# How would you feel if you found out your father did a DNA test on you?



## jld

And if you learned that a group of people had urged him to do it, how would you feel about those people?

Just wondering.


----------



## HeartbrokenW

I'd want to know if he was my real dad too!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## sokillme

Shaken. I would want answers.


----------



## Spicy

I would have been upset, and needed a lot answers from my mom! :surprise:


----------



## m00nman

That's a loaded question that is vaguely put. If this is something that he did when you were a child and you found out about it as an adult then you should be able to accept that your father is just another flawed human being as any other. If this shakes a sense of idolization in your father then I'd be looking at my own emotional maturity and wonder if I really needed validation from such a person.


----------



## uhtred

He's been dead for some time as has my mother. 

I only put the pieces together long after, but I think its likely that my mother cheated on him. I was very young, so my concepts of dates is confused, but she may even have gotten pregnant and had an abortion. (I found out about the abortion separately, but is was very vaguely the same time). Its rather muddled with some other very confused early memories. 

I don't blame her when I consider how he behaved. I don't really blame him when I consider how she behaved. Their marriage was a classic example of serious life-long incompatibility and misery - with blame shared by both. 

I think I'm his, but I don't know for sure, and don't particularly care.


----------



## Affaircare

My mom beat me and my dad is an alcoholic who loved his beer more than me. And he continued to show me that through the entirety of my life. 

Now I do not hate either one of them--in fact my mom and I have a civil-ish relationship and we don't poke each other. But if I were to find out my dad was prodded into a DNA test I would feel like that is par for the course. All I'm saying is that life was FAR from perfect. I know for a fact he cheated on my mom. So if he had some reason to believe she cheated--even if the reason was internet strangers--what would I care? I can say it wouldn't draw us CLOSER...but at this point it wouldn't make any difference, and it DEFINITELY would not change me or define me. So honestly? What would I care?


----------



## EleGirl

This question makes me think of a baby right now, Emmy.

Her mother is a friend of my step daughter's from high school. She's about 27 now. She's married with a 4 year old son and a 6 month old baby. 

But her husband left her about a year ago and moved across the state to live with the woman he's been having a long term affair with.

He has denied that Emmy is his. Apparently his affair partner, who also had a baby girl in the same time frame, is all over facebook saying the Emmy is not his kid.

Well, the DNA test came back... Emmy is his kid. He refuses to acknowledge this. His affair partner is still spreading lies on facebook.

When he picks up his on one every month (that's all the time he asks for--he is the one who moved several hours away), he completely ignores his daughter, Emmy. He won't look at her. Has never held her. He is still denying her existence.

So I wonder how Emmy is going to feel about her father and the DNA test fiasco. My bet is that she's going to grow up pretty hurt by all this.


----------



## arbitrator

*Personally, I wouldn't have given two hoots in hell!

But my mother, bless her heart, is a completely different story ~ had she found out, she would have fastidiously given dear ol' Dad some DNA alright ~ 

"Dynamite-N-A$$! *


----------



## Personal

jld said:


> And if you learned that a group of people had urged him to do it, how would you feel about those people?
> 
> Just wondering.


Not fussed, how would you feel?


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> And if you learned that a group of people had urged him to do it, how would you feel about those people?
> 
> Just wondering.


I did a DNA test on my daughter when my gf was pregnant.This was because my girlfriend insisted on it,I had no doubts whatsoever.A few people on tam told me do it too.When I got the email from the lab that carried out the test I was happier than I ever had been in my life.


----------



## MJJEAN

I'd think it was perfectly reasonable. A woman knows the baby is hers. A man does not.


----------



## MattMatt

MJJEAN said:


> I'd think it was perfectly reasonable. A woman knows the baby is hers. A man does not.


Not always. There was a case on the Jeremy Kyle Show where the woman knew the baby had been fathered by her partner.

Only she was wrong.


----------



## Married but Happy

I don't see how it would matter w.r.t. my father, but I would wonder why my mother came under such widespread suspicion of cheating that everyone thought this was necessary. Depending on the results, I would want to know who my biological father might be.


----------



## MrsHolland

I would think he was insane, there is no doubt he is my dad and I am his "golden girl".


----------



## MJJEAN

MattMatt said:


> Not always. There was a case on the Jeremy Kyle Show where the woman knew the baby had been fathered by her partner.
> 
> Only she was wrong.


Grab your spectacles, MattMatt! I said a woman knows the baby is HERS, a man does not.

I'd never say a woman knows who fathered her baby because I've known too many who weren't exactly sure. I've also known a couple who were sure, but were wrong. One woman I knew was so certain about paternity she was more shocked than anyone when it turned out she was wrong. She literally said "But I thought it had to be his baby! We had sex a lot and I only slept with the other guy, like, twice!"

I don't know how sex and reproductive education is handled where you live, man, but here it's fairly shoddy as all hell. There are a LOT of people running around who don't know once is all it takes.


----------



## MattMatt

MJJEAN said:


> Grab your spectacles, MattMatt! I said a woman knows the baby is HERS, a man does not.
> 
> I'd never say a woman knows who fathered her baby because I've known too many who weren't exactly sure. I've also known a couple who were sure, but were wrong. One woman I knew was so certain about paternity she was more shocked than anyone when it turned out she was wrong. She literally said "But I thought it had to be his baby! We had sex a lot and I only slept with the other guy, like, twice!"
> 
> I don't know how sex and reproductive education is handled where you live, man, but here it's fairly shoddy as all hell. There are a LOT of people running around who don't know once is all it takes.


You misread my comment. The woman KNEW the baby was fathered by her boyfriend.

But she had forgotten she had been with another man. Actually wiped it from her mind.


----------



## TX-SC

jld said:


> And if you learned that a group of people had urged him to do it, how would you feel about those people?
> 
> Just wondering.


I would be fine with it.


----------



## Anon Pink

It depends on the age at discovery and the relationship with the parent at that time. 

If that paternity test showed the husband to be the father, it would be in the parents best interest to never ever let that child find out a paternity test was done at all.

What does a paternity test say about the parents? Mother can't be trusted and father's love is conditional. Neither are healthy for a parental relationship.


----------



## Anon Pink

MJJEAN said:


> I'd think it was perfectly reasonable. A woman knows the baby is *hers*. A man does not.





MattMatt said:


> Not always. There was a case on the Jeremy Kyle Show where the woman knew the baby had been fathered by her partner.
> 
> Only she was wrong.


Yes, always the woman knows that she is the mother.

Getting old MattMatt, time for reading glasses.:grin2:


----------



## TX-SC

Anon Pink said:


> It depends on the age at discovery and the relationship with the parent at that time.
> 
> If that paternity test showed the husband to be the father, it would be in the parents best interest to never ever let that child find out a paternity test was done at all.
> 
> What does a paternity test say about the parents? Mother can't be trusted and father's love is conditional. Neither are healthy for a parental relationship.


I often agree with you, but why would you say that a father's love is conditional if a DNA test is done? There are many reasons to want to know if you are a child's biological father. It doesn't mean you would immediately shun your child and not love them as your own. My father was an alcoholic, abusive, a cheater, and eventually died from diabetes. His side of the family has had ongoing alcohol issues, diabetes, and heart issues. Why would I NOT want to know that I may be at a higher risk for these things? 

And, why would I as a father not have the right to know if my wife conceived a child with another man?


----------



## Steve1000

jld said:


> And if you learned that a group of people had urged him to do it, how would you feel about those people?
> 
> Just wondering.


I would assume that the test confirmed my father was my biological father and then not be concerned about it. I would feel it to be inappropriate to even ask my parents or anyone else about why a test was done.


----------



## Jessica38

Now that I have kids of my own, my first reaction would be that a father questioning the paternity of a child should make certain that child does not know he is questioning it, until he has confirmation that the child needs to know the facts, and even then, only if they are an adult. Bio dad or not, he has an obligation to protect the child and finding this info out (that the paternity is in question) could cause damage to the parental relationship and health of the child.


----------



## CharlieParker

MJJEAN said:


> I'd think it was perfectly reasonable. A woman knows the baby is hers. A man does not.


Except sometimes on TAM, where I've see more than one woman be urged to DNA test the baby to make sure it was really *hers* :scratchhead:


----------



## Anon Pink

TX-SC said:


> I often agree with you, but why would you say that a father's love is conditional if a DNA test is done? There are many reasons to want to know if you are a child's biological father. It doesn't mean you would immediately shun your child and not love them as your own. My father was an alcoholic, abusive, a cheater, and eventually died from diabetes. His side of the family has had ongoing alcohol issues, diabetes, and heart issues. Why would I NOT want to know that I may be at a higher risk for these things?
> 
> And, why would I as a father not have the right to know if my wife conceived a child with another man?


If you want assurity that you are indeed the child's father, you are essentially denying paternity until proven otherwise. That's conditional love. Unconditional paternal love means you accept this child as yours, and you don't require proof.


It's common for children to go through a stage, especially if they have a less connected family, to wonder if they were ever wanted, or if they were adopted.

Assuming the mom and dad were married or together at the time of conception, and the husband is indeed the father and has participated in the raising, and now the child discovers there was a time his father denied the child, at least partially. The child now knows that Dad wouldn't have wanted him unless it could be proven he was the father. That's basic conditional parental love.

Of course you have the right to certainty! All I said was, don't ever let your child find out there was a time you were prepared to abandon him, because that's the only real reason why you would need proof.


----------



## TX-SC

Anon Pink said:


> If you want assurity that you are indeed the child's father, you are essentially denying paternity until proven otherwise. That's conditional love. Unconditional paternal love means you accept this child as yours, and you don't require proof.
> 
> 
> It's common for children to go through a stage, especially if they have a less connected family, to wonder if they were ever wanted, or if they were adopted.
> 
> Assuming the mom and dad were married or together at the time of conception, and the husband is indeed the father and has participated in the raising, and now the child discovers there was a time his father denied the child, at least partially. The child now knows that Dad wouldn't have wanted him unless it could be proven he was the father. That's basic conditional parental love.
> 
> Of course you have the right to certainty! All I said was, don't ever let your child find out there was a time you were prepared to abandon him, because that's the only real reason why you would need proof.


Again, I disagree. As a woman, you never have to deal with the issue. It's not biologically possible for you to not know if you are the mother (barring some hospital mixup). Wanting to know if you are the biological father does NOT mean you are abandoning or denying them, even for a second. It's simply smart to know the truth. 

I do agree that it's probably best that the children don't find out. But in this age of cheating being acceptable to so many, men are getting the raw end of the stick way too often. Men have a right to know that their wife had someone else's child. Making it sound like a father is abandoning their child for wanting to know the truth is really just a convenient way to say that fathers have no say in the matter. 

I think every birth should be accompanied by a DNA test, regardless of how sure the parents think they are.


----------



## EleGirl

CharlieParker said:


> Except sometimes on TAM, where I've see more than one woman be urged to DNA test the baby to make sure it was really *hers* :scratchhead:


I don't think I've ever seen this. Weird.

Maybe she thinks the kids does not even look like her, so maybe it was switched in the hospital?


----------



## EleGirl

Anon Pink said:


> If you want assurity that you are indeed the child's father, you are essentially denying paternity until proven otherwise. That's conditional love. Unconditional paternal love means you accept this child as yours, and you don't require proof.
> 
> 
> It's common for children to go through a stage, especially if they have a less connected family, to wonder if they were ever wanted, or if they were adopted.
> 
> Assuming the mom and dad were married or together at the time of conception, and the husband is indeed the father and has participated in the raising, and now the child discovers there was a time his father denied the child, at least partially. The child now knows that Dad wouldn't have wanted him unless it could be proven he was the father. That's basic conditional parental love.
> 
> Of course you have the right to certainty! All I said was, don't ever let your child find out there was a time *you were prepared to abandon him, because that's the only real reason why you would need proof*.


I don't think that this is the only case in which a man would want to DNA test their child.

It could be a way to confirm that his wife was cheating. It does not mean that the man would abandon a child that he did not father.


----------



## CharlieParker

EleGirl said:


> I don't think I've ever seen this. Weird.
> 
> Maybe she thinks the kids does not even look like her, so maybe it was switched in the hospital?


It was years ago, no switch, it involved infidelity. I think the person posting that just gave it zero thought, weird. 

I forget the time more recently, I may have misunderstood, but it wasn't a switched issue. 

I'm sure I've posted stuff that maked no sense, I wonder if anybody remembers it?


----------



## Anon Pink

TX-SC said:


> Again, I disagree. As a woman, you never have to deal with the issue. It's not biologically possible for you to not know if you are the mother (barring some hospital mixup). Wanting to know if you are the biological father does NOT mean you are abandoning or denying them, even for a second. It's simply smart to know the truth.
> 
> I do agree that it's probably best that the children don't find out. But in this age of cheating being acceptable to so many, men are getting the raw end of the stick way too often. Men have a right to know that their wife had someone else's child. Making it sound like a father is abandoning their child for wanting to know the truth is really just a convenient way to say that fathers have no say in the matter.
> 
> I think every birth should be accompanied by a DNA test, regardless of how sure the parents think they are.



I am not denying your right to know. Yes, wanting to if you are the father means that your actions will change depending on the test's outcome. It means if you are not the father, you will abandon the child, because if you would never abandon the child regardless of the paternity test, why would you want a paternity test in the first place?

What are you implying with a paternity test? What does that test commmunicate *to the child? *

If you are not the father you don't want to parent that child. It means your love for that child is/was predicated on your biological connection. You can disagree all you want but it's true. A paternity test means conditional love.

If you think every birth should be accompanied by a paternity test, perhaps you should rethink marriage in general, and rethink your ability to pick a good partner in particular.


----------



## Middle of Everything

EleGirl said:


> I don't think that this is the only case in which a man would want to DNA test their child.
> 
> It could be a way to confirm that his wife was cheating. It does not mean that the man would abandon a child that he did not father.


Is it really "abandoning" a child that is not yours? Why would I be required to raise my (ex)wife's and sperm donor's child?

This hypothetical is finding out about this VERY early on. Not years into it where one would reasonably be emotionally bonded with said child.


----------



## Anon Pink

EleGirl said:


> I don't think that this is the only case in which a man would want to DNA test their child.
> 
> It could be a way to confirm that his wife was cheating. It does not mean that the man would abandon a child that he did not father.



Yes that's exactly what it means because if he wouldn't abandon the child regardless of the test, what use is the test? To prove she cheated? Why would he need proof, other than to discontinue support for that child during the divorce process...


----------



## Anon Pink

Middle of Everything said:


> Is it really "abandoning" a child that is not yours? Why would I be required to raise my (ex)wife's and sperm donor's child?
> 
> This hypothetical is finding out about this VERY early on. Not years into it where one would reasonably be emotionally bonded with said child.


The only time I can see where a paternity test would not harm the child would be if the sex between the parents had been a casual hook up and there are no other children biologically related to the child from that mother.

Women who cheat, get pregnant and then pass of that child as her husband's are despicable human beings, no doubt.

But what happens to that child who sees older siblings going out with Dad but not him or her? 

I worked with a little girl who had two older siblings and one younger sibling who spent time with Dad, weekends with Dad, got gifts from Dad, but she was excluded because she was the product of an affair that wasn't discovered until well after the youngest was born. That little girl hurt like hell every time the man she thought was her father showed up to take HIS kids for the weekend.

Yes Mom should be held accountable, but not children! They are innocent and should never be allowed to be collateral damage!


----------



## EleGirl

Anon Pink said:


> Yes that's exactly what it means because if he wouldn't abandon the child regardless of the test, what use is the test? To prove she cheated? Why would he need proof, other than to discontinue support for that child during the divorce process...


I think that there is a scenario.

He has some idea that his wife cheated, but does not have 100% proof. So he does a DNA test on the child to find out if someone else is the bio father.

If the test shows that he is not the biological father, then he knows that his wife cheated.

Now he can decide if he wants to try to reconciliation or divorce her.

If the baby is a new born, I'm not sure that morally he has an obligation to support the child. He really does not have a relationship with the child yet. The woman should be going after her affair partner for child support.

If the child is a few years old, he's going to have to pay child support whether he wants to or not. By law a man is the father of all children born to his wife during their marriage. So it's highly unlikely that he will get out of paying child support.

Also, if the child is a few years old, there is a good chance that he will not want to abandon the child. He's raised the child and probably has a strong emotional attachment. He probably loves the child just as he would if he were the bio father.


----------



## EleGirl

Middle of Everything said:


> Is it really "abandoning" a child that is not yours? Why would I be required to raise my (ex)wife's and sperm donor's child?
> 
> This hypothetical is finding out about this VERY early on. Not years into it where one would reasonably be emotionally bonded with said child.


Maybe because children are more than a bunch of DNA? 

Say the child was 10 years old. This child has grown up with this man as his father. It is in the best interest of the child that his father not walk out of his/her life.

IMHO, any man who could raise a child for years and then walk out on that child because of DNA is no much of a man. The child is innocent.

Legally paternity is determined by who the woman is married to at the time that the child was born. That's the law. Don't want to live by the law? Don't get married because the structure of marriage is set by law.

.


----------



## Middle of Everything

Anon Pink said:


> The only time I can see where a paternity test would not harm the child would be if the sex between the parents had been a casual hook up and there are no other children biologically related to the child from that mother.
> 
> Women who cheat, get pregnant and then pass of that child as her husband's are despicable human beings, no doubt.
> 
> But what happens to that child who sees older siblings going out with Dad but not him or her?
> 
> I worked with a little girl who had two older siblings and one younger sibling who spent time with Dad, weekends with Dad, got gifts from Dad, but she was excluded because she was the product of an affair that wasn't discovered until well after the youngest was born. That little girl hurt like hell every time the man she thought was her father showed up to take HIS kids for the weekend.
> 
> Yes Mom should be held accountable, but not children! They are innocent and should never be allowed to be collateral damage!


