the OP. But when a man is a victim, they are often told that they have no recourse. In fact, according to posters in this thread (I didn't verify it myself), in France, the very place that required a woman get compensated and gave her a choice about giving the child to the biological mother, refuses to let men have that type of option when they are victims of Paternity Fraud. For some reason, this is seen as a horrible emotional blow requiring justice for women when accidentally/negligently perpetrated by a hospital, but not for a man when perpetrated INTENTIONALLY by a woman. That is injustice.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

*LittleDeer* said:


> The majority of men are not concerned about this, probably because they aren't paranoid.


Perhaps they should be.

I myself have been "tagged" for some sort of paternity fraud or fraudulent pregnancy schemes by 4 women.

3-4% of the population is more than enough for men to be "paranoid" about.



> I imagine that most healthy relationships do not want to have children tested.


I imagine a great deal of those 3-4% are "healthy" relationships.
As far as the men are concerned.



> I guess if you talk a lot to angry bitter men and MRA groups you see a lot of that talk and it feeds the paranoia.


I am not a bitter angry man in an unhealthy relationship and yet I had my daughter tested.

I find it utterly absurd that you who constantly promotes women pro-actively taking control of their own reproductive powers to be defending the notion that men should just forget about taking control of their own as well.

Your misandry is showing....again.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Wolfman1968 said:


> Actually, I don't believe children have more rights than parents. Instead, parents have responsibilties, and those responsibilites are what should be enforced during custody/support/child welfare, etc. court cases. I think the current system used by many courts is morally incorrect.


You want a good example of that? 

My daughter is 18 y/o and graduated high school last June. She's still living with us and going to school. We're happy to do it, but if we said "get out, get a job, you're on your own" she'd have no recourse.

OTOH, if my wife and I divorced, we'd be required to support her until she's 23 if she stays in school. 

What's the difference? The divorce industry kicks in and takes over in the latter case. Don't think for a moment that the whole thing isn't run by the people who financially gain from divorce.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

*LittleDeer* said:


> It really would not make much sense to test every baby and would be a very costly exercise.
> 
> The fatherhood myth • Inside Story
> 
> ...


One to three percent? That's enough for me.


----------



## *LittleDeer* (Apr 19, 2012)

tacoma said:


> Perhpas they should be.
> 
> I myself have been "tagged" for some sort of paternity fraud or fraudulent pregnancy schemes by more than 4 women.
> 
> ...


Oh the Lol's. I must be a man hater. 

It's funny because more men cheat then women, and yet I just don't feel the need to put my SO through testing of any sort, without some sort of indication that there has been infidelity. I'm weird like that. 

How do you reckon it would go down if I started demanding a lie detector test- for no reason? Other then over half of men have cheated at some point? 

I think my partner would think I was a bit of a crazy nut bag. A little bit of a looney tune. Yanno? 

I'm not a man hater or a misandrist, however you guys are the ones demanding tests for no reason. So.....:slap:


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I have to agree with tacoma. Those 1 million to 4 million men robbed of their genetic heritage provide reason for the rest if they want to. It's a choice.


----------



## Doc Who (Sep 9, 2012)

Stupid men. Why waste time knowing whether you kids are yours or not? How foolish. How ridiculous. How looney. How pathetic. How evil. How vile. They should burn. Yes, that is it. Men who want to know whether their kids are biologically theirs should burn. Like witches. Because they cheat. They are hideous and stupid.

Did I mention, they are stupid.

And ridiculous.

And stupid.

Burn them!!!!

Yes, that is the ticket.

Stupid men.

Does that adequately summarize the intellectual argument for not doing genetic testing on newborns?

By the way, our lab can run the basic 16 loci (2 alleles at each loci) test for about $20 including overhead. That is not what they bill... 

Not exactly earthshaking in cost.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

*LittleDeer* said:


> I'm not a man hater or a misandrist,


How about we just agree to disagree about that assertion?


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

I used to work in a building where another tenant made DNA machines. We shared shipping space so I would see what they shipped. Yeah, we've got a LOT of capacity to run DNA tests.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

It takes two to make a baby. Men who cheat and knock up women would be busted by routine DNA testing too.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

*LittleDeer* said:


> I'm not a man hater or a misandrist


Well then I'll expect your rants against men on this site to end soon, no?

Because that's really all you do here.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> I agree that it is predatory fraud.
> 
> Our laws on this come from old laws that existed prior to DNA testing. In the past there was no way to prove that the husband was not the biological father of a child born to his wife unless there was something extremely obvious... like a strong racial difference. And even then, it's possible that people have the genetics from some racial group that they are not aware of.
> 
> ...


Not quite the same but still annoying... or worse. The (ex) wife will be forced to help pay to raise the child but will never have an official role in the child's life.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

I never had a reason to have my kids tested........until after I found out my x-wife cheated.