Agreed. "Dad" should have sucked it up and tried to love his daughter to the best of his abilities. This real life situation falls under what I said about finding out years later. Denying the child then does smack of abandoning.

Right away? Different animal to me.


----------



## Anon Pink

EleGirl said:


> I think that there is a scenario.
> 
> He has some idea that his wife cheated, but does not have 100% proof. So he does a DNA test on the child to find out if someone else is the bio father.
> 
> If the test shows that he is not the biological father, then he knows that his wife cheated.
> 
> Now he can decide if he wants to try to reconciliation or divorce her.
> 
> If the baby is a new born, I'm not sure that morally he has an obligation to support the child. He really does not have a relationship with the child yet. The woman should be going after her affair partner for child support.
> 
> If the child is a few years old, he's going to have to pay child support whether he wants to or not. By law a man is the father of all children born to his wife during their marriage. So it's highly unlikely that he will get out of paying child support.
> 
> Also, if the child is a few years old, there is a good chance that he will not want to abandon the child. He's raised the child and probably has a strong emotional attachment. He probably loves the child just as he would if he were the bio father.



I agree with this. A newborn, particularly if there are no older siblings, wouldn't emotionally suffer by the husband's abandonment. But if there are older siblings, the newborn will eventually feel abandoned, especially if the sperm donor is a no show.

I particularly agree that the zperm donor should be financially providing for the child AND be involved, regardless of the husband's involvement.

Men claim they get the short end of the stick all the time when it comes to paternity but the truth is women are left holding the bag much more often. I'm sure you, @EleGirl, can compile statistics that show how often a woman is abandoned by the father vs how often a father is raising another man's child unaware.

I would hope any man who raised a child as his own, even for s short time, would be attached enough to not abandon the child. I prefer to believe men to be more honorable than to harm a child to hurt the mother.


----------



## Middle of Everything

EleGirl said:


> I think that there is a scenario.
> 
> He has some idea that his wife cheated, but does not have 100% proof. So he does a DNA test on the child to find out if someone else is the bio father.
> 
> If the test shows that he is not the biological father, then he knows that his wife cheated.
> 
> Now he can decide if he wants to try to reconciliation or divorce her.
> 
> If the baby is a new born, I'm not sure that morally he has an obligation to support the child. He really does not have a relationship with the child yet. The woman should be going after her affair partner for child support.
> 
> If the child is a few years old, he's going to have to pay child support whether he wants to or not. By law a man is the father of all children born to his wife during their marriage. So it's highly unlikely that he will get out of paying child support.
> 
> Also, if the child is a few years old, there is a good chance that he will not want to abandon the child. He's raised the child and probably has a strong emotional attachment. He probably loves the child just as he would if he were the bio father.


Agreed.

And this I exactly what I was trying to convey in my post. Not sure why your response to me included a scenario of abandoning a 10 year old.


----------



## EleGirl

Middle of Everything said:


> Agreed.
> 
> And this I exactly what I was trying to convey in my post. Not sure why your response to me included a scenario of abandoning a 10 year old.


It was referring back to a post of mine where I talk about the difference between a man finding out that he is not the father of a child in two different scenarios... a new born and an older child--a 10 year old for example.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> I agree with this. A newborn, particularly if there are no older siblings, wouldn't emotionally suffer by the husband's abandonment. But if there are older siblings, the newborn will eventually feel abandoned, especially if the sperm donor is a no show.
> 
> I particularly agree that the zperm donor should be financially providing for the child AND be involved, regardless of the husband's involvement.
> 
> Men claim they get the short end of the stick all the time when it comes to paternity but the truth is women are left holding the bag much more often. I'm sure you, @EleGirl, can compile statistics that show how often a woman is abandoned by the father vs how often a father is raising another man's child unaware.
> 
> I would hope any man who raised a child as his own, even for s short time, would be attached enough to not abandon the child. I prefer to believe men to be more honorable than to harm a child to hurt the mother.


No doubt women find themselves holding the bag more often than not. The unfortunate side affect of this is that until there are wholesale changes in the family courts, fathers who want to step up, do the right thing, be involved are still largely at the mercy of the mother. Things are changing in this regard, but there is still a long way to go.

As far as post new born DNA testing goes, it doesn't have to necessarily be about abandoning the kid. I can easily envision a father testing their child, finding out the child has a different father, divorcing the mother, yet fighting tooth and nail for his rights to the child whom regardless of all the proof in the world to the contrary...he is the legal father, and if he's going to be on the hook for support regardless of contrary proof positive, he damned well better fight for, and be awarded all the positives of fatherhood too.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

There are hundreds of scenarios with all types of baggage. The above scenario has a wrong and ignorant outcome, but it doesn't in any way mean there is a time limit on a DNA test. If we are talking infidelity, then she should be angry at herself for bringing it into the marriage. Yes, even if a group of people told him to do it. No, I wouldn't be mad. When it comes to paternity, do what you have to do. Nope, it isn't always for men to hide from their responsibility like the media has made everyone believe.


----------



## FeministInPink

jld said:


> And if you learned that a group of people had urged him to do it, how would you feel about those people?
> 
> Just wondering.


All philosophical debates aside, many of which have already begun here before I could post, I think @jld is looking for personal opinions or reactions. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I learned that MY father had a DNA test done, I would be very upset. For HIM. Because a DNA test, with others urging him to do it, means that my mom was cheating on him. And that would destroy my dad. He adores my mother, despite the fact that she treats him poorly. He absolutely ADORES her. 

And I love my dad, so so much. If I found out my mother did that to him, I would probably never speak to her, ever again. Because my dad doesn't deserve that.

That's all if they did a test on me when I was a baby or very young.

The question is a non-starter now, as an adult. There are genetic, hereditary markers which establish his paternity, no DNA test required. There is no way that I am not my father's daughter.


----------



## FeministInPink

EleGirl said:


> This question makes me think of a baby right now, Emmy.
> 
> Her mother is a friend of my step daughter's from high school. She's about 27 now. She's married with a 4 year old son and a 6 month old baby.
> 
> But her husband left her about a year ago and moved across the state to live with the woman he's been having a long term affair with.
> 
> He has denied that Emmy is his. Apparently his affair partner, who also had a baby girl in the same time frame, is all over facebook saying the Emmy is not his kid.
> 
> Well, the DNA test came back... Emmy is his kid. He refuses to acknowledge this. His affair partner is still spreading lies on facebook.
> 
> When he picks up his son one every month (that's all the time he asks for--he is the one who moved several hours away), he completely ignores his daughter, Emmy. He won't look at her. Has never held her. He is still denying her existence.
> 
> So I wonder how Emmy is going to feel about her father and the DNA test fiasco. My bet is that she's going to grow up pretty hurt by all this.


Oh, this is so sad.

And that man is a fool.


----------



## Andy1001

Anon Pink said:


> The only time I can see where a paternity test would not harm the child would be if the sex between the parents had been a casual hook up and there are no other children biologically related to the child from that mother.
> 
> Women who cheat, get pregnant and then pass of that child as her husband's are despicable human beings, no doubt.
> 
> But what happens to that child who sees older siblings going out with Dad but not him or her?
> 
> I worked with a little girl who had two older siblings and one younger sibling who spent time with Dad, weekends with Dad, got gifts from Dad, but she was excluded because she was the product of an affair that wasn't discovered until well after the youngest was born. That little girl hurt like hell every time the man she thought was her father showed up to take HIS kids for the weekend.
> 
> Yes Mom should be held accountable, but not children! They are innocent and should never be allowed to be collateral damage!


Last year I split up with my long term gf.It was an awful time and something I never want to go through again.Over two months after we separated she made contact with me and said we needed to talk.She was pregnant and it was mine.I never doubted that the baby was mine but while we were fighting she had accused me of cheating and I wasn't.It was suggested to me on this forum that she was projecting and that it was her who was cheating.When she told me she was pregnant she insisted on a DNA test and we found out that a test could be done on a pregnant woman without affecting the foetus.The baby was mine and is now a ten week old bundle of joy.If we hadn't had the test I would still raise this little girl as my daughter.


----------



## EleGirl

phillybeffandswiss said:


> There are hundreds of scenarios with all types of baggage. The above scenario has a wrong and ignorant outcome, but it doesn't in any way mean there is a time limit on a DNA test. If we are talking infidelity, then she should be angry at herself for bringing it into the marriage. Yes, even if a group of people told him to do it. No, I wouldn't be mad. When it comes to paternity, do what you have to do. Nope, it isn't always for men to hide from their responsibility like the media has made everyone believe.


And what if she did not cheat? He's just very jealous or looking to excuse his own cheating and/or walking out on his family. I've seen this happy quite a bit.

Just because a man decides to DNA test his children, it does not mean that his wife has cheated.


----------



## EleGirl

FeministInPink said:


> All philosophical debates aside, many of which have already begun here before I could post, I think @jld is looking for personal opinions or reactions. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> If I learned that MY father had a DNA test done, I would be very upset. For HIM. Because a DNA test, with others urging him to do it, means that my mom was cheating on him. And that would destroy my dad. He adores my mother, despite the fact that she treats him poorly. He absolutely ADORES her.
> 
> And I love my dad, so so much. If I found out my mother did that to him, I would probably never speak to her, ever again. Because my dad doesn't deserve that.
> 
> That's all if they did a test on me when I was a baby or very young.
> 
> The question is a non-starter now, as an adult. There are genetic, hereditary markers which establish his paternity, no DNA test required. There is no way that I am not my father's daughter.


I get what you are saying.

But a man asking for a DNA test does not mean that the mother cheated. It means that he thinks that she cheated. 

If the DNA test came back a match to him, it still does not prove if she cheated or not.


----------



## FeministInPink

EleGirl said:


> I get what you are saying.
> 
> But a man asking for a DNA test does not mean that the mother cheated. It means that he thinks that she cheated.
> 
> If the DNA test came back a match to him, it still does not prove if she cheated or not.


I was thinking about the original question said that other people were urging him to do it... which in my mind implies that other people know that she is cheating, or her behavior is suspicious enough for multiple people to come to the same conclusion separately.

That's how I interpreted the question.

But you're right, asking for a test DNA alone doesn't necessarily mean the mother cheated.


----------



## EleGirl

FeministInPink said:


> I was thinking about the original question said that other people were urging him to do it... which in my mind implies that other people know that she is cheating, or her behavior is suspicious enough for multiple people to come to the same conclusion separately.
> 
> That's how I interpreted the question.
> 
> But you're right, asking for a test DNA alone doesn't necessarily mean the mother cheated.


My interpretation was that the group of people were folks on TAM. :grin2:

And look at the case of Emmy. There are a lot of people in the father's real life telling him to DNA test Emmy. Their point of view is that they don't want Emmy to be his biological child, so they fabricated a life and pushed him to abandon his baby girl Emmy.

{Not arguing with you really. I get your view point and it's valid. I might just be over thinking the 1001 scenarios that play in my mind on this one.}


----------



## FeministInPink

FeministInPink said:


> I was thinking about the original question said that other people were urging him to do it... which in my mind implies that other people know that she is cheating, or her behavior is suspicious enough for multiple people to come to the same conclusion separately.
> 
> That's how I interpreted the question.
> 
> But you're right, asking for a test DNA alone doesn't necessarily mean the mother cheated.


And I will add, because I was answering the questions from a *personal perspective *and knowing my parents, my father is forever open-minded and takes many things with a grain of salt. If my dad is going to ask for a DNA test, it's because he KNOWS she cheated.


----------



## FeministInPink

EleGirl said:


> My interpretation was that the group of people were folks on TAM. :grin2:


Ah... I was thinking they were friends/family members. :grin2:

Dammit, @jld you need to add more context to your questions!


----------



## TX-SC

To qualify what I said earlier, I think paternity testing should be done for every birth. Not by the fathers, who may be seen as not trusting their wife, but by the state. Just as all kinds of other newborn tests are completed at the hospital, so too should paternity tests. 

These studies are all over the place. Some say as many as 1 in 7 and some say 1 in 30 births result in wrongful paternity. Let's split the difference and say 1 in 20. That's a LOT of fathers raising the child of a cheater.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

EleGirl said:


> And what if she did not cheat? He's just very jealous or looking to excuse his own cheating and/or walking out on his family. I've seen this happy quite a bit.


 A few posters said it could be about men shirking responsibility so, I gave another example. 



> Just because a man decides to DNA test his children, it does not mean that his wife has cheated.


Just because women don't understand paternity fraud, like men don't understand pregnancy, doesn't mean there needs to be a time limit on DNA testing. I did say hundreds of other examples which also include:
Genetics (happened with my in laws)
Conception issues
Jealousy
Infidelity
Depression
Anger
Switched a birth.
Invitro Issues.
Shirking responsibility
Divorce

I just picked one.


----------



## Anon Pink

Andy1001 said:


> Last year I split up with my long term gf.It was an awful time and something I never want to go through again.Over two months after we separated she made contact with me and said we needed to talk.She was pregnant and it was mine.I never doubted that the baby was mine but while we were fighting she had accused me of cheating and I wasn't.It was suggested to me on this forum that she was projecting and that it was her who was cheating.When she told me she was pregnant she insisted on a DNA test and we found out that a test could be done on a pregnant woman without affecting the foetus.The baby was mine and is now a ten week old bundle of joy.*If we hadn't had the test I would still raise this little girl as my daughter.*


Then what was the purpose of the test?

Once you bonded, you bonded. The outcome of the test is irrelevant so why get the test? To prove she is a liar? How does that help you or the child? Unless her being a liar is part of a plan to terminate her parental rights, how is proof that she lied helpful to you or the child?

The up side in your situation is that the test that proves she is not your biological child is tangible proof her father is a loving honorable man who is worthy of love and respect...and that her spermicide donor is a piece of ****... >


----------



## EleGirl

phillybeffandswiss said:


> A few posters said it could be about men shirking responsibility so, I gave another example.
> 
> Just because women don't understand paternity fraud, like men don't understand pregnancy, doesn't mean there needs to be a time limit on DNA testing. I did say hundreds of other examples which also include:
> Genetics (happened with my in laws)
> Conception issues
> Jealousy
> Infidelity
> Depression
> Anger
> Switched a birth.
> Invitro Issues.
> Shirking responsibility
> Divorce
> 
> I just picked one.


Yes there are many reasons to DNA test other than paternity fraud. In these cases it would usually make sense to check the DNA of both parents.

I was addressing that many on this thread believe that this thread is about DNA testing because the wife cheated. That is what I am addressing.

I rather doubt that most women do not understand paternity fraud. Of course most women do. Most women think it's a horrible thing to do.


----------



## Andy1001

Anon Pink said:


> Then what was the purpose of the test?
> 
> Once you bonded, you bonded. The outcome of the test is irrelevant so why get the test? To prove she is a liar? How does that help you or the child? Unless her being a liar is part of a plan to terminate her parental rights, how is proof that she lied helpful to you or the child?
> 
> The up side in your situation is that the test that proves she is not your biological child is tangible proof her father is a loving honorable man who is worthy of love and respect...and that her spermicide donor is a piece of ****... >


Read the post fully before you get on your high horse.SHE insisted on the test,I never had any doubt that the baby was mine.


----------



## Anon Pink

TX-SC said:


> To qualify what I said earlier, I think paternity testing should be done for every birth. Not by the fathers, who may be seen as not trusting their wife, but by the state. Just as all kinds of other newborn tests are completed at the hospital, so too should paternity tests.
> 
> These studies are all over the place. Some say as many as 1 in 7 and some say 1 in 30 births result in wrongful paternity. Let's split the difference and say 1 in 20. That's a LOT of fathers raising the child of a cheater.


Okay, I can agree with that on principle. But again, how does this impact that child? I suppose the companion law would be that the biological father would have a certain portion of his income go toward the raising of his child. But again, as a divorced Dad, you go to pick up your two kids leaving the affair child at home. I don't see how this is good for the child, even if you knew before the child was born she wasn't yours and you never lived in the same house with that child.


----------



## Anon Pink

Andy1001 said:


> Read the post fully before you get on your high horse.SHE insisted on the test,I never had any doubt that the baby was mine.


Why did she insist on the test?


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

EleGirl said:


> Yes there are many reasons to DNA test other than paternity fraud. In these cases it would usually make sense to check the DNA of both parents.
> 
> I was addressing that many on this thread believe that this thread is about DNA testing because the wife cheated. That is what I am addressing.


.......



> I rather doubt that most women do not understand paternity fraud. Of course most women do. Most women think it's a horrible thing to do.


We will disagree, you undertsand the act, but you know that isn't want I am talking about. The baby grows in you and you know the genetics are yours minus certain invitro procedures. For example, egg donors. I leave on this because it will lead to another huge derail and I'm not going to argue with you about semantics. You do not understand it in the way a man does. Just like you and many other women have explained, a man can never understand pregnancy, abortion or a miscarriage. I understand how they work, but I will never understand on the level a woman does.


----------



## Andy1001

Anon Pink said:


> Why did shed insist on the test?


As I explained earlier we had been fighting and split up,this was only about three months before our wedding was to take place.She had accused me of cheating and when she did it one time too many I asked her was she projecting.It was really a few of her so called friends wanting to split us up because they seen her as a soft touch and with our wedding looming the good times were coming to an end for them.She was always the one to pay the tab when they went out and she owned a health centre that a lot of her friends used free of charge.They kept telling her I was out with other women and because she has a son from a previous relationship she couldn't go out every night so it was easy for them to tell her I was out with someone else..It was bull**** but we broke up and called off the wedding.


----------



## MEM2020

Being a pro transparency guy I'd be fine with it. 