Thank god both of them are mine. I tested because she was cheating around the time they were conceived. I also had to test myself for STDs

If I found out they were not mine, because I already have a bond with them and love them dearly, they would still be MY kids. 

But if I found out at birth that any kid wasn't mine, different story. At that point she had better find the father and make him step up.


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

*LittleDeer* said:


> I am more concerned about the men who don't take responsibility for their children, try not to pay child support and generally do everything possible just to make their exes lives difficult.


Well I'm with you there. Men who do not take care of their children are not men. I can't imagine a man that doesn't want to have any kind of relationship with their blood children.

I couldn't imagine having a child out there that IS mine and not wanting to be with him/her. No way I could go through life not knowing my child.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

*LittleDeer* said:


> *It really would not make much sense to test every baby and would be a very costly exercise.
> *
> The fatherhood myth â€¢ Inside Story
> 
> ...


Then I would be interested to know what the policy of DNA testing is in the UK. A friend of mine adopted her bio niece, her brother's daughter as both parents were drug addicts and the child was taken away at birth.

While the mother of the child in question never strayed from the fact that my friend's brother (black and very dark skinned, mother is white) was the father, social services still required a DNA test. Seemed like a waste of time and an affront at the same time.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

It's the same in most States in the US. Before termination of parental rights, the insist on a DNA test to make sure it's the right dad giving up those rights.

A coworker recently adopted. It took 21 tests before they found the donor. The donor is serving 25 years in Texas so they didn't let him decide.


----------



## xakulax (Feb 9, 2014)

This issue boils down to time how much time has gone by for a bond to form between the parent and the child if the paternity has been identified during birth then the odds are that most men would say adios but if years if not decades have gone by then it is extremely unlikely any father would simply say I'm out unless the nature of the affair was simply so egregious the father is unable to look at the mother or the child the same way again....


----------



## vellocet (Oct 18, 2013)

xakulax said:


> This issue boils down to time how much time has gone by for a bond to form between the parent and the child if the paternity has been identified during birth then the odds are that most men would say adios but if years if not decades have gone by then it is extremely unlikely any father would simply say I'm out unless the nature of the affair was simply so egregious the father is unable to look at the mother or the child the same way again....


Exactly right.

Find out the child is not mine at birth, adios.

Find out years later after the bond was formed, I still love the child and will always be their father.

As for the latter, the b!tch would still be history.


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

Not only is it devastating for the husband to find out his child is not his biologically but equally devastating for the OC as well. 

A woman who perpetrates this vile act, not only risks losing her husband but losing her child as well, forever.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

*LittleDeer* said:


> Oh the Lol's. I must be a man hater.
> 
> It's funny because more men cheat then women, and yet I just don't feel the need to put my SO through testing of any sort, without some sort of indication that there has been infidelity. I'm weird like that.
> 
> ...


This is a false equivalency.

As a woman, the consequences of infidelity by a spouse/partner are not the same for you as they are for a man. Paternity Fraud, by definition, cannot happen to a woman. The consequences are MUCH higher for a man. 18 years of INVOLUNTARILY supporting someone else's child unknowingly. By the time you find out (if you ever do), you have may have lost the opportunity to have your own child at a reasonable age---it is an attack on a man's reproductive self-determination.

To put in it perspective, the chance of a man being a victim of Paternity Fraud is at least 3-4%; that is far, far higher than the chance of a 33 year old man dying over the next year and leaving his family without his income (one in 1215, or 0.0823% according to this UK source: Risk of death by age and sex).

A 33 year old man with a child buys term life insurance because, even though his risk of dying over the next year is minuscule, the consequences for the child are huge if it does occur. However, the chance that the child is not his is actually is 45 times higher than the chance of the man dying that year!

So, if you laugh at men who are concerned about Paternity Fraud for being paranoid, do you also deride those who buy life insurance as being paranoid, since the risk of dying that year is far lower than paternity fraud? Are you accusing the Life Insurance companies of being fear mongers?

If it were to cost a victim of Paternity Fraud $250,000 to raise someone else's child to age 18, how does that loss differ from a family who would need a quarter-million dollar life insurance policy if the father dies? 