You can't claim to be pro transparency/pro truth and simultaneously discourage objective confirmation of reality. 




jld said:


> And if you learned that a group of people had urged him to do it, how would you feel about those people?
> 
> Just wondering.


----------



## MEM2020

Adding to this, there is a huge difference between MISinformation and DISinformation. 

Misinformation is merely a matter of being incorrect - but it isn't intentional. 

DISinformation - is when I tell you something knowing it is untrue because I have a hidden agenda. 

A persons whole concept of their own medical history and risk profile is screwed up if they think they know who their biological father is - but have been disinformed.....





EleGirl said:


> Yes there are many reasons to DNA test other than paternity fraud. In these cases it would usually make sense to check the DNA of both parents.
> 
> I was addressing that many on this thread believe that this thread is about DNA testing because the wife cheated. That is what I am addressing.
> 
> I rather doubt that most women do not understand paternity fraud. Of course most women do. Most women think it's a horrible thing to do.


----------



## samyeagar

TX-SC said:


> To qualify what I said earlier, I think paternity testing should be done for every birth. Not by the fathers, who may be seen as not trusting their wife, but by the state. Just as all kinds of other newborn tests are completed at the hospital, so too should paternity tests.
> 
> These studies are all over the place. Some say as many as 1 in 7 and some say 1 in 30 births result in wrongful paternity. Let's split the difference and say 1 in 20. That's a LOT of fathers raising the child of a cheater.


Yeah, I agree, especially with the context of accurate record keeping. Really does call into question using birth records in geneology and following actual family lines.


----------



## naiveonedave

Anon Pink said:


> Yes that's exactly what it means because if he wouldn't abandon the child regardless of the test, what use is the test? To prove she cheated? Why would he need proof, other than to discontinue support for that child during the divorce process...


you are making a lot of assumptions.

Maybe the dude already knew she cheated years ago and wants to help the child understand why he/she got a weird disease, what ever. Knowing paternity =/= wanting to abandon the child. Though I can see that to happen.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Yeah, I agree, especially with the context of accurate record keeping. Really does call into question using birth records in geneology and following actual family lines.


This DNA thing is interesting to me because I have an adopted son.

When it comes to genealogy, we often think of it only reflecting genetic lines. After all, look at the name of it.

But where does an adopted child or a step child fall into the picture?

Sure he's not genetically in the same family lines his father or I are in. But that is who his family is.

The same goes for step children (I have 2).

Is it the story of our family, which includes the story of the adopted children and step children that is important? Or is DNA the only thing that is really important?


----------



## Middle of Everything

Anon Pink said:


> Okay, I can agree with that on principle. But again, how does this impact that child? I suppose the companion law would be that the biological father would have a certain portion of his income go toward the raising of his child. But again, *as a divorced Dad, you go to pick up your two kids leaving the affair child at home. I don't see how this is good for the child, even if you knew before the child was born she wasn't yours and you never lived in the same house with that child.*


The above scenario to me is the tricky one. Never raised him/her and in no way consider him/her your child. But to just leave them on your weekends? Tough. Still your kids brother/sister. And what about occasions such as Christmas etc? Presents for them? etc.

Suck it up and treat them as best you can I guess. Not your child but still would likely be a close relationship for your children.

edited to add I better never have to find this out personally.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> This DNA thing is interesting to me because I have an adopted son.
> 
> When it comes to genealogy, we often think of it only reflecting genetic lines. After all, look at the name of it.
> 
> But where does an adopted child or a step child fall into the picture?
> 
> Sure he's not genetically in the same family lines his father or I are in. But that is who his family is.
> 
> The same goes for step children (I have 2).
> 
> Is it the story of our family, which includes the story of the adopted children and step children that is important? Or is *DNA the only thing that is really important*?


Personally, I think far too many things in our society, including the legal system, place way too much importance on DNA.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> Being a pro transparency guy I'd be fine with it.
> 
> You can't claim to be pro transparency/pro truth and simultaneously discourage objective confirmation of reality.


I am pro-_voluntary_ transparency in marriage, MEM. I think voluntary transparency greatly builds trust.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Anon Pink said:


> It depends on the age at discovery and the relationship with the parent at that time.
> 
> If that paternity test showed the husband to be the father, it would be in the parents best interest to never ever let that child find out a paternity test was done at all.
> 
> What does a paternity test say about the parents? Mother can't be trusted and father's love is conditional. Neither are healthy for a parental relationship.


I'm somewhat disturbed by this question and I'm tired of reading the replies. The original question is an attempt to establish that testing harms the Child. We have already claimed that testing harms the mother. If we can some how manage to establish that the only person who benefits from testing is the Father, then we can do away with the fathers rights for the benefit of the general society, or* in truth* to perpetuate the status quo. The perpetuation of the status Quo is not necessarily any justification in forming a policy.

We as well could say that school testing accuses the teacher of not teaching, and casts suspicion on the students ability to do the work. It also has been know to cause stress and unhappiness. So no testing should be done because it only helps the administration.

To directly address the concern of @Anon Pink it is not the Fathers love that is conditional, it is the Fathers *Responsibility*. Since when is one persons rights more important than another's. This concept that the mothers rights trump the fathers rights is ludicrous. I'm wondering why we assume that the child's rights are more important. 

Lets throw out the final ludicrous idea that this line of reasoning leads to. Since the Child's Right to support, and apparently love, are more important than any Man's rights, Why not do a random draw from the selective service roster and assign a father at random to every child that is born?


----------



## Mr. Nail

Voluntary transparency is defined as either partner having an unqualified right to hide anything they want. For example lets say that I announce to Mrs. Nail tomorrow that since my birthday is in December, That I am allowed to spend that month away from her every year from now on and that she is Not Allowed To ask any Question about what I do, Where I go, or Who I sleep with during that Month. How well do you think my marriage will Function? 

Are you Sure that Voluntary Transparency is really a good Idea in ANY committed relationship?


----------



## jld

I think voluntary transparency, transparency that is inspired by trust, is what builds healthy marriages.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

During my sophomore year in high school, in my biology class we did a blood typing exercise in which we would type our own blood, compare it to our parents', and check our type against the probabilities of that union producing offspring of that blood type.

When I typed my blood and shared the results with the teacher, he bluntly and confidently declared that I could not be the biological offspring of my legal parents based on our three blood types. He told me either I was adopted, or that mom had gotten around (what a thing for a teacher to tell a 14 year old, eh?).

Didn't bother me one bit. Even at that age, I could be stone cold logical. Those two names on my birth certificate were the ones who raised me, loved me, nurtured me. They were my parents, pure and simple. Nothing could ever change that. And I knew my mother far too well to fall for teacher's baiting. Was I switched at birth like some Lifetime TV drama? Didn't matter one bit. 

As an epilogue, I will share that my parents did some research and with the aid of someone far more knowledgeable than my teacher, discovered that this combination was indeed a possibility, albeit a small one. Moreover, I have way too much of both mom and dad in me to not be theirs biologically as well as environmentally. Interestingly, I have been typed many times and it has come out different many times--my military dog tags had a different type than my red cross blood donor card, which had still a different blood type than my civilian medical records. Apparently, I'm some type of blood-chameleon. 

Oh, and the best part was that my dad, a career Marine and genuine badass, went to the school and had a little chat with the teacher about scaring kids and disparaging comments about faithful wives. Teach was very nice to me the rest of the year.


----------



## MattMatt

EleGirl said:


> I don't think I've ever seen this. Weird.
> 
> Maybe she thinks the kids does not even look like her, so maybe it was switched in the hospital?


It would forestall some wannabe deadbeat dad from denying paternity. 

"I am not the father!"

"This DNA test proves you are the father."


----------



## Mr. Nail

You've got your cause confused with your effect. Transparency causes Trust.

You can Trust and verify.


----------



## jld

I would not feel comfortable being transparent with a man I did not trust.

Trust invites transparency. 

Transparency, in turn, builds trust.


----------



## TAMAT

What I would like to see when there is paternity fraud is that the OM has to compensate the BH 25% of the cost of raising the child from birth to 18 years old and into college. Since 50% of the marital income belongs to the wife and it's her baby that's a share she need to pay. I would also say that the OM gets the benefit of someone else raising his DNA, but the BH gets the enjoyment of raising a child so perhaps it should be split.

In the hospital the Mother should have to sign a form stating that the male who signed as Father is the Father without a shadow of a doubt.

Tamat


----------



## Hope1964

jld, why don't you just come out and say what you really mean instead of posting a loaded question? It reminds me of the girls in Junior high school who always liked to act like they knew something I didn't. And what the hell is 'voluntary transparency' anyway? Unless it means that each person tells the other every single little thing that pops into their head no matter what it is or when it occurs, it's meaningless.

To answer the question, it would make me wonder wtf my mother had really been up to, since she portrays herself as such a saint.

Another reason that may or may not have come up yet, for determining your true parentage, is to assess your likelihood of developing genetically transmitted diseases. That's never been something I'm particularly concerned with, but others might be, and if they're using the wrong father to assess this, they could very well end up thinking they're fine when they're not and not being tested for something they SHOULD be, or vice versa and spending a bunch of needless money on useless tests.


----------



## Mr. Nail

@jld , You I would believe this from. With you I understand this line of reason. But in the general population you are an exception. In essence outside of court all transparency is voluntary.

But in this argument we are talking about a relationship that is established at least to the point of physical / sexual intimacy. A certain amount of either trust or intoxicant can be safely assumed. At this point transparency is rightfully expected. 

What you are setting up here is a situation where reasonable transparency can be suspended at whim, for one partners advantage. In this situation verification is just being fair to the other (male) party. What in fact you are saying is that because the male partner has asked for verification (DNA testing) the female partner no longer trusts him, and is therefore fully justified in denying transparency. No other place in a relationship would you accept this. Only in the case of a questioned paternity that will cost the man 18 -26 years of indentured servitude, is it so important to deny the man access to verification. 

In general western society agrees that a female victim of rape does not have to provide even birth to the child conceived. Why should a male victim of paternity fraud, or simply cheating, not have the same right. Would he not have the same hateful reaction to seeing the proof of her infidelity in every visit and in every payment? We now have the technology to resolve this issue safely and at a relatively low cost (Mrs. Nail's Echo cardiogram cost roughly 8 DNA tests) There is no reason to continue the Status Quo.


----------



## sokillme

Anon Pink said:


> I am not denying your right to know. Yes, wanting to if you are the father means that your actions will change depending on the test's outcome. It means if you are not the father, you will abandon the child, because if you would never abandon the child regardless of the paternity test, why would you want a paternity test in the first place?
> 
> What are you implying with a paternity test? What does that test commmunicate *to the child? *
> 
> If you are not the father you don't want to parent that child. It means your love for that child is/was predicated on your biological connection. You can disagree all you want but it's true. A paternity test means conditional love.
> 
> If you think every birth should be accompanied by a paternity test, perhaps you should rethink marriage in general, and rethink your ability to pick a good partner in particular.


Why can't you just say to the kid assuming what you are saying is true. "Look I love you, I will always love you and you will always be my child, I will always be my father but this is something I need to know, and it is good for you to know because of your future health." I would understand that, especially if I felt loved by my father. Now this is assuming the kid is old enough and mature enough to understand this. I am not talking about a 5 year old kid, probably not even a emotional teenager. I am talking about a young person who is a mature. Age may very. 

Look eventually you should tell them anyway, it really is important to health decisions and it is wrong to keep this from someone. It's a serious lie of omission. To hell with the mother who did it, those are the consequences of such a despicable action. And yes this will be painful for the child as well. Again this is one of the reasons it is despicable.


----------



## Wolf1974

It would make me wonder what my mother did that made him question it or if my dad was crazy. I never did DNA my second Child but I was very close. From the timeline I was able to construct my x started her affair about a month or so after the birth of my daughter. I worried I missed something else that would indicate it went on much longer hence why I contemplated the DNA test.


----------



## jld

Not sure I am entirely following you, but for sure I am not saying the mother can legally deny a DNA test to the father. I don't think he needs any particular authorization to do one.

The original question focused on how each poster as the child in the situation would feel if his or her father asked for a DNA test, and he or she found out about the request. The next question asked how he or she would feel about any people who were urging the father to do this.

There have been a variety of interesting, thought-provoking responses given. Some may even be considered interesting, thought-provoking tangents.

Several people have mentioned that the child needs to know for medical reasons who his or her father is. Is this still applicable as technology improves the ability to know susceptibility to certain health conditions based on a person's own genetic testing?


----------



## Jessica38

jld said:


> *Several people have mentioned that the child needs to know for medical reasons who his or her father is. Is this still applicable as technology improves the ability to know susceptibility to certain health conditions based on a person's own genetic testing?*


No, it's not. You can pay $199 to have your child spit in a cup from home and send it in to 23 and Me and get full genetics testing results emailed to you within a week or two, with access to ancestry and health info related to all known genetic polymorphisms, etc.

It even covers Neanderthal ancestry (if you have a high number of Neanderthal variants), wellness, and traits reports, as well as genetic health risks reports.

If a father (or mother) wants to know for certain the child's paternal DNA, they have every right to do so (and no, I do not think this should be another thing "required" by law).


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
That is an irrational response. The idea that I'm violating my spouses privacy by confirming my child's genetic makeup and therefore their health history/risks - is ludicrous. 

To argue against DNA testing is to fight against the very fabric of reality. 





jld said:


> I am pro-_voluntary_ transparency in marriage, MEM. I think voluntary transparency greatly builds trust.


----------



## Fozzy

For the first time, I'm actually glad my kids look like me.


----------



## MEM2020

Jessica,
Your post below is medically false. 
1. Your genome gives you - at best a partial picture of your medical risks. 
2. Your epigenetic layer - some of which is inherited going back at least 1-2 generations - determines how active individual genes are.
3. Which is why - folks from different families with the same SNPs for a certain disease - may have radically different outcomes with one persons family riddled with a disease and the others not. Real world family medical history is very important which is why paternity is really important. 

It is not possible to claim equality as a human while simultaneously attempting to discourage use of a tool that is:
1. Medically useful
2. And that levels the informational playing field on whose DNA is where





Jessica38 said:


> No, it's not. You can pay $199 to have your child spit in a cup from home and send it in to 23 and Me and get full genetics testing results emailed to you within a week or two, with access to ancestry and health info related to all known genetic polymorphisms, etc.
> 
> It even covers Neanderthal ancestry (if you have a high number of Neanderthal variants), wellness, and traits reports, as well as genetic health risks reports.
> 
> If a father (or mother) wants to know for certain the child's paternal DNA, they have every right to do so (and no, I do not think this should be another thing "required" by law).


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> That is an irrational response. The idea that I'm violating my spouses privacy by confirming my child's genetic makeup and therefore their health history/risks - is ludicrous.
> 
> To argue against DNA testing is to fight against the very fabric of reality.


Your argument was that because I believe in marital transparency, I should feel fine with my father's asking for a paternity test, correct?

I responded that I believe in voluntary marital transparency, because I believe that builds trust.

I think we are talking about two separate issues.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Your argument was that because I believe in marital transparency, I should feel fine with my father's asking for a paternity test, correct?
> 
> I responded that I believe in voluntary marital transparency, because I believe that builds trust.
> 
> I think we are talking about two separate issues.


Hell if I got to the point where I didn't believe I was the father of my own child. I would tell my wife, "since you have been untrustworthy I am getting our kid's DNA tested." Why hide it? Besides ****ty people are not called out enough on their ****ty behavior in today's world. It's part of the reason why were are where we are, people are too afraid and are just too damn nice. 

Is that voluntary for you jld?


----------



## EleGirl

If I were a guy today, I would quietly DNA test every one of my children shortly after birth. I would not tell the mother or the child. I would just do it.

Why? Because that's just me. Trust but verify.

Since the tool exists, I would use it.

I would not blame any guy for DNA testing their child. But if you are going to do it, do when they are very young.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> And if you learned that a group of people had urged him to do it, how would you feel about those people?
> 
> Just wondering.


I'd have a few questions for my mother.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Hell if I got to the point where I didn't believe I was the father of my own child. I would tell my wife, "since you have been untrustworthy I am getting our kid's DNA tested." Why hide it? Besides ****ty people are not called out enough on their ****ty behavior in today's world. It's part of the reason why were are where we are, people are too afraid and are just too damn nice.
> 
> Is that voluntary for you jld?


If you are going to test, I hope you do it at birth, at the latest.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> Hell if I got to the point where I didn't believe I was the father of my own child. I would tell my wife, "since you have been untrustworthy I am getting our kid's DNA tested." Why hide it? Besides ****ty people are not called out enough on their ****ty behavior in today's world. It's part of the reason why were are where we are, people are too afraid and are just too damn nice.
> 
> Is that voluntary for you jld?


How do you define untrustworthy?


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> If I were a guy today, I would quietly DNA test every one of my children shortly after birth.* I would not tell the mother or the child. *I would just do it.
> 
> Why? Because that's just me. Trust but verify.
> 
> Since the tool exists, I would use it.
> 
> I would not blame any guy for DNA testing their child. But if you are going to do it, do when they are very young.


And if they find out?


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Your argument was that because I believe in marital transparency, I should feel fine with my father's asking for a paternity test, correct?
> 
> I responded that I believe in voluntary marital transparency, because I believe that builds trust.
> 
> I think we are talking about two separate issues.


I agree.

Therefore, women should _voluntarily_ present their husbands, boyfriends, etc with incontrovertible proof of paternity at the time of birth.

Or, better yet, well before birth.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> And if they find out?


"Yep, I sure did."


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> And if they find out?


How would they find out? They are newborns when the test is done.


ETA: Oh you mean what if the wife finds out? I'm too smart to do it in a way that my wife would find out. (If I were a man.)