I did not make the charge of misandry. However, the pure facts do NOT support your callous, derisive attitude. Consider that when you say that your posts do not reflect misandry. I have previously posted in this and other threads examples of your attempts to dismiss the importance of injustices against men by bringing in other unrelated issues. (I used the example of an African-American trying to diminish legitimate complaints of injustices to Latinos by saying African-Americans have it worse, so the Latinos aren't important.) In this thread, you have tried to diminish the importance of Paternity Fraud by saying you were "more concerned about men not paying their child support", and by mocking the concerns of men about Paternity Fraud (as shown above) despite clear statistics showing its importance (as shown above). In the thread about Jezebel posters abusing their boyfriends/partners, you tried to diminish the importance by posting links to a biased "Manosphere"-mocking blogger who used clearly dishonest statistics (which were even called out on the comments section of the linked page) as support, You falsely characterized the unrepentant confessions (Jezebel posters say they "shouldn't have done it but he deserved it") as "tongue-in-cheek" (would you accept "tongue-in-cheek" as an explanation for lighthearted posted confessions of men hitting or sexually abusing women? I somehow doubt it.). You diverted the topic from a legitimate discussion of the hypocrisy around male victims of abuse toward one of women victims (along the lines of a hypothetical African-American minimizing legitimate Latino grievances, as I said above).

I am not going to label you as a man-hater or misandrist, or whatever. However, it IS clear that your posts have shown a consistent and repeated pattern of diminishing, mocking and derailing discussions of legitimate grievances of men. And so I would not take issue with others who might conclude that your posts reflect a certain biased mindset.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

((Originally Posted by EleGirl 
I agree that it is predatory fraud. 

Our laws on this come from old laws that existed prior to DNA testing. In the past there was no way to prove that the husband was not the biological father of a child born to his wife unless there was something extremely obvious... like a strong racial difference. And even then, it's possible that people have the genetics from some racial group that they are not aware of.

Society and law takes a long time to catch up with things like the rapid changes in science.

There is something similar that can happen to a woman. Her husband has an affair gets the AP pregnant. If she AP sued him for child support, the wife will end up contributing to the care of the child. Even if she divorces him, the divorce settlement will most likely reflect that he has another child to care for. So the wife ends up financially burdened for 18 years.

While it's not quite the same as everyone in that case knows how the bio dad is, it does force a burden on the wife... I think that it's form of fraud/theft from which the wife has no recourse.)))




NextTimeAround said:


> Not quite the same but still annoying... or worse. The (ex) wife will be forced to help pay to raise the child but will never have an official role in the child's life.



I will not go into details in order to avoid a threadjack. 

Although superficially, Elegirl seems to have a point, what this actually illustrates is the problems with alimony laws (presumably the ex-wife "pays" because she is getting less alimony since some went to support the child in question.).

The error here is thinking that there is a preset amount "owed" to the wife, and if she gets less then she is "paying". By that argument, if the ex-husband had his alimony reduced from job loss or injury, then the ex-wife is "paying" for his injury or unemployment.
Or, to use another example, if a corporate attorney making $1,000,000 per year gives up the rat race and becomes a struggling writer making $15,000/year and PAYING LESS TAXES Elegirl's argument applied here says the IRS/country "pays" for his job change. In political discussions, it frequently is charged that the country "pays" for deductions ("tax breaks") allowed to certain individuals or corportations.

Not at all. There is no predetermined debt. The amount owed is calculated based on the final income amount after all deductions; in this case, the deduction is court-determined child support. There is no legitimate claim to any theoretical number based on alternative scenarios.

As this likely could take off into a threadjack, I will stop here. For those interested, this could merit its own thread.

I want this to stay focused on the important issue raised by the OP: the French court decision and how it highlights the hypocrisy in the treatment of victims of Paternity Fraud.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

The child support argument falls apart because it is gender neutral. Paternity fraud only goes one way.


----------



## Rugs (Apr 12, 2013)

I haven't read the thread but I bet there are A LOT of men raising children they think are theirs and are not. 

Men have every right to demand a DNA test IMO. 

(I am a female)


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Rugs said:


> I haven't read the thread but I bet there are A LOT of men raising children they think are theirs and are not.
> 
> Men have every right to demand a DNA test IMO.
> 
> (I am a female)


Rugs, you seem to see this objectively and not as a personal attack on all women so thank you for that. One of the biggest problems with this discussion is that many women feel insulted at the thought of paternity testing as if it's an indictment on them specifically. It's actually an attack on the small minority of women who could ever do this and not the majority who never would.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Thundarr said:


> It's actually an attack on the small minority of women who could ever do this and not the majority who never would.


The problem is there is no way of knowing which is which or which kind you happen to be married to.

You can claim you "know", she can swear she wouldn't, but anyone who has spent 15 minutes browsing CWI knows better.

This is why every man should test every child, it's that simple.


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

And more so because female infidelity has almost caught up with male infidelity and in certain age groups, it has surpassed it. Unprotected sex is the norm not the exception in both types of infidelity.


----------



## Rugs (Apr 12, 2013)

Rugs said:


> I haven't read the thread but I bet there are A LOT of men raising children they think are theirs and are not.
> 
> Men have every right to demand a DNA test IMO.
> 
> (I am a female)


 I also believe a pregnant woman has the right to DNA the father so as the child cannot be denied support or R medical information. 

As many a woman that will trap a guy are just as many men dodging responsibility.