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> I agree.
> 
> Therefore, should _voluntarily_ present their husbands, boyfriends, etc with incontrovertible proof of paternity at the time of birth.
> 
> Or, better yet, well before birth.


To reassure them?

Would never have even occurred to me that this would be a question.

Would it have ever occurred to you, @Duguesclin?


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> How would they find out? They are newborns when the test is done.


There is no result sent? A paper forgotten in a drawer somewhere?


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> To reassure them?
> 
> Would never have even occurred to me that this would be a question.
> 
> Would it have ever occurred to you, @Duguesclin?


No, to voluntarily offer transparency.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> No, to voluntarily offer transparency.


Would never have occurred to me that it would be in question.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Would never have occurred to me that it would be in question.


LOL...

Round and round we go.


----------



## EleGirl

GusPolinski said:


> I agree.
> 
> Therefore, women should _voluntarily_ present their husbands, boyfriends, etc with incontrovertible proof of paternity at the time of birth.
> 
> Or, better yet, well before birth.


Now this I disagree with. No woman who has been faithful to her husband owes her husband proof that she has not been whoring around.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> If you are going to test, I hope you do it at birth, at the latest.


What if I found out 10 years later that she was having an affair during the time she got pregnant? What if she had an affair later? Sorry once someone cheats assuming they were faithful at all foolhardy? Now if you are just testing out of the blue then that's weird, however lots of people get their DNA tested just to see their ancestry. It has actually become a problem because it has exposed just how much awful women there are out there.

The concern here seems to be more about the mother's feelings then paternity fraud. I am wondering in what context was the question asked? My answer assumes there is some general reason for suspicion because what would be the point without it. The good news is if it is just an elaborate **** test in about a month it will turn out to not be true and then you get a lifetime of I told you so. If it is true then no reason to be angry at Dad anymore. Though knowing how you feel about men jld I could see you finding a way. 

Either way if you are at the point where you are DNA testing your kids your marriage is in very big trouble whether you are married to an adulteress or you are just a spiteful *******.


----------



## Anon Pink

Andy1001 said:


> As I explained earlier we had been fighting and split up,this was only about three months before our wedding was to take place.She had accused me of cheating and when she did it one time too many I asked her was she projecting.It was really a few of her so called friends wanting to split us up because they seen her as a soft touch and with our wedding looming the good times were coming to an end for them.She was always the one to pay the tab when they went out and she owned a health centre that a lot of her friends used free of charge.They kept telling her I was out with other women and because she has a son from a previous relationship she couldn't go out every night so it was easy for them to tell her I was out with someone else..It was bull**** but we broke up and called off the wedding.



This still doesn't explain why she wanted a paternity test, especially if she though you cheated? This makes no sense.


----------------------------------------




naiveonedave said:


> you are making a lot of assumptions.
> 
> Maybe the dude already knew she cheated years ago and wants to help the child understand why he/she got a weird disease, what ever. Knowing paternity =/= wanting to abandon the child. Though I can see that to happen.



Help the child understand what? Gonna tuck away that paternity test in case your child develops breast cancer or lupus in their teens? Genetic testing for health reasons isn't the same as paternity testing. 

So what is the point of paternity testing if you have no intention of ever abandoning the child?

________________________________________




Middle of Everything said:


> The above scenario to me is the tricky one. Never raised him/her and in no way consider him/her your child. But to just leave them on your weekends? Tough. Still your kids brother/sister. And what about occasions such as Christmas etc? Presents for them? etc.
> 
> Suck it up and treat them as best you can I guess. Not your child but still would likely be a close relationship for your children.
> 
> edited to add I better never have to find this out personally.



You're a good man Middle of Everything.

Thank you. That's my only concern with paternity testing. We, as a society, need to focus on what's best for the child because it's not his fault his mother cheated and yet he is being harmed by being excluded from his siblings family. 

I don't know how to address the inequitable effect to the nonbiological father. I would like to see some way to address it as long as it doesn't effect the child.

-–---------------------------------------



Mr. Nail said:


> I'm somewhat disturbed by this question and I'm tired of reading the replies. The original question is an attempt to establish that testing harms the Child. We have already claimed that testing harms the mother.


I don't see how testing harms the mother at all. But it doesn't really matter because she is adult.



> If we can some how manage to establish that the only person who benefits from testing is the Father, then we can do away with the fathers rights for the benefit of the general society, or* in truth* to perpetuate the status quo. The perpetuation of the status Quo is not necessarily any justification in forming a policy.


I assume this is supposed to be sarcasm?



> We as well could say that school testing accuses the teacher of not teaching, and casts suspicion on the students ability to do the work. It also has been know to cause stress and unhappiness. So no testing should be done because it only helps the administration.


Not exactly. It is assumed that the teacher teaches and testing the student show what the student has learned. If it worked the way you suggest above, my SAT scores would have been much lower than they actually were because I had some of the worst teachers ever, under the enlightened educational experiments of the 1970's with open space self directed learning. For those years I literally did nothing academic because this self wanted to chat and goof off all day.




> To directly address the concern of @Anon Pink it is not the Fathers love that is conditional, it is the Fathers *Responsibility*. Since when is one persons rights more important than another's. This concept that the mothers rights trump the fathers rights is ludicrous. I'm wondering why we assume that the child's rights are more important.


Because the father, and mothers for that matter, rights do not supersede the child's needs. A man may not be responsible for caring for that child, but that child still has need to belong. The man may not be required to, but if there is a prior relationship or siblings, can any man think himself honorable if he turns his back on that child? 

I say not.





> Lets throw out the final ludicrous idea that this line of reasoning leads to. Since the Child's Right to support, and apparently love, are more important than any Man's rights, Why not do a random draw from the selective service roster and assign a father at random to every child that is born?


That's not even worthy of comment.

________________________________________________





sokillme said:


> Why can't you just say to the kid assuming what you are saying is true. "Look I love you, I will always love you and you will always be my child, I will always be my father but this is something I need to know, and it is good for you to know because of your future health." I would understand that, especially if I felt loved by my father. Now this is assuming the kid is old enough and mature enough to understand this. I am not talking about a 5 year old kid, probably not even a emotional teenager. I am talking about a young person who is a mature. Age may very.
> 
> Look eventually you should tell them anyway, it really is important to health decisions and it is wrong to keep this from someone. It's a serious lie of omission. To hell with the mother who did it, those are the consequences of such a despicable action. And yes this will be painful for the child as well. Again this is one of the reasons it is despicable.



The tact, care and concern you show in your scenario might be okay. Again, we need to keep in mind what is best for the child.

This reminds my of my late brother's decision to not allow his kids to know what his ex wife, their mother, was demanding of him...as ALS slowly robbed him of all muscle control. He would not allow us to say or do anything that would cast their evil mother in the evil light she so richly deserved.

He said "I'm dying and nothing will prevent that. When I'm gone, their only parent will be their mother and they need to have a positive relationship with her."

To be honest, I was infuriated with this decision because his kids were being alienated and manipulated as psycho ***** ex, made one ludicrous demand after another.

Planning his funeral was doubly difficult because they wanted their mother to be seated and treated as his widow, excluding my brother's GF who walks on water. They had no idea the **** their mother tried to pull and we couldn't tell them. And so...the psycho ***** ex played the grieving widow.

It was wrong and it hurt and I hated it. But it was in their best interest to not hate their mother.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> LOL...
> 
> Round and round we go.


It is like we are from two different marital planets.

Totally different outlooks and experiences.


----------



## GusPolinski

EleGirl said:


> Now this I disagree with. No woman who has been faithful to her husband owes her husband proof that she has not been whoring around.


No no no -- I did not say that they should be _*compelled* by law_ to provide proof of paternity, but rather that, in the spirit of _voluntary_ transparency, they should be prepared to do so.

Unless they just don't subscribe to that notion.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> What if I found out 10 years later that she was having an affair during the time she got pregnant? What if she had an affair later? Sorry once someone cheats assuming they were faithful at all foolhardy? Now if you are just testing out of the blue then that's weird, however lots of people get their DNA tested just to see their ancestry. It has actually become a problem because it has exposed just how much awful women there are out there.
> 
> The concern here seems to be more about the mother's feelings then paternity fraud. I am wondering in what context was the question asked? My answer assumes there is some general reason for suspicion because who would do a test without it.


I am concerned about the child's feelings, in particular their sense of security and stability.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> How do you define untrustworthy?


See above.


----------



## Duguesclin

jld said:


> To reassure them?
> 
> Would never have even occurred to me that this would be a question.
> 
> Would it have ever occurred to you, @Duguesclin?


No, it would not have occurred to me either. 

A DNA test is just a waste. It should actually be forbidden or only allowed by court order.

A DNA test is not necessary to divorce your wife and abandon your child, whether he is yours or not.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> It is like we are from two different marital planets.
> 
> Totally different outlooks and experiences.


Never in the history of oral or written communication has a more accurate phrase been uttered, typed, chiseled, painted, printed, sky-written, sent via smoke signal, heard, or read... anywhere.


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> No, it would not have occurred to me either.
> 
> *A DNA test is just a waste. It should actually be forbidden or only allowed by court order.*
> 
> A DNA test is not necessary to divorce your wife and abandon your child, whether he is yours or not.


Ridiculous.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> If I were a guy today, I would quietly DNA test every one of my children shortly after birth. I would not tell the mother or the child. I would just do it.
> 
> Why? Because that's just me. Trust but verify.
> 
> Since the tool exists, I would use it.
> 
> I would not blame any guy for DNA testing their child. But if you are going to do it, do when they are very young.


Personally I hope one day it is required by law. That would keep a lot of people on their toes. Not just the women too because I would make the lawsuits against the true father very easy, also I would make the state go after the true father for child support if need be. I would rather have the state pay in the rare case when the father can't be found then the poor victim. We pay for lots of other kids and whose looser fathers are perfectly capable of working, we do that to protect the child who is a victim in such instances. In this case we can protect 2 victims. Oh, and the mother should have to pay it all back after the kid is grown plus interest. If she can't work take as small sum from here social security. 

Anyway my 2 cents.


----------



## sokillme

Anon Pink said:


> The man may not be required to, but if there is a prior relationship or siblings, can any man think himself honorable if he turns his back on that child?
> 
> I say not.


Depends on if there has even been a father child relationship established. Some states require the man to support the child even if he knows it's not his before the child is born. This just because he hasn't divorced his awful wife yet. This is patently unfair. Like I said in my other post. I would rather live in a society where the state pays for the child (assuming the father can't be found, identifying him being the ideal). This is better then the poor abused man. It's not like our taxes don't pay for lots of other kids with dead beat parents, why should this be any different. 

The incentive I would set up for the women to fess up would be the requirement to pay back the state, at the very least in social security benefits. So she has a choice, face a serious monitory punishment or give up the ghost and let them both pay for it. It should be treated like a Statutory Crime with true punishment. Just like any other fraud is.


----------



## sokillme

Duguesclin said:


> No, it would not have occurred to me either.
> 
> A DNA test is just a waste. It should actually be forbidden or only allowed by court order.
> 
> A DNA test is not necessary to divorce your wife and abandon your child, whether he is yours or not.


Why am I not surprised by this answer. The second sentence is actually offensive to me. The third sentence shows you have no idea what you are talking about. There are plenty of examples of men paying for children who are not their own.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> Personally I hope one day it is required by law. That would keep a lot of people on their toes. Not just the women too because I would make the lawsuits against the true father very easy, also I would make the state go after the true father for child support if need be. I would rather have the state pay in the rare case when the father can't be found then the poor victim. We pay for lots of other kids and whose looser fathers are perfectly capable of working, we do that to protect the child who is a victim in such instances. In this case we can protect 2 victims. Oh, and the mother should have to pay it all back after the kid is grown plus interest. If she can't work take as small sum from here social security.
> 
> Anyway my 2 cents.


Why wouldn't the bio father have to pay it back too?


----------



## Anon Pink

sokillme said:


> Depends on if there has even been a father child relationship established. Some states require the man to support the child even if he knows it's not his before the child is born. This just because he hasn't divorced his awful wife yet. This is patently unfair. Like I said in my other post. I would rather live in a society where the state pays for the child (assuming the father can't be found, identifying him being the ideal). This is better then the poor abused man. It's not like our taxes don't pay for lots of other kids with dead beat parents, why should this be any different.
> 
> The incentive I would set up for the women to fess up would be the requirement to pay back the state, at the very least in social security benefits. So she has a choice, face a serious monitory punishment or give up the ghost and let them both pay for it. It should be treated like a Statutory Crime with true punishment. Just like any other fraud is.




You have a good point about fraud. The man has been frauded and the person who perpetrated that fraud should .... which would punish all the woman's children.

It is unfair, no question about that. But this question encompasses more than monetary support. A child needs to belong, to be a part of a family to which he identifies himself. Just like what @Rocky Mountain Yeti stated about growing through his teens with a question of blood type andnparentage. Regardless of the test, he felt like he belonged to his family. That is the kind of security a child needs and deserves, and far too many children never get because they were unlucky to have been born to mothers and fathers who couldn't take care of them. That child suffers and the best we can do is house them as safely as possible, but only a small percentage ever find a sense of belonging.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> Why wouldn't the bio father have to pay it back too?


If they can't find the bio father. The incentive would be for her to fess up so she wasn't the only one on the hook. If they know who the father is then it should work like any other parental support. Jail time for not paying the whole 9 yards.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Why am I not surprised by this answer. The second sentence is actually offensive to me.* The third sentence shows you have no idea what you are talking about. *There are plenty of examples of men paying for children who are not their own.


I think how Dug describes it is how it is handled in France.


----------



## Duguesclin

sokillme said:


> Why am I not surprised by this answer. The second sentence is actually offensive to me. The third sentence shows you have no idea what you are talking about. *There are plenty of examples of men paying for children who are not their own*.


I agree. It is great that they think of the child before they think of themselves.


----------



## sokillme

Anon Pink said:


> You have a good point about fraud. The man has been frauded and the person who perpetrated that fraud should .... which would punish all the woman's children.
> 
> It is unfair, no question about that. But this question encompasses more than monetary support. A child needs to belong, to be a part of a family to which he identifies himself. Just like what @Rocky Mountain Yeti stated about growing through his teens with a question of blood type andnparentage. Regardless of the test, he felt like he belonged to his family. That is the kind of security a child needs and deserves, and far too many children never get because they were unlucky to have been born to mothers and fathers who couldn't take care of them. That child suffers and the best we can do is house them as safely as possible, but only a small percentage ever find a sense of belonging.


You say that like the husband who finds out his wife got knocked up by anther man is going to treat that kid well. Lots of people just don't have that in them. Adding the insult to injury of forcing the guy to pay for this child isn't going to ingratiate him to the situation that's for sure. Now hopefully if he has already bonded with the child he can overcome it. Lots have, some even on this board. Still think there should be some punishment for the perpetrators though.

Look this is like any other tragedy when it comes to this stuff, crack babies, kid's whose parents die. If you Mom committed paternity fraud you are probably going to have a hard childhood. If your Mother drinks and drives and kills someone you are going to have a hard childhood. I don't understand why this is not thought of exactly the same way. 

You know who is not responsible for any of that? The man who your Mom committed that fraud on. His is about is much responsible as you and I are for the crack baby. He just had the misfortune of hooking up with an treacherous person. He owes the kid absolutely nothing in my mind. The key word their is owes, doesn't mean he can't give grace if he wants.


----------



## sokillme

Duguesclin said:


> I agree. It is great that they think of the child before they think of themselves.


This is fine when it is done voluntarily. How many children who are not your own are you paying for? Do you pay for any of your ex-girlfriends kids? Pretty much the same thing. This thinking is why the laws are so unjust. If someone is going to have to pay let the state do it.


----------



## Duguesclin

sokillme said:


> This is fine when it is done voluntarily. How many children who are not your own are you paying for? Do you pay for any of your ex-girlfriends kids? Pretty much the same thing. This thinking is why the laws are so unjust. If someone is going to have to pay let the state do it.


What is best for the child?


----------



## sokillme

Duguesclin said:


> What is best for the child?


I don't understand the thinking that the man who was defrauded is responsible for a child that is not his own. Besides that who says this is BEST for the child? Explain to me in what way that is best? The only argument I ever see is so tax payers don't have to pay for the child. Besides that what does it do to a child to have this defrauded person locked to his life forever?

If the man wants to treat this kid like his own then there is no issue. If not then all he is, is a paycheck there will be no other relationship, it's not like this guy is going to be picking up the kid and taking them to the ballgame. Making the victim in this case a paycheck is a grave injustice to the detriment to society, and especially to the institution of marriage. We need to be a society of laws that are fair and just, when they are not they make a mockery of justice. This causes people to lose faith in the system. It's like the rape victims in the middle east who are then stoned. Most clear minded people understand that this is wrong. 

Again let the real father or the state pay for the kid, and let the Mother pay it back later when the kid is grown.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I think how Dug describes it is how it is handled in France.


Again why I am I not surprised. Ever look at the marriage rate in France? Why would any man marry when those are the laws?


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> I don't understand the thinking that the man who was defrauded is responsible for a child that is not his own. Besides that who says this is BEST for the child? Explain to me in what way that is best? The only argument I ever see is so* tax payers don't have to pay for the child. * Besides that what does it do to a child to have this defrauded person locked to his life forever?
> 
> If the man wants to treat this kid like his own then there is no issue. If not then all he is, is a paycheck there will be no other relationship, it's not like this guy is going to be picking up the kid and taking them to the ballgame. Making the victim in this case a paycheck is a grave injustice to the detriment to society, and especially to the institution of marriage. We need to be a society of laws that are fair and just, when they are not they make a mockery of justice. This causes people to lose faith in the system. It's like the rape victims in the middle east who are then stoned. Most clear minded people understand that this is wrong.
> 
> Again let the real father or the state pay for the kid, and let the Mother pay it back later when the kid is grown.