----------



## Rugs (Apr 12, 2013)

A woman wouldn't do this, a man wouldn't do that, she would never cheat, he would never steal, we would never kill anybody.......

All a crock. People are capable of everything and anything. No one is excluded.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

Rugs said:


> I also believe a pregnant woman has the right to DNA the father so as the child cannot be denied support or R medical information.
> 
> As many a woman that will trap a guy are just as many men dodging responsibility.


I think that already exists, although may require court intervention.

Many men are subjected to paternity suits.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Perfect example
Judge says man must pay $30K in child support for kid who is not his - WXYZ.com


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Rugs said:


> I haven't read the thread but I bet there are A LOT of men raising children they think are theirs and are not.
> 
> Men have every right to demand a DNA test IMO.
> 
> (I am a female)





Rugs said:


> I also believe a pregnant woman has the right to DNA the father so as the child cannot be denied support or R medical information.
> 
> As many a woman that will trap a guy are just as many men dodging responsibility.


These essentually make the same assertion and it's correct in both cases.


----------



## Q tip (Apr 15, 2014)

did anyone mention it matters to the kid.

i know a kid who knows, but his parents (or mother) never admtted. and no, he was not adopted. the husband does not know either.


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

How it matters to the kid? 

Well, I can post my dad's life. He is an illegitimate child. 

If we were to start at the beginning, my wh0re of a grandmother had an affair with her brother in law (who was NOT biologically related to her husband, it was the husband of g-dad's sister) 

And that produced TWO children. 
Now, how did that affect my...I would call him grandpa, but I have no blood relation to the man. 
Well, he became an alcoholic, and had two strokes, the first one paralyzing one side of his body, the second killing him long before I ever met him. Or was even around. 

Now, as for my dad growing up (this will mostly be my memories, which could be skewed because of our current relationship) 
G-dad didn't have much of a relationship with him. G-dad died when my dad was 14. 
Now, dad stumbled his way through life, making a lot of mistakes. 
But he eventually got his life together, married, had kids, and had the American dream. 

Then he decided to cheat. 
And when offered a chance to reconcile, he messed it up. 
And now he is on his third marriage. (Yea, surprised me too when I found out third)

Now, I don't know everything about dad's and granddad's relationship. 
I do know dad and I have gotten into physical fights. I do wonder if that occurred between him and granddad. 
And I have no desire to ever see the man again. 

So there is one life story of a person that is the product of an affair.


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

Forgot to post about the other child. 

That would be my aunt. 

Now let;'s see here...
I don't know if she ever got married. She hasn't talked to me since my parents divorced. 
I do know she had tow kids, and was with a man for some length of time. Whether or not they were his, anyone's guess. 

First one is very smart, very hard working, but also a train wreck. High powered attorney, making good money. Her first marriage broke down for a variety of reasons. She dated horrible boyfriends for several years before marrying some military pilot that makes less than she does. 
Her best friend is a successful New York attorney, that makes millions, and likes to take her and her son on ski trips and weekend getaways to New York. And this best friend of her's is also married. So...wonder what his family history is. 
Her relation with her son is not ideal. He walks all over her, and she refuses to discipline him. 
Again, haven't seen them in years, so I don't know if he has straightened up his act or not. No idea. 

Other one, is less successful. Didn't finish college, got pregnant with some dead beat's kid. She works hard, and is a social person, or was when I was still in touch with that side of the family. 
She has one child. And she is an excellent mother. She helps her kid on homework, and takes an active interest in her kid's education.
she hasn't dated though. 

As for my aunt, she is getting older, and just getting by. She doesn't work, instead collecting social security, which she never paid into. 


Now, I know the population sample is EXTREMELY small and limited because it is confined to my family. 
But there are two examples.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Q tip said:


> did anyone mention it matters to the kid.
> 
> i know a kid who knows, but his parents (or mother) never admtted. and no, he was not adopted. the husband does not know either.


There are a lot of victims. The child, the non-biological father, the biological father, the extended biologica family. Imagine learning that your mom kept you from knowing your biological father and/or family, your brothers and sisters, your aunts and uncles, your grandparents, your cousins. Of course if the biological father knows then he's just as bad. The child, the non-bio father and family are almost always cheated. It's an extreme example of selfishness, entitlement, and arogance.


----------



## Cabsy (Mar 25, 2013)

Of course it matters!

My biological dad wasn't the greatest, whereas my ww had a great dad who turned out not to be her biological father. So yes, things can spin in any number of ways. Heredity is not the full story, but it matters... and to someone in my circumstances, it matters a great deal.

No question, I'd be gone if my son had turned out not to be mine. The fact that any such questions should be involved with an amazing thing like becoming a father... that alone is a huge slap in the face. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't raise the child of some other guy who banged my wife. That's just going too far.


----------