The bolded is probably a big part of it.

French psychologists have also said that fatherhood is determined by society, not biology. They seem to believe that keeping a stable home life for the child is more in the interests of society than getting the father figure off the hook financially.

Be careful who you get involved with, men. Think long and hard and take your time. _Look beyond the packaging._


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

You are claiming ownership of information that is every bit as much mine as yours. 

Once you as the birth mother place my name on the child's birth certificate - the child becomes OURS. 

At that point, if I want to do a cheek swab - I will. Don't need and likely wouldn't ask your permission. 





jld said:


> Your argument was that because I believe in marital transparency, I should feel fine with my father's asking for a paternity test, correct?
> 
> I responded that I believe in voluntary marital transparency, because I believe that builds trust.
> 
> I think we are talking about two separate issues.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Again why I am I not surprised. Ever look at the marriage rate in France? Why would any man marry when those are the laws?


There may still be protections for the child even if the birth is out of wedlock. We have certainly known committed, unmarried fathers in France.


----------



## MEM2020

I knew we were heading cross the pond to France - where paternity testing is illegal and where....

*French marriage rates are 45 percent below U.S. figures. In 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, the marriage rate in France was 4.3 per 1,000 people, compared with 5.1 in the United Kingdom and 7.8 in the United States.Nov 23, 2006
*





jld said:


> I think how Dug describes it is how it is handled in France.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> There may still be protections for the child even if the birth is out of wedlock. We have certainly known committed, unmarried fathers in France.


Again it's France. Their first lady should be in jail.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> 
> You are claiming ownership of information that is every bit as much mine as yours.
> 
> Once you as the birth mother place my name on the child's birth certificate - the child becomes OURS.
> 
> At that point, if I want to do a cheek swab - I will. Don't need and likely wouldn't ask your permission.


Hey, I am not opposed to mandatory DNA testing at birth. Clarifies things right away. 

Certainly not anything that I ever thought of, though.

If you choose to break trust with your spouse, or your children, for that matter, at any point in your relationship with them, for whatever reason, just be ready to face whatever consequences may ensue.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Again it's France. Their first lady should be in jail.


I certainly agree with that!

I do not know how people can look at her.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> I knew we were heading cross the pond to France - where paternity testing is illegal and where....
> 
> *French marriage rates are 45 percent below U.S. figures. In 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, the marriage rate in France was 4.3 per 1,000 people, compared with 5.1 in the United Kingdom and 7.8 in the United States.Nov 23, 2006
> *


If the children are well cared for in a stable home, does it matter whether the parents are married or not?


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I certainly agree with that!
> 
> I do not know how people can look at her.


None of these laws are the way they are to help the child the reason why they are like they are is because the state is lazy, intellectually and effectually. In all my posts I have never once argued that a man shouldn't pay for HIS child. Only you and Dug have.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> None of these laws are the way they are to help the child the reason why they are like they are is because the state is lazy, intellectually and effectually. In all my posts I have never once argued that a man shouldn't pay for HIS child. Only you and Dug have.


We said a man should not pay for his child?

Where?


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> None of these laws are the way they are to help the child the reason why they are like they are is because the state is lazy, intellectually and effectually. In all my posts I have never once argued that a man shouldn't pay for HIS child. Only you and Dug have.


I don't think you understand a fundamental difference between French and American society, sokillme. 

French society is oriented around the group and its interests. 

American society is oriented around the individual and his interests.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> If the children are well cared for in a stable home, does it matter whether the parents are married or not?


Ignoring the fact that the Man is not this child's parent, your only argument is that a man who happens to be dating or married to a women who gets pregnant should pay for it. Basically wrong place at the wrong time. Why is that, is it only because she is with him at the time? Do that have to be married? What if they have only been dating a week? 

I'm sorry that is immoral.


----------



## MEM2020

Vehemently agree with this. 

In fact - I sort of feel like - you either do it at birth or you simply don't do it. 

And - earlier was a comment about 23 and me - a service we've used. 

I'm 35% ashkenazi Jew. The kids are all - 17.5% Ashkenazi. What that tells me is - if M2 had an affair:
- She had all three kids with the same affair partner
- He has a remarkably similar genetic makeup to mine - hell maybe even a distant relative 







jld said:


> If you are going to test, I hope you do it at birth, at the latest.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> We said a man should not pay for his child?
> 
> Where?


You argue another man should pay for his child, effectively letting the real father off the hook.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> Vehemently agree with this.
> 
> In fact - I sort of feel like - you either do it at birth or you simply don't do it.
> 
> And - earlier was a comment about 23 and me - a service we've used.
> 
> I'm 35% ashkenazi Jew. The kids are all - 17.5% Ashkenazi. What that tells me is - if M2 had an affair:
> - She had all three kids with the same affair partner
> - He has a remarkably similar genetic makeup to mine - hell maybe even a distant relative


You tested your kids?

Why?


----------



## sokillme

MEM2020 said:


> Vehemently agree with this.
> 
> In fact - I sort of feel like - you either do it at birth or you simply don't do it.
> 
> And - earlier was a comment about 23 and me - a service we've used.
> 
> I'm 35% ashkenazi Jew. The kids are all - 17.5% Ashkenazi. What that tells me is - if M2 had an affair:
> - She had all three kids with the same affair partner
> - He has a remarkably similar genetic makeup to mine - hell maybe even a distant relative


And it is your right to make that choice but you shouldn't have a right to impost it on others.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> You argue another man should pay for his child, effectively letting the real father off the hook.


Remember what those French psychologists said about how fatherhood is determined?


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Remember what those French psychologists said about how fatherhood is determined?


Who cares. Their argument is lazy and so is yours. Their argument boils down to fatherhood is a paycheck but not DNA. It's laughable. Again you are arguing for deadbeat Dads.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Who cares. Your argument is lazy and so is theirs.


I would not discount the opinion of all those professionals so easily, sokillme . . .

They may have a good handle on what children need to feel stable and secure.


----------



## MEM2020

No. But I think marriage - due to its exit costs - increases stability. 

And my point is that if you treat men like lesser beings - which is exactly what you are doing when you prevent paternity testing - you find that over time they become less enamored with the idea of marriage. 

In France - let's say my GF gets pregnant. I immediately dispute paternity - we are talking 7-8 months before birth. My guess - to prove paternity she forces ME to take a DNA test and compares it to the babies. Which is totally fair. 

But if we are married - no matter what - in France that child is mine. Even if i send the babies DNA out the country for testing and discover I'm not the father - I can't use that info in a court of law. 

So DNA can be used to force me to pay for my own child, unless I impregnate a married woman in which case the burden falls entirely on the guy I just cuckolded......







jld said:


> If the children are well cared for in a stable home, does it matter whether the parents are married or not?


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> No. But I think marriage - due to its exit costs - increases stability.
> 
> And my point is that if you treat men like lesser beings - which is exactly what you are doing when you prevent paternity testing - you find that over time they become less enamored with the idea of marriage.
> 
> In France - let's say my GF gets pregnant. I immediately dispute paternity - we are talking 7-8 months before birth. My guess - to prove paternity she forces ME to take a DNA test and compares it to the babies. Which is totally fair.
> 
> But if we are married - no matter what - in France that child is mine. Even if i send the babies DNA out the country for testing and discover I'm not the father - I can't use that info in a court of law.
> 
> So DNA can be used to force me to pay for my own child, unless I impregnate a married woman in which case the burden falls entirely on the guy I just cuckolded......


In the cases we knew of, it was not the men who did not want to get married.

MEM, societies can have different orientations, different priorities. 

In France, the perceived needs of the society as a whole, and not the individual, seem to be the priority.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I would not discount the opinion of all those professionals so easily, sokillme . . .
> 
> They may have a good handle on what children need to feel stable and secure.


I will post it again because you were too quick and I edit my posts too much. 

Are these "fathers" as the professionals call them required to spend time with the children they pay for? Are they required to bond with the kids, tell them they love them? Since I am sure they are not, as that would be even too absurd for the French yet, the basic argument boils down to fatherhood is a paycheck but DNA is not. It's laughable. 

Another reason that is is lazy is because it defies the very thing that you say French society is oriented around, the group and its interests. In this case French society makes the individual (that being the defrauded man) pay for a child that isn't his. If they are so communal why not in this case? Why doesn't the group pay as it could very easily be argued it is a group or societal problem. Again lazy and dishonest. 

A Father is a paycheck really fits the zeitgeist though. The truth is the argument is really only made because the state doesn't want to pay for the child. The whole thing is insulting to everyone who is decent. 

And jld you are arguing for deadbeat Dads not to pay for their children. 

PS yes I purposely used a German word to describe the silly French thinking here. >


----------



## MEM2020

If you encourage bad/selfish/deceptive behavior - you will get more of it. And that's exactly what these French laws do. 

If you hold adults responsible for their behavior - you tend to get more responsible behavior. 

Trying to force someone to pay (for half or more) of their partners betrayal - is an outrageous over reach of government power. 




jld said:


> In the cases we knew of, it was not the men who did not want to get married.
> 
> MEM, societies can have different orientations, different priorities.
> 
> In France, the perceived needs of the society as a whole, and not the individual, seem to be the priority.


----------



## MEM2020

SKM,
We impose laws on each other all the time - sometimes laws that you or I dislike or one of us does and the other doesn't. 

I grasp the dilemma - as such: Maybe you have absolutely no basis for doubt at the point of birth - and has time passes - the child doesn't seem like you/your family at all. Perhaps by the time they reach 4-5 your doubts about your wife's honesty have grown and your child's appearance and behavior seem foreign. 

Logic dictates - that you then test. The accumulated evidence has reached the tipping point. 

At this point a good person traverses the following decision tree: Can I know and still love and care for this little person the same? If yes, then test. If no or unsure than don't test. 

Many courts in the us rule that the longer you wait to do such a test the harder it becomes to legally extricate yourself from support payments. The courts have essentially ruled that once that bond is created - the child becomes irreversibly yours - at least legally. 

And you know - while I'll fight to the last to defend our right to know whether our children are indeed our direct offspring - I really haven't lost sight of the fact that we really are all related by blood by virtue or curse of belonging to the vast, sprawling, squabbling **** sapien family. We all share a common ancestor maybe a million years ago. Maybe that's something that adoptive parents just 'get'. 






sokillme said:


> And it is your right to make that choice but you shouldn't have a right to impost it on others.


----------



## Personal

Personal said:


> Not fussed, how would you feel?


 @jld how would you feel?


----------



## MartinBeck

Anon Pink said:


> I am not denying your right to know. Yes, wanting to if you are the father means that your actions will change depending on the test's outcome. It means if you are not the father, you will abandon the child, because if you would never abandon the child regardless of the paternity test, why would you want a paternity test in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> What are you implying with a paternity test? What does that test commmunicate *to the child? *
> 
> 
> 
> If you are not the father you don't want to parent that child. It means your love for that child is/was predicated on your biological connection. You can disagree all you want but it's true. A paternity test means conditional love.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think every birth should be accompanied by a paternity test, perhaps you should rethink marriage in general, and rethink your ability to pick a good partner in particular.




It may or may not change how the father treats the child. It definitely should change how the father treats the mother, if the answer isn't as expected!

With this information the father could choose (or not) to keep a relationship with the non-biological child, but sever or adjust the relationship with the mother.


----------



## samyeagar

I love my kids, consider my wife's kids my own, but geez all this kids being the be all and end all of everything is just a load of crap to me, especially when it comes to children over 18 and specifically the family courts in the US. Why is it that I am compelled legally to pay for my kids college simply because I divorced their cheating NPD mother? Where if I had stayed married, I would not have to pay for their college. The whole time growing up, it was made very clear to my kids that they were going to have earn their college education themselves. Same thing with health insurance. Why is it that a court can compel me to keep my over 18 kids on my health insurance, where if I hadn't divorced, I would not be required to. If people really want to go down the road of what's best for the kids, kids rights trump all mindset, then they really ought to go all in and not create a second class tier of divorced fathers...a good start would be to legally require married parents to pay for their kids' college.

And anyone who has ever had to deal with a true Narcissist knows, especially when kids are involved, the narc can get their claws so deep into those kids, and getting them out is near impossible at best, and in my case, my cheating NPD ex has successfully alienated two of my three kids...one who has literally not communicated with me in over four years despite regular attempts on my part, and the other who only contacts me when they need money, which I politely decline to give because I refuse to be in a one way relationship with anyone, even my kids. Yes, I understand the trauma of having a mother like they do, and things will be difficult, but they are legal adults, and you're damned skippy I hold them personally accountable for their decisions to refuse to even have a simple civil conversation with me.

This all ties back into the DNA testing...marital, family and relationship dynamics are pretty tough to navigate in the best of times. When the situation warrants paternity questions, things are pretty much assuredly even more strained, and when the system is setup to breed general contempt under the guise of being best for the kids when paternity is not in question, throwing the additional layer of either suspecting, or explicitly knowing wrong paternity being assigned is not good in any way for anyone involved, and adding a paternity panel as a matter of course at birth can in many cases remove layers of difficulty that would only make things far more difficult and messy later down the line.


----------



## Hope1964

MartinBeck said:


> It may or may not change how the father treats the child. It definitely should change how the father treats the mother, if the answer isn't as expected!
> 
> With this information the father could choose (or not) to keep a relationship with the non-biological child, but sever or adjust the relationship with the mother.


:iagree:

I don't get why people think the only reason to DNA your kids is to stop being their father. It says a hell of a lot more about the MOTHER than about the kids.


----------



## MartinBeck

Great article on this. Lots of stories and analysis. Opening story: Mom cheats, husband has paternity test, finds out kid isn't his. They split. Mom marries affair partner, the biological father. The ex-husband is paying child support to a *intact biological family*.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html


----------



## samyeagar

MartinBeck said:


> Great article on this. Lots of stories and analysis. Opening story: Mom cheats, husband has paternity test, finds out kid isn't his. They split. Mom marries affair partner, the biological father. The ex-husband is paying child support to a *intact biological family*.
> 
> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html


But, but, but what about the chiiiiiildren? SMDH...


----------



## naiveonedave

this issue really comes down to the fact that governments always go for the easy target. It is simple to go for the non-biological father/H, because he has not fled town and is, on paper, tied to the WW. Easy target. The OM is a hard target, the WW may not give up his identity. She may not really know (multiple OMs). She could lie. All of this takes time, which costs the government $ if the BH doesn't pay.

IMO - it should be a crime for a woman to deceive the government who is the father AND there should be real enforcement of true dead beat parents (which of course also means much more transparency of where CS monies go, so the person receiving said money actually is spending it to support the kids, not on themselves/others). 

My summary: the current system in the West is terrible and in these paternity issue cases, incredibly unfair to the BH and way too lenient on the OM and the WW.


----------



## Married but Happy

naiveonedave said:


> My summary: the current system in the West is terrible and in these paternity issue cases, incredibly unfair to the BH and way too lenient on the OM and the WW.


I have to agree. As is, the system discourages marriage and supports infidelity.


----------



## Satya

I'd be fine with it. 
I do have a lot of my father's features, as do my siblings, but I wouldn't have been offended if that's what he wanted. He'd have a right to be sure.


----------



## samyeagar

Married but Happy said:


> I have to agree. As is, the system discourages marriage and supports infidelity.


Much like the trend has been in divorce where parental access has been separated from financial support, perhaps they should go the same way with paternity. The bio dad gets to be on the hook for the financial support regardless of whether they are in the kids life or not, and the emotional dad has parental rights independent of financial obligation. That way, the man who has been there for the kids has no financial disincentive to continue being there for the child, resentment is minimized, and the child is financially supported by the deadbeat dad. Win win for the kid.


----------



## naiveonedave

samyeagar said:


> Much like the trend has been in divorce where parental access has been separated from financial support, perhaps they should go the same way with paternity. The bio dad gets to be on the hook for the financial support regardless of whether they are in the kids life or not, and the emotional dad has parental rights independent of financial obligation. That way, the man who has been there for the kids has no financial disincentive to continue being there for the child, resentment is minimized, and the child is financially supported by the deadbeat dad. Win win for the kid.


After reading the NYT article linked above, this is absolutely the way this should go. Judges clearly need to have more freedom to try to make it right for all parties. Non-bio fathers should be able to 'D' the child or be able to stay in their lives as a parent. The OM should be on the hook for CS. If the WW doesn't come forward with the name of the OM, she should be held accountable to the state in some way (threat of jail time, lose $ from government are ideas, not sure what is right tho)


----------



## samyeagar

naiveonedave said:


> After reading the NYT article linked above, this is absolutely the way this should go. Judges clearly need to have more freedom to try to make it right for all parties. Non-bio fathers should be able to 'D' the child or be able to stay in their lives as a parent. The OM should be on the hook for CS. If the WW doesn't come forward with the name of the OM, she should be held accountable to the state in some way (threat of jail time, lose $ from government are ideas, not sure what is right tho)


Routine birth paternity testing, and add a couple lines to the birth certificate...emotional father, and biological father. The emotional father gets paternal rights, the biological father gets financial obligation. Most cases, they would be the same, but in cases where they weren't it would give the emotional father some options, and would encourage the mother to accurately identify the bio dad...because surely double whammying the non bio father with the revelation that his partner did something outside the relationship, and he has to be on the hook for it...that is certainly not in the best interests of the child.


----------



## Jessica38

MEM2020 said:


> 1. Your genome gives you - at best a partial picture of your medical risks.
> 
> Agreed, genetic testing gives an incomplete picture because:
> 
> 2. Your epigenetic layer - some of which is inherited going back at least 1-2 generations - determines how active individual genes are.
> 
> Epigenetics refers to how your lifestyle, environment, and disease state influence how your genes are expressed ("post-genetic expression"). All can be optimized without knowing your transgenerational history.
> 
> 3. Which is why - folks from different families with the same SNPs for a certain disease - may have radically different outcomes with one persons family riddled with a disease and the others not. Real world family medical history is very important which is why paternity is really important.
> 
> Agreed, when considering SHARED similar lifestyle and environmental factors. If you are not eating the same foods as your bio father, or living in the same home , breathing the same polluted air, and drinking the same water, and managing the same daily stressors, it is not similar. You'd have much more in common with the non-bio father raising you, in terms of toxin exposure, adverse events, stress, etc that all influence post-genetic expression. One pediatric oncologist I recently spoke with explained that the significant increase in childhood cancer (now 1 in 285 kids by age 20 in the US) can no longer be chalked up to "bad luck" or "just genetics" but instead, experts are now focusing on lifestyle and environmental factors for how those genes are expressed. Recent studies show that the explosion in Parkinson's is preventable, for example, since exposure to 11 common pesticides increase your risk of developing PD by as much as 6 times. Genetic testing can help optimize lifestyle and environment to reduce health risks. If a child has the MTHFR polymorphism, for example, their methylation process can be optimized through diet and supplementation. Dr. Terry Wahls talks about optimizing these factors to reverse symptoms of MS in her viral Ted Talk, for example, and her protocol is currently being tested on those with PD.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Married but Happy said:


> I have to agree. As is, the system discourages marriage and supports infidelity.


When you look at the people responcible for writing the laws this does make a lot of sense.



samyeagar said:


> Routine birth paternity testing, and add a couple lines to the birth certificate...*emotional father,* and biological father. The emotional father gets paternal rights, the biological father gets financial obligation. Most cases, they would be the same, but in cases where they weren't it would give the emotional father some options, and would encourage the mother to accurately identify the bio dad...because surely double whammying the non bio father with the revelation that his partner did something outside the relationship, and he has to be on the hook for it...that is certainly not in the best interests of the child.


What on earth is an emotional father? I suspect that it is impossible as we have already proven that men don't have emotional intelligence.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
A non invasive informational read - of DNA or a cell phone bill - are the same. 

If M2 was anxious about me having an affair - I'd want her to read my cell phone bill - since I have nothing to hide - and it would allay her concerns. 

You might consider that 'breaking trust', but I don't. It isn't about me - it's solely a self soothing anxiety management strategy.




jld said:


> Hey, I am not opposed to mandatory DNA testing at birth. Clarifies things right away.
> 
> Certainly not anything that I ever thought of, though.
> 
> If you choose to break trust with your spouse, or your children, for that matter, at any point in your relationship with them, for whatever reason, just be ready to face whatever consequences may ensue.


----------



## MEM2020

Jessica,

Wow. It is always a pleasure to identify a true expert in a field - which you clearly are. And which I am not. 

My limited knowledge comes from a sort of hobby like interest in this topic. Primary relevant point below in bold. The bold is mine, not wikis. 



From wiki: 
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is the transmittance of information from one generation of an organism to the next (e.g., parent–child transmittance) that affects the traits of offspring without alteration of the primary structure of DNA (i.e., the sequence of nucleotides)[2][3]—in other words, epigenetically. The less precise term "epigenetic inheritance" may be used to describe both cell–cell and organism–organism information transfer. Although these two levels of epigenetic inheritance are equivalent in unicellular organisms, they may have distinct mechanisms and evolutionary distinctions in multicellular organisms.

*For some epigenetically influenced traits, the epigenetic marks can be induced by the environment[2] and some marks are heritable,[2] leading some to view epigenetics as a relaxation of the rejection of soft inheritance of acquired characteristics.[3]
*


----------



## Jessica38

MEM2020 said:


> Jessica,
> 
> Wow. It is always a pleasure to identify a true expert in a field - which you clearly are. And which I am not.
> 
> My limited knowledge comes from a sort of hobby like interest in this topic. Primary relevant point below in bold. The bold is mine, not wikis.
> 
> 
> 
> From wiki:
> Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is the transmittance of information from one generation of an organism to the next (e.g., parent–child transmittance) that affects the traits of offspring without alteration of the primary structure of DNA (i.e., the sequence of nucleotides)[2][3]—in other words, epigenetically. The less precise term "epigenetic inheritance" may be used to describe both cell–cell and organism–organism information transfer. Although these two levels of epigenetic inheritance are equivalent in unicellular organisms, they may have distinct mechanisms and evolutionary distinctions in multicellular organisms.
> 
> *For some epigenetically influenced traits, the epigenetic marks can be induced by the environment[2] and some marks are heritable,[2] leading some to view epigenetics as a relaxation of the rejection of soft inheritance of acquired characteristics.[3]
> *


Yes, a parent's lifestyle, diet, and environmental exposure can indirectly affect a child's health, but there is much debate in the medical community over whether transgenerational epigenetics inheritance is a widespread enough phenomenon to radically change our approach to health care (which is what we would have to do). Functional medicine is just now gaining traction and while most providers do look at family history when available, treatment and prevention is focused on genetics and necessary lifestyle, environment, and dietary modifications to reduce risks.

Transgenerational epigenetics research suggests that considerations like how many alcoholic drinks your father had, and your mother's weekly diet and if she had amalgam fillings prior to becoming pregnant, if either drank fluoridated water, if they were exposed to agent orange, etc. are helpful, but what do we do with that info? And when was the last time your medical provider asked for that info?

Bottom line: our children's generation is the first that is not expected to live as long as their parents. We are all coasting on the healthier life enjoyed by most of our grandparents. We would be far more prudent to support our children's health by eliminating their exposure to environmental and dietary toxins, supporting their methylation pathways with a lifestyle that includes plenty of exercise, and giving them a nutrient-rich diet based on whole foods while supplementing as necessary based on their genetic makeup than we would by hunting down answers from their grandparents, who did not suffer the explosion in health risks children face today. Added to the above, the EPA lists cellular radiation as a huge health risk for our children, and that is something neither our grandparents nor our parents faced.


----------



## Hope1964

So Jessica, are you saying that parentage is now a moot point as far as health history is concerned?

I don't know about where you live, but where I live it's rare to get tested genetically unless someone thinks there might be a problem. And to think there might be a problem, you have to know your family history. I have no clue how much it costs to 'send away your kids spit' but I kinda doubt it's something many people actually do. Hence, we rely on family history.


----------



## soccermom2three

I would be devastated.


----------



## Jessica38

Hope1964 said:


> So Jessica, are you saying that parentage is now a moot point as far as health history is concerned?
> 
> I don't know about where you live, but where I live it's rare to get tested genetically unless someone thinks there might be a problem. And to think there might be a problem, you have to know your family history. I have no clue how much it costs to 'send away your kids spit' but I kinda doubt it's something many people actually do. Hence, we rely on family history.


When we don't have a full medical family history, we can use genetic testing to find out if a person has genes predisposing them to a particular disease, and reduce their risk with further testing and possible prevention and treatment. 

I mentioned the cost in my previous post: $199. And many patients who see functional medicine providers do get genetically tested, as most with symptoms are advised to do so regardless if family medical history is known.


----------



## MJJEAN

samyeagar said:


> Routine birth paternity testing, and add a couple lines to the birth certificate...emotional father, and biological father. The emotional father gets paternal rights, the biological father gets financial obligation. Most cases, they would be the same, but in cases where they weren't it would give the emotional father some options, and would encourage the mother to accurately identify the bio dad...because surely double whammying the non bio father with the revelation that his partner did something outside the relationship, and he has to be on the hook for it...that is certainly not in the best interests of the child.


I like this idea for reasons only semi-related to the topic. My exH is a complete POS. We separated 17 years ago when the kids were 6 and 1 year old. He left state a few months after the divorce was final. I received one check for child support THIS WEEK. Yup. 17 years, 1 child support check. It was...I'll post a pic if ya'll want...for $0.74. 

All these years my former AP and now DH has been supporting the kids from my first marriage both financially and emotionally. Yet, if I had died before they reached adulthood, my POS exH who abandoned them would automatically get custody over my DH. If birth records had a section for "emotional father", it would follow that emotional father would have legal rights. I'd have petitioned the court for a birth record amendment, added DH's name as "emotional father", and he'd have had a leg to stand on in event of my death.


----------



## As'laDain

I wouldn't give two hoots about my father testing my dna for paternity reasons. 

He is the man who raised me. I have known for a long time that my mother slept with random guys while my father was away on deployment. 

You might think that I think less of her for this, but I don't. Not at all. My mother hated the street life, but her father kinda forced her into it when she was quite young. So, when my parents were newly married, he did everything he could to beguile my father and destroy my mother. My mother didn't believe that my father could ever believe how abusive her father was. My father saw it for himself, however. Eventually...

Just so ya'll know, I don't hold anything against my mother because we(my brothers and i) probably would have ended up in the foster system if it weren't for my mothers willingness to do practically ANYTHING to keep us with her. 

I share a **** ton of genetic traits with my mother. I share a few with my father. If he was not my biological father, I really couldn't give a ****. He is my dad. 

Strangely enough though, I wouldn't be all that hurt if he found out that I wasn't his and decided to cut me out of his life. But, that is probably the ASPD talking...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

FeministInPink said:


> All philosophical debates aside, many of which have already begun here before I could post, I think @jld is looking for personal opinions or reactions. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> *If I learned that MY father had a DNA test done, I would be very upset. For HIM. Because a DNA test, with others urging him to do it, means that my mom was cheating on him. And that would destroy my dad. He adores my mother, despite the fact that she treats him poorly. He absolutely ADORES her.
> *
> *And I love my dad, so so much. If I found out my mother did that to him, I would probably never speak to her, ever again. Because my dad doesn't deserve that.*
> 
> That's all if they did a test on me when I was a baby or very young.
> 
> The question is a non-starter now, as an adult. There are genetic, hereditary markers which establish his paternity, no DNA test required. There is no way that I am not my father's daughter.


I appreciate this post as it's my initial reaction .. in my parents case.. my father has only been with 2 women in his lifetime..... both of them his wives.. my mother, on the other hand.. she had her tubes tied after having me.. if she didn't...it could have been very questionable who the father could have been... there were many...(all that happened AFTER the divorce)

As with anything questionable... the truth should come out...I find it the gravest of injustices, the worst a woman can do to a man...especially a good man who has been devoted and true to her...to be cheated on, then lied to, about his own children... 

If he starts hanging about men who have been cheated on / or had this happen to them, they could be severely jaded and feel ALL WOMEN are like that.. this is a shame.. and it's not true by any means.. Hopefully, in these cases, these Fathers will understand and see it for what it is.. that they are speaking out of their own pain, anguish and distrust ... 

Influences of any sort should be weighed for what they are.. as to WHY others feel as strongly as they do... but not allow those to infiltrate enough to suddenly lose trust in what has always been... if it has always been, a devoted strong, marriage...(can I add willingly transparent to that too !)

There should at the very least be some red flags, or missing pieces in the past, some REASONS behind why anyone would question another man's paternity..


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband

Anon Pink said:


> I am not denying your right to know. Yes, wanting to if you are the father means that your actions will change depending on the test's outcome. It means if you are not the father, you will abandon the child, because if you would never abandon the child regardless of the paternity test, why would you want a paternity test in the first place?
> 
> What are you implying with a paternity test? What does that test commmunicate *to the child? *
> 
> If you are not the father you don't want to parent that child. It means your love for that child is/was predicated on your biological connection. You can disagree all you want but it's true. A paternity test means conditional love.
> 
> If you think every birth should be accompanied by a paternity test, perhaps you should rethink marriage in general, and rethink your ability to pick a good partner in particular.


I have to disagree. A friend of mine had a dna test done. He and wife had several kids. One didn't resemble the rest. Test proved he was not the father. After wife's new bf put one of the kids in the ER, ex-husband got custody of ALL the kids and sent the cheater down the road. I would do the same. It's not the kid's fault mom is a cheater. And who wants to support a cheater.


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband

SimplyAmorous said:


> I appreciate this post as it's my initial reaction .. in my parents case.. my father has only been with 2 women in his lifetime..... both of them his wives.. my mother, on the other hand.. she had her tubes tied after having me.. if she didn't...it could have been very questionable who the father could have been... there were many...(all that happened AFTER the divorce)
> 
> *As with anything questionable... the truth should come out...I find it the gravest of injustices, the worst a woman can do to a man...especially a good man who has been devoted and true to her...to be cheated on, then lied to, about his own children...
> 
> *If he starts hanging about men who have been cheated on / or had this happen to them, they could be severely jaded and feel ALL WOMEN are like that.. this is a shame.. and it's not true by any means.. Hopefully, in these cases, these Fathers will understand and see it for what it is.. that they are speaking out of their own pain, anguish and distrust ...
> 
> Influences of any sort should be weighed for what they are.. as to WHY others feel as strongly as they do... but not allow those to infiltrate enough to suddenly lose trust in what has always been... if it has always been, a devoted strong, marriage...(can I add willingly transparent to that too !)
> 
> There should at the very least be some red flags, or missing pieces in the past, some REASONS behind why anyone would question another man's paternity..


:iagree: Best summary of this whole thread


----------



## Andy1001

On the same topic but coming from a slightly different viewpoint.If any of the women posting here are vehemently against the idea of DNA testing then don't marry into any of the super wealthy families around.The daughter in laws children are almost always tested usually without the mothers knowledge.This is because of inheritance and can explain why some children from super wealthy families don't inherit.Mommy was playing away from home and while Dad sucked it up grandpa and grandma weren't so accepting.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> I will post it again because you were too quick and I edit my posts too much.
> 
> Are these "fathers" as the professionals call them required to spend time with the children they pay for? Are they required to bond with the kids, tell them they love them? Since I am sure they are not, as that would be even too absurd for the French yet, the basic argument boils down to fatherhood is a paycheck but DNA is not. It's laughable.
> 
> Another reason that is is lazy is because it defies the very thing that you say French society is oriented around, the group and its interests. In this case French society makes the individual (that being the defrauded man) pay for a child that isn't his. If they are so communal why not in this case? Why doesn't the group pay as it could very easily be argued it is a group or societal problem. Again lazy and dishonest.
> 
> A Father is a paycheck really fits the zeitgeist though. The truth is the argument is really only made because the state doesn't want to pay for the child. The whole thing is insulting to everyone who is decent.
> 
> And jld you are arguing for deadbeat Dads not to pay for their children.
> 
> PS yes I purposely used a German word to describe the silly French thinking here. >


If the French legal system has determined it is in the best interests of French society not to allow paternity testing outside of court, then they must have their reasons. 

Interestingly enough, I have never heard this topic discussed in France. But I will bring it up the next time I am there. I would like to hear what people I know think of it.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> If you encourage bad/selfish/deceptive behavior - you will get more of it. And that's exactly what these French laws do.
> 
> If you hold adults responsible for their behavior - you tend to get more responsible behavior.
> 
> Trying to force someone to pay (for half or more) of their partners betrayal - is an outrageous over reach of government power.


In your opinion. Which is clearly not the opinion of the French court system.

I don't know that there is any evidence that their laws have caused more paternal fraud. It could be that there will always be a certain amount of it in any given society. But this is an effort to lessen any negative effects of it on the child. 

It may be like laws forbidding discrimination against gays. Do those laws increase the number of homosexuals in a society? 

Some people might claim that. Others may say they simply protect gays from other people's paranoia and discrimination.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> I really haven't lost sight of the fact that we really are all related by blood by virtue or curse of belonging to the vast, sprawling, squabbling **** sapien family. We all share a common ancestor maybe a million years ago. Maybe that's something that adoptive parents just 'get'.


Glad to hear this, MEM.


----------



## jld

Personal said:


> @jld how would you feel?


Betrayed.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> If the French legal system has determined it is in the best interests of French society not to allow paternity testing outside of court, then they must have their reasons.
> 
> Interestingly enough, I have never heard this topic discussed in France. But I will bring it up the next time I am there. I would like to hear what people I know think of it.


I have often wondered whether you are always as serious as you appear in your writing and your last post has me even moved confused.🤔.
You have a culture (In France) where it seems to be almost compulsory for male politicians to have a mistress.
These politicians make the laws.
Have you ever known a politician to pay for something when he can get someone else to pay for it.When these guys get their mistresses pregnant isn't it a great idea to make the poor cuckolded husband pay to bring up the child rather than their good selves.
Think about it.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> A non invasive informational read - of DNA or a cell phone bill - are the same.
> 
> If M2 was anxious about me having an affair - I'd want her to read my cell phone bill - since I have nothing to hide - and it would allay her concerns.
> 
> You might consider that 'breaking trust', but I don't. It isn't about me - it's solely a self soothing anxiety management strategy.


If you willingly offer her your phone, not due to any coercion, you are voluntarily being transparent. There is no trust broken.

But if one spouse decides, without the permission or knowledge of the other partner, to look through their phone, that may indeed break trust.

I certainly would not trust a partner who did that. 

MEM, does your wife know you tested your kids?

Do your kids know?


----------



## jld

soccermom2three said:


> I would be devastated.


Me, too, soccermom.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> On the same topic but coming from a slightly different viewpoint.If any of the women posting here are vehemently against the idea of DNA testing then don't marry into any of the super wealthy families around.*The daughter in laws children are almost always tested usually without the mothers knowledge.*This is because of inheritance and can explain why some children from super wealthy families don't inherit.Mommy was playing away from home and while Dad sucked it up grandpa and grandma weren't so accepting.


I think in laws of modest means are also capable of this sort of deception, Andy.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I have often wondered whether you are always as serious as you appear in your writing and your last post has me even moved confused.&#55358;&#56596;.
> You have a culture (In France) where it seems to be almost compulsory for male politicians to have a mistress.
> These politicians make the laws.
> *Have you ever known a politician to pay for something when he can get someone else to pay for it.*When these guys get their mistresses pregnant isn't it a great idea to make the poor cuckolded husband pay to bring up the child rather than their good selves.
> Think about it.


Good point, Andy. Cynical, but realistic. Sadly, the bolded is not limited to politicians.

These paternity fraud laws apply to everyone in France, though, not just politicians.

And not every French politician has a mistress, just like not every American politician has one. 

The French are not universally approving of adultery, either. My husband certainly is not, nor are his parents. I can think of plenty of other French people who are not, either.

There seems to be a lot more financial support of children offered by French society than Americans are used to. Again, the interests of the group usually outweigh the interests of the individual in France.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I personally feel in this casual sexed up, "non monogamy" society where Open relationships are now being accepted as "normal", well and good...and it's not like everyone is so responsible with their sex lives, not to mention birth control is never 100%, more easy cheating today then ever in history ...whether married or not... it's a damn shame EVERY CHILD born is not tested in the hospital along with all those other tests.. 

We all know it would cause World War 3 if the man decides to do this , and the woman finds out.. If it becomes part of the standard testing for all babies, then however, she can't blame the man for getting it done.. I just feel strongly every man has the RIGHT TO KNOW before his name gets printed on any birth certificate, for what that entails for him financially.


----------



## MJJEAN

I did some checking. Turns out, the laws that make legal husband also legal father were in place in my state before modern paternity testing. These laws were written here back when most states weren't even allowing blood tests in court and DNA testing was science fiction. So, I think the real issue is that these laws come from a time when it was literally impossible to know who the father was with any certainty. Now that science can actually prove paternity, these laws need to be overhauled.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
It's true what the experts say. The more anxious someone becomes, the less able they are to accurately perceive their environment. 

Go and re-read my very short post on 23 and me. It is short and fairly clear. And while it may reflect my dark sense of humor, it is a completely honest post. If you calmly - read that post - it becomes obvious what I do and don't know. 

As for the phone bill - no offense but in my opinion - you've lost the thread. Who - when and how long I speak to folks isn't a secret and isn't something I assert privacy rights over. Once more: If she self soothes by reading my phone bill, doesn't bother me in the least. I don't happen to need to self soothe that way. I just don't. Never really have. 

I don't need to monitor her interactions with other folks because our direct interactions tell me she wants to be with me. No need to self soothe cause I'm not anxious. 




jld said:


> If you willingly offer her your phone, not due to any coercion, you are voluntarily being transparent. There is no trust broken.
> 
> But if one spouse decides, without the permission or knowledge of the other partner, to look through their phone, that may indeed break trust.
> 
> I certainly would not trust a partner who did that.
> 
> MEM, does your wife know you tested your kids?
> 
> Do your kids know?


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> It's true what the experts say. The more anxious someone becomes, the less able they are to accurately perceive their environment.
> 
> Go and re-read my very short post on 23 and me. It is short and fairly clear. And while it may reflect my dark sense of humor, it is a completely honest post. If you calmly - read that post - it becomes obvious what I do and don't know.
> 
> As for the phone bill - no offense but in my opinion - you've lost the thread. *Who - when and how long I speak to folks isn't a secret and isn't something I assert privacy rights over. * Once more: If she self soothes by reading my phone bill, doesn't bother me in the least. I don't happen to need to self soothe that way. I just don't. Never really have.
> 
> I don't need to monitor her interactions with other folks because our direct interactions tell me she wants to be with me. No need to self soothe cause I'm not anxious.


Right. You have made that clear. You would be voluntarily transparent with her. Her trust in you would not be broken.

I take it you do not want to say why you tested your kids? 

And if you told their mother and/or them that you did?


----------



## Andy1001

SimplyAmorous said:


> I personally feel in this casual sexed up, "non monogamy" society where Open relationships are now being accepted as "normal", well and good...and it's not like everyone is so responsible with their sex lives, not to mention birth control is never 100%, more easy cheating today then ever in history ...whether married or not... it's a damn shame EVERY CHILD born is not tested in the hospital along with all those other tests..
> 
> We all know it would cause World War 3 if the man decides to do this , and the woman finds out.. If it becomes part of the standard testing for all babies, then however, she can't blame the man for getting it done.. I just feel strongly every man has the RIGHT TO KNOW before his name gets printed on any birth certificate, for what that entails for him financially.


You don't have to wait until the child is born to do a DNA test.After a woman is ten weeks pregnant a blood sample from her and the supposed father will prove it one way or another.If the woman has nothing to hide then why is it such a big deal.
It will end up like the cases where one partner spies on the others phone and finds out their cheating,the cheat tries to make out that spying on their phone is worse than cheating.


----------



## samyeagar

And going down the whole think about the children line of thinking...does a child have an inherent right to know who their biological father is?

At least in my state, the adoption laws seem to think so, as in even closed adoptions, children have the legal right to their biological parents information. If the wrong name is put on the birth certificate, then essentially the child has been adopted by the father whose name is on the birth certificate.

I would submit then that it would be in the child's best interest to have all of these issues sorted out right at birth.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

I take it you are choosing not to do this one simple thing I asked? Your self awareness sub system appears to have fully deactivated. 

Separate from the self awareness issue, there are some very simple pragmatic issues seem to have escaped you. 




jld said:


> Right. You have made that clear. You would be voluntarily transparent with her. Her trust in you would not be broken.
> 
> I take it you do not want to say why you tested your kids?
> 
> And if you told their mother and/or them that you did?


----------



## MJJEAN

jld said:


> If you willingly offer her your phone, not due to any coercion, you are voluntarily being transparent. There is no trust broken.
> 
> But if one spouse decides, without the permission or knowledge of the other partner, to look through their phone, that may indeed break trust.
> 
> I certainly would not trust a partner who did that.


I figure everything is marital property. This includes phones and other electronic devices, cars, musical instruments, and (especially!) T-shirts and jammie bottoms. :grin2: 

Seriously, though, I believe that when we marry two really do become one spiritually, socially, and legally. If we're one then everything that belongs to me belongs to him and vice versa. So, using or browsing through each others phones or tablets or whatever isn't seen as a violation of trust by either of us.




jld said:


> I think in laws of modest means are also capable of this sort of deception, Andy.


When my exH had a court ordered DNA test to prove paternity for his son the cost to him was $1,500 and the cost to the mother was also $1,500. This was circa 1991. Back then, most people wouldn't have been able to afford a DNA test without taking a hard financial hit AND it would have involved taking blood samples from the mother, the child, and the presumed father. Now, the cost is less than $500 total and all you need is a saliva sample. Considering how kids ooze gross from every orifice, I imagine getting some spit from a baby or toddler wouldn't be difficult. I don't doubt that many in-laws of modest means are secretly testing kids they suspect aren't biologically related considering how cheap and easy it is to do it under the radar.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> 
> I take it you are choosing not to do this one simple thing I asked? Your self awareness sub system appears to have fully deactivated.
> 
> Separate from the self awareness issue, there are some very simple pragmatic issues seem to have escaped you.


I reread your post. Sorry, not seeing how it relates.

You do not seem to want to answer my very simple and direct questions. And you certainly are not obligated to.


----------



## Anon Pink

MartinBeck said:


> Great article on this. Lots of stories and analysis. Opening story: Mom cheats, husband has paternity test, finds out kid isn't his. They split. Mom marries affair partner, the biological father. The ex-husband is paying child support to a *intact biological family*.
> 
> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html



That is a much more complicated situation than your "summary" suggests.

The little girl was 4 when the father discovered he was not the father and he divorced his wife. He paid child support and had the every other weekend custody with the little girl, who continues now at age 11, to stay with him every other weekend.

Now that his ex is marrying the little girl's biological father, he wants to stop paying child support. 

On the surface, seems logical and reasonable.

But the only legal way for him to stop paying child support is by having his parental rights terminated and cutting off all ties to that child.

It is wrong that the biological father, in so many of these situations, isn't being forced to pony up. 

It is just as wrong that the emotional father wants to walk away from his daughter to avoid paying to support a child that isn't his.

However, the best interests of the child remain front and center.

You're the father of this little girl. You love each other and you have a say in her life. In order to have a say in her life, you must have a role in her life; a parental role.

Maybe this wronged man should sue bio dad for fraud and seek damages in the amount of accumulated child support. If the wronged man continues to pay child support, he continues to have a role in the child's life. Without that legal role, he has no right to any contact with that child. So he continues to pay each month as bio dad reimburses him as part of his judgement for fraud.

Sperm donors must be held financially accountable!!!!! Far far far too many men making babies and whistling away.


Interesting that the author of the article references a play written 150 years ago by August Strindberg “The Father” in which the father laments his 17 years of servitude for a child not his as he seeks comfort and support from his own childhood nursemaid...a mother figure who offers him love and wisdom even though they are not biologically related. The nursemaid is no longer being paid to love and comfort him and yet she continues to do so. 

What was Strindberg's message there? Why not write that the father seeks advice from his father, or even his mother? Why his nursemaid?



@samyeagar

Your situation is entirely different and this thread isn't about gripes about child support or parental alienation. I know your ex is a horrendous person, much like my evil psycho-***** ex SIL, who has alienated you from your kids, they remain, your kids and you cannot tie your support of them to their relationship with you; especially since you know it is only as bad as it is because of the poison your ex feeds them. They are being manipulated into believing their mother. Do not feed them ammunition to use against you!

Being forced to pay for their college is one of the unfortunate by products of divorce. You now have a 3rd party in the decision making team and the 3rd party is only interested in what is best for the child.

You are remarried and you say you love your wife's kids as if they were your own and that is very good. Knowing this though, the judge will want to ensure you take care of your kids before you take care of a new wife or step kids.


----------



## jld

@MJJEAN, Dug and I are transparent with each other, too. But it is a voluntary transparency, inspired by our trust in each other, not coerced or achieved through spying.


----------



## MEM2020

Are being intentionally non specific? 

You wrote: I reread your post 

Which is a generally meaningless statement. I have many posts and without clarity on which one you reread I have no idea what you meant. 

The post I directed you to was recent, short, and obvious to anyone who is carefully 'reading for comprehension'. I have a lot of experience with willful incomprehension. This is starting to feel like that. 

The answer is in front of you, if you choose not to see it, that's most likely due to anxiety. 

When you feel calm, and inclined towards collaboration this will become much easier. 





jld said:


> I reread your post. Sorry, not seeing how it relates.
> 
> You do not seem to want to answer my very simple and direct questions. And you certainly are not obligated to.


----------



## MJJEAN

Anon Pink said:


> Maybe this wronged man should sue bio dad for fraud and seek damages in the amount of accumulated child support. If the wronged man continues to pay child support, he continues to have a role in the child's life. Without that legal role, he has no right to any contact with that child. So he continues to pay each month as bio dad reimburses him as part of his judgement for fraud.
> 
> Sperm donors must be held financially accountable!!!!! Far far far too many men making babies and whistling away.


So, I did some more checking because I'm bored. Anyways...

If a married woman commits paternity fraud and the husband paid child support for a child that wasn't his, he can't sue the father. He has to sue the mother for the support because she was the recipient of the money. Then, to make the "sperm donor" accountable, the mother has to sue him for the support. However, the mother can only start a suit while the child is a minor.

I also found out that if there is already a father on the birth certificate, no DNA testing can be court ordered. First, they have to get a court order to remove the listed father and then the court will allow DNA testing ordered or an Affidavit of Parentage to be presented.

The more I read, the more I become in favor or DNA testing during pregnancy! They do so many tests during the first and last trimesters that adding one more test would be a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Anon Pink

In my years working with at risk youth, I had maybe 5 cases of an intact family and all of those were immigrants who lacked the skills to guide a child to adulthood in this country. I had exactly two cases in which the father was the single parent. 

There are a hell of a lot more men who walk away from their kids than women. I am not without sympathy for betrayed spouses and the fraud their WW imposes upon them. 

But I've seen what happens when children are raised without a father to support them and protect them.

Men of TAM excluded: stop making babies you're not going to raise! Whether you're ****ing a married woman or just ****ing, stop making babies you're not going to raise!


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> Are being intentionally non specific?
> 
> You wrote: I reread your post
> 
> Which is a generally meaningless statement. I have many posts and without clarity on which one you reread I have no idea what you meant.
> 
> The post I directed you to was recent, short, and obvious to anyone who is carefully 'reading for comprehension'. I have a lot of experience with willful incomprehension. This is starting to feel like that.
> 
> The answer is in front of you, if you choose not to see it, that's most likely due to anxiety.
> 
> When you feel calm, and inclined towards collaboration this will become much easier.


This was the post you asked me to reread, correct?:



MEM2020 said:


> Vehemently agree with this.
> 
> In fact - I sort of feel like - you either do it at birth or you simply don't do it.
> 
> And - earlier was a comment about 23 and me - a service we've used.
> 
> I'm 35% ashkenazi Jew. The kids are all - 17.5% Ashkenazi. What that tells me is - if M2 had an affair:
> - She had all three kids with the same affair partner
> - He has a remarkably similar genetic makeup to mine - hell maybe even a distant relative


To which I responded: _You tested your kids? Why?_

And then I later asked if your wife and kids knew you tested them.

Now, as you stated, "_we've used_," it could be that your wife knew. Or maybe the kids knew. I do not know who the "we" refers to. And it still does not answer the question Why you tested them to start with.

But you are certainly under no obligation to respond.

As an aside, the editorial comments about "willing incomprehension" and "anxiety" are, imo, unprofessional from a moderator. Why not simply answer my clear and direct questions, instead of hedging them, or simply say you do not feel comfortable answering?


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> That is a much more complicated situation than your "summary" suggests.
> 
> The little girl was 4 when the father discovered he was not the father and he divorced his wife. He paid child support and had the every other weekend custody with the little girl, who continues now at age 11, to stay with him every other weekend.
> 
> Now that his ex is marrying the little girl's biological father, he wants to stop paying child support.
> 
> On the surface, seems logical and reasonable.
> 
> But the only legal way for him to stop paying child support is by having his parental rights terminated and cutting off all ties to that child.
> 
> It is wrong that the biological father, in so many of these situations, isn't being forced to pony up.
> 
> It is just as wrong that the emotional father wants to walk away from his daughter to avoid paying to support a child that isn't his.
> 
> However, the best interests of the child remain front and center.
> 
> You're the father of this little girl. You love each other and you have a say in her life. In order to have a say in her life, you must have a role in her life; a parental role.
> 
> Maybe this wronged man should sue bio dad for fraud and seek damages in the amount of accumulated child support. If the wronged man continues to pay child support, he continues to have a role in the child's life. Without that legal role, he has no right to any contact with that child. So he continues to pay each month as bio dad reimburses him as part of his judgement for fraud.
> 
> Sperm donors must be held financially accountable!!!!! Far far far too many men making babies and whistling away.
> 
> 
> Interesting that the author of the article references a play written 150 years ago by August Strindberg “The Father” in which the father laments his 17 years of servitude for a child not his as he seeks comfort and support from his own childhood nursemaid...a mother figure who offers him love and wisdom even though they are not biologically related. The nursemaid is no longer being paid to love and comfort him and yet she continues to do so.
> 
> What was Strindberg's message there? Why not write that the father seeks advice from his father, or even his mother? Why his nursemaid?
> 
> 
> 
> @samyeagar
> 
> Your situation is entirely different and this thread isn't about gripes about child support or parental alienation. I know your ex is a horrendous person, much like my evil psycho-***** ex SIL, who has alienated you from your kids, they remain, your kids and you cannot tie your support of them to their relationship with you; especially since you know it is only as bad as it is because of the poison your ex feeds them. They are being manipulated into believing their mother. Do not feed them ammunition to use against you!
> 
> Being forced to pay for their college is one of the unfortunate by products of divorce. You now have a 3rd party in the decision making team and the 3rd party is only interested in what is best for the child.
> 
> You are remarried and you say you love your wife's kids as if they were your own and that is very good. Knowing this though, the judge will want to ensure you take care of your kids before you take care of a new wife or step kids.


Well, the initial subject given for this thread is so broad if one expands beyond just a simple yes or no answer with their reasoning behind the answer that it's pretty much open field as to what is on topic. I see so many of these things as being related, and there are many different schools of thought on what is best for the children, and hell, any more, when does a child become an adult? It sure isn't 18 any more. 

I do understand all too well what my children have, and continue to deal with, but I still expect some semblance of basic human courtesy from them. I still regularly reach out, knowing full well not to expect even a thanks, or Merry Christmas, or Happy Father's Day in return, but I still do it anyway. What I won't do is allow myself to be used by them...I would die for my kids, but won't let them be the ones to kill me...or something like that.

Taking the next step into how family courts and law work...in an awful lot of situations things are not conducive to fostering healthy relationships between parents and kids. Yes, they are good at getting financial and material support, but as it is in my case, and I am no where near alone in this...yeah, the kids get a bunch of stuff, but add the court orders to the fact that the over 20 year legal adult kids have completely disowned my while still taking the court ordered benefits, there is a level of resentment building that I have no way of alleviating, and none of this is good for anyone.


----------



## Anon Pink

FrazzledSadHusband said:


> I have to disagree. A friend of mine had a dna test done. He and wife had several kids. One didn't resemble the rest. Test proved he was not the father. After wife's new bf put one of the kids in the ER, ex-husband got custody of ALL the kids and sent the cheater down the road. I would do the same. It's not the kid's fault mom is a cheater. And who wants to support a cheater.


So you're suggesting that a paternity test be used to gain full custody of all the kids because the WW is an unfit mother?

Worth contemplating.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> In your opinion. Which is clearly not the opinion of the French court system.
> 
> I don't know that there is any evidence that their laws have caused more paternal fraud. It could be that there will always be a certain amount of it in any given society. But this is an effort to lessen any negative effects of it on the child.
> 
> It may be like laws forbidding discrimination against gays. Do those laws increase the number of homosexuals in a society?
> 
> Some people might claim that. Others may say they simply protect gays from other people's paranoia and discrimination.


Knowing the stance that French Society has taken on paternity testing, I would suspect that not only would they downplay or avoid anything that would threaten the stance, but that federal funding for research on the topic would also be difficult if not impossible.

This is just a suspicion based on the nature of government. I would welcome input on the subject.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> If the French legal system has determined it is in the best interests of French society not to allow paternity testing outside of court, then they must have their reasons.


They do - Money, which is why at least 75% of all decisions are made by any government, to get money, or to not have to spend money.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Knowing the stance that French Society has taken on paternity testing, I would suspect that not only would they downplay or avoid anything that would threaten the stance, but that federal funding for research on the topic would also be difficult if not impossible.
> 
> This is just a suspicion based on the nature of government. I would welcome input on the subject.


Given the usual limited nature of gov't research funding, and the ruling they have made, I doubt there would be much support for it. I am not aware of a big public outcry against it, either.

I am not sure how the child support system works in France. I did read on another forum that the payments are not as high as they are here, but am not sure if that is true or not.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> They do - Money, which is why at least 75% of all decisions are made by any government, to get money, or to not have to spend money.


Yes, there is certainly truth to that.


----------



## Anon Pink

samyeagar said:


> Well, the initial subject given for this thread is so broad if one expands beyond just a simple yes or no answer with their reasoning behind the answer that it's pretty much open field as to what is on topic. I see so many of these things as being related, and there are many different schools of thought on what is best for the children, and hell, any more, when does a child become an adult? It sure isn't 18 any more.
> 
> I do understand all too well what my children have, and continue to deal with, but I still expect some semblance of basic human courtesy from them. I still regularly reach out, knowing full well not to expect even a thanks, or Merry Christmas, or Happy Father's Day in return, but I still do it anyway. What I won't do is allow myself to be used by them...I would die for my kids, but won't let them be the ones to kill me...or something like that.
> 
> Taking the next step into how family courts and law work...in an awful lot of situations things are not conducive to fostering healthy relationships between parents and kids. Yes, they are good at getting financial and material support, but as it is in my case, and I am no where near alone in this...yeah, the kids get a bunch of stuff, but add the court orders to the fact that the kids have completely disowned my while still taking the court ordered benefits, there is a level of resentment building that I have no way of alleviating, and none of this is good for anyone.



I agree it's not good for anyone.

Have you read @Enjoli Woman s thread about Parental Alienation? It's in the parenting subsection. It seems the NPD have the rule book on how to alienate your kids from your ex and she tried to give insight and information on how to combat that problem. Essentially, you have to gain full custody by demonstrating parental alienation. The courts are recognizing this with increasing frequency and the experts agree that the only way to combat the psychological damage to the children by the alienating parent is to give custody to the other parent and deny visitation rights until the brainwashing has been countered.

Sam, you made those kids and no matter how ungrateful they act, you are their father. Aren't you worried what other damage your NPD ex is doing to them?


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> In your opinion.


Proven fact.



jld said:


> Which is clearly not the opinion of the French court system.


Aside from the obvious choices (Nazi Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc), and for sooo many reasons, I can scarcely imagine a nation that's further down on my personal "countries that I'd like the US to emulate" list.



jld said:


> *I don't know that there is any evidence that their laws have caused more paternal fraud.* It could be that there will always be a certain amount of it in any given society. But this is an effort to lessen any negative effects of it on the child.


LOL... how can there be when it's ILLEGAL to collect evidence?



jld said:


> It may be like laws forbidding discrimination against gays. Do those laws increase the number of homosexuals in a society?
> 
> Some people might claim that. Others may say they simply protect gays from other people's paranoia and discrimination.


You must be sore from all that stretching.


----------



## jld

To redirect the thread a bit, the debate seems to come down to Who has the most vulnerable interests here, the father or the child? Who are you most trying to protect?


----------



## GusPolinski

farsidejunky said:


> Knowing the stance that French Society has taken on paternity testing, I would suspect that not only would they downplay or avoid anything that would threaten the stance, but that federal funding for research on the topic would also be difficult if not impossible.
> 
> This is just a suspicion based on the nature of government. I would welcome input on the subject.


Your suspicion is likely enough.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Proven fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the obvious choices (Nazi Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc), and for sooo many reasons, I can scarcely imagine a nation that's further down on my personal "countries that I'd like the US to emulate" list.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... how can there be when it's ILLEGAL to collect evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> You must be sore from all that stretching.


I think if a gov't wanted to do research on a topic, they would find a way to do it.

I don't think you are ever going to eliminate paternity fraud in any society. It has surely been going on forever.

The French gov't seems to be trying to protect the group they consider to have the most vulnerable interests.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> To redirect the thread a bit, the debate seems to come down to Who has the most vulnerable interests here, the father or the child? Who are you most trying to protect?


The right of every man -- everywhere -- to choose FOR HIMSELF whether or not he wants to, or should, or whatever, spend decades of his life loving and providing for a child (or children) born of his wife's infidelity.

The right of every man -- everywhere -- to not be beholden to either his wayward wife or her offspring by way of a tyrannical nanny state.

The right of every child -- everywhere -- to know the truth of his or her biological parentage.

And about a million other things.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> The right of every man -- everywhere -- to choose FOR HIMSELF whether or not he wants to, or should, or whatever, spend decades of his life loving and providing for a child (or children) born of his wife's infidelity.
> 
> The right of every man -- everywhere -- to not be beholden to either his wayward wife or her offspring by way of a tyrannical nanny state.
> 
> The right of every child -- everywhere -- to know the truth of his or her biological parentage.
> 
> And about a million other things.


I will take that as a vote for the man.


----------



## Anon Pink

MJJEAN said:


> So, I did some more checking because I'm bored. Anyways...
> 
> If a married woman commits paternity fraud and the husband paid child support for a child that wasn't his, he can't sue the father. He has to sue the mother for the support because she was the recipient of the money. Then, to make the "sperm donor" accountable, the mother has to sue him for the support. However, the mother can only start a suit while the child is a minor.
> 
> I *also found out that if there is already a father on the birth certificate, no DNA testing can be court ordered. First, they have to get a court order to remove the listed father and then the court will allow DNA testing ordered or an Affidavit of Parentage to be presented.*
> 
> The more I read, the more I become in favor or DNA testing during pregnancy! They do so many tests during the first and last trimesters that adding one more test would be a drop in the bucket.



This is screwy!

Do you remember, just after you gave birth, the nurse came into the room and she filled out the birth certificate with the info you provided? In all 3 of my kids the nurse filled out the form wrong and misspelled their middle names...all 3! They were family names and important to me but I've been completely unable to get those birth certificates corrected.

What needs to change FIRST is how to apply for the certificate of live birth! It should be done when the mother is healthy and alert. Not right after delivery!

If the form was filled out with most of the information, excluding sex, weight..etc, with someone from the OB's office and the mother during a routine office visit. That way the woman can be counseled that the father's name cannot be changed without a court order and she needs to think long and hard about that name. Secondly, if she is unmarried the man she identifies as the father should also sign off. 

IDK, maybe there would be less fraud if paternity testing was routinely done.

Certainly would put an end to that TV show that specializes in showcasing the indiscriminate sex life of trailer trash. "Bill's not the father, and Steve's not the father, and Joe's not the father, nor is that other guy... can you think of anyone else you had sex with that month?"


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I think if a gov't wanted to do research on a topic, they would find a way to do it.


They don't want to. They don't care about paternity fraud. Why would they? Adultery is the norm over there.



jld said:


> II don't think you are ever going to eliminate paternity fraud in any society. It has surely been going on forever.


You'll never eliminate burglary, murder, gun violence, fraud, tax evasion, rape, traffic violations, or a whole host of other things either.

Doesn't mean you don't punish those who commit such infractions, much less make investigation of such infractions illegal.



jld said:


> IThe French gov't seems to be trying to protect the group they consider to have the most vulnerable interests.


Best way to do that would be to not pass laws encouraging the creation of even more of them.

Barring that, the government could -- in all its compassionate wisdom -- provide direct support for such children instead of sticking their fauxthers (who had nothing to do with creation the kids in the first place) with the bill.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I will take that as a vote for the man.


It's a vote for everyone.

Living in deception is the exact opposite of freedom.


----------



## Anon Pink

GusPolinski said:


> The right of every man -- everywhere -- to choose FOR HIMSELF whether or not he wants to, or should, or whatever, spend decades of his life loving and providing for a child (or children) born of his wife's infidelity.
> 
> The right of every man -- everywhere -- to not be beholden to either his wayward wife or her offspring by way of a tyrannical nanny state.
> 
> The right of every child -- everywhere -- to know the truth of his or her biological parentage.
> 
> And about a million other things.



None of those supersede the NEED of the child.

No one is suggesting it is fair. But a child's need is more important than an adults' equitable situation.


----------



## jld

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on just about everything, Gus.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> I agree it's not good for anyone.
> 
> Have you read @Enjoli Woman s thread about Parental Alienation? It's in the parenting subsection. It seems the NPD have the rule book on how to alienate your kids from your ex and she tried to give insight and information on how to combat that problem. Essentially, you have to gain full custody by demonstrating parental alienation. The courts are recognizing this with increasing frequency and the experts agree that the only way to combat the psychological damage to the children by the alienating parent is to give custody to the other parent and deny visitation rights until the brainwashing has been countered.
> 
> *Sam, you made those kids and no matter how ungrateful they act, you are their father. Aren't you worried what other damage your NPD ex is doing to them?*


She and I have taked about this. The kids were 10, 14, and 16 when my ex and I divorced. Absolutely the worst ages to try and fight alienation. I had the misfortune of divorcing in a particularly conservative jurisdiction, and did start down the road of fighting parental alienation. The problem was, beyond the fact that it was going to cost into the six figure realm, and the chances of actually gaining custody were slim, by the time it made it through the courts, the oldest two would be over 18, and so a moot point. By the time kids here hit 15, the courts have, with very few exceptions, ordered custody to whom ever the kids wanted to live with. Aside from proving a clear and present physical danger, case law here was very much against me. I even filed for a change of venue which was denied, and the appeal was not even heard. And all that said...even if I had won the court battle, what would I have been left with?

Yes, no matter how ungrateful they are, I am indeed their father, and will always continue to be there emotionally when ever they need...which would imply there actually being a relationship of some sort...two way communication and interaction. As things stand now, I am a nameless, faceless entity out there that magically pays for things. Hell, I'd even settle for them having to physically meet with me to pick up the damned checks that I am court ordered to provide, where they would actually have to look me in the eye when they take them...

I am terrified of the damage my NPD ex had done, and continues to do, however again, since the two oldest are over 18, my recourse is nil. I can't control or dictate what they do...just myself. Despite all this, I still reach out to them. Happy birthdays, holidays, randomly through the week asking how they are doing, mailing hand written letters, and cards...

My youngest however...things are golden with him. Hell, he chose to spend Fathers Day weekend with me rather than going on the annual multi family campout with his mother.


----------



## samyeagar

double post


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> As an aside, the editorial comments about "willing incomprehension" and "anxiety" are, imo, unprofessional from a moderator. Why not simply answer my clear and direct questions, instead of hedging them, or simply say you do not feel comfortable answering?


At the risk of jacking the thread, I feel this needs to be said. Please understand that I am speaking purely as a poster, without any overt or covert threat from my position as a moderator, when I post this. No posters will be harmed in the making of this post. 

:smthumbup:

First, no rules were broken by his post. 

Second, I have seen you post incredibly similar things many, many times on this forum. It truly is in poor taste, with a lack of overall consistency, to make your aforementioned statement. In fact, you are doing the very same thing you are accusing him of doing, while standing behind the moral high ground of not being a moderator. The only reason one seeks moral high ground is if one is seeking to place themselves above another.

The only standard one is held to on this site, to include both posters and moderators, are the forum rules.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> *None of those supersede the NEED of the child.*
> 
> No one is suggesting it is fair. But a child's need is more important than an adults' equitable situation.


Yes they do.

And they should.

Every time.

Once you hand the state the power to determine that being married to a woman is enough to make a man the father of her children (regardless of their actual parentage), what's to stop them from taking it a step further? Are you ready to adopt?

Women enjoy the right -- by law -- to determine for themselves whether or not they want to be parents.

Men deserve the same.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> None of those supersede the NEED of the child.
> 
> No one is suggesting it is fair. But a child's need is more important than an adults' equitable situation.


There is a big difference between a two year old child and a 20 year adult child...which is why it would be in everyone's best interest, especially the child's, if all this crap was sorted out at birth by routine paternity testing.


----------



## MEM2020

The kids were offered this 23&Me as a Holiday gift. They accepted the offer. No idea if the idea was mine or M2's. 

And I sort of overstated one point which is my ashkenazi content. I assume it's 35 - but as I have never been tested, maybe I'm not. 

Which is why I said if the kids aren't mine, at the least they share a common external father. 

Since I wouldn't be uncertain of their parentage if I tested them, it is therefore obvious that I didn't paternity test them. 

If I got my own 23&Me results, that would remove almost any doubt. The odds of M2 having had an affair with another guy who was 35% Ashkenazi (like I presumably am) are very low. Alternatively if I turn out to be 50% Ashkenazi - well - they likely are someone else's. That's just math. 





jld said:


> This was the post you asked me to reread, correct?:
> 
> 
> 
> To which I responded: _You tested your kids? Why?_
> 
> And then I later asked if your wife and kids knew you tested them.
> 
> Now, as you stated, "_we've used_," it could be that your wife knew. Or maybe the kids knew. I do not know who the "we" refers to. And it still does not answer the question Why you tested them to start with.
> 
> But you are certainly under no obligation to respond.
> 
> As an aside, the editorial comments about "willing incomprehension" and "anxiety" are, imo, unprofessional from a moderator. Why not simply answer my clear and direct questions, instead of hedging them, or simply say you do not feel comfortable answering?


----------



## Married but Happy

I think the needs of the child will be met, regardless, in some way. It seems that men's rights and needs are considered irrelevant, though, and women are protected and rewarded first for infidelity, then for paternity fraud, and finally for the financial fraud of taking money from someone who is not the father. In addition, that man may be denied his right to biologically father a child and continue his line, because he is misled into believing he already has. There is a very deep and disturbing injustice in this.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> At the risk of jacking the thread, I feel this needs to be said. Please understand that I am speaking purely as a poster, without any overt or covert threat from my position as a moderator, when I post this. No posters will be harmed in the making of this post.
> 
> :smthumbup:
> 
> First, no rules were broken by his post.
> 
> Second, I have seen you post incredibly similar things many, many times on this forum. It truly is in poor taste, with a lack of overall consistency, to make your aforementioned statement. In fact, you are doing the very same thing you are accusing him of doing, while standing behind the moral high ground of not being a moderator. The only reason one seeks moral high ground is if one is seeking to place themselves above another.
> 
> The only standard one is held to on this site, to include both posters and moderators, are the forum rules.


If you see me not answering a clear and direct question with a clear and direct answer, if one is possible, or saying I do not feel comfortable answering, let me know, far. I certainly want to set a good example here.


----------



## sokillme

GusPolinski said:


> Aside from the obvious choices (Nazi Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc), and for sooo many reasons, I can scarcely imagine a nation that's further down on my personal "countries that I'd like the US to emulate" list.


They did kill their king though so you got to give them that. :smthumbup:


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> The kids were offered this 23&Me as a Holiday gift. They accepted the offer. No idea if the idea was mine or M2's.
> 
> And I sort of overstated one point which is my ashkenazi content. I assume it's 35 - but as I have never been tested, maybe I'm not.
> 
> Which is why I said if the kids aren't mine, at the least they share a common external father.
> 
> Since I wouldn't be uncertain of their parentage if I tested them, it is therefore obvious that I didn't paternity test them.
> 
> If I got my own 23&Me results, that would remove almost any doubt. The odds of M2 having had an affair with another guy who was 35% Ashkenazi (like I presumably am) are very low. Alternatively if I turn out to be 50% Ashkenazi - well - they likely are someone else's. That's just math.


Thanks for clearing that up, MEM.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on just about everything, Gus.


This is something that I've known for over 3 years now.


----------



## jld

Married but Happy said:


> I think the needs of the child will be met, regardless, in some way.


And if they are not?


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> And if they are not?


Then it's a parenting failure.

On the part of the actual parents.


----------



## jld

Just curious, is there any man here willing to put the needs of a child he believed at one time to be his biologically, before whatever he considers to be his own current interests? 

Any woman willing to do the same?


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Then it's a parenting failure.
> 
> On the part of the actual parents.


And who pays the price for that?


----------



## Married but Happy

jld said:


> And if they are not?


There are usually options. Perpetrating an injustice against one person is never an acceptable course of action to benefit another.

Here's an analogy that may help you understand my position ...

We are married, and have no children. I have an affair and my gf gets pregnant and has a lovely baby boy - but tragically dies in childbirth. I bring the child home to you, and say, Wife, this is your child. I've put your name on the birth certificate. Love him, nurture him, bond with him, and pay for all his needs until he goes into the world. Do so even if we do not last as a couple for any reason, even if our marriage is presently in deep trouble and we never have another child. Love and nurture his children and grandchildren, because they are yours, too.


----------



## jld

I had one child born at the hospital. If I were ever to find out he were not biologically my child, that there had been some mixup, that would not change my feelings or perceived obligations to him in any way. I want the best for him, not only because I love him, but because I think that is what contributes to a healthy society.

In addition, I would be delighted to open my heart and home to my actual biological child.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Just curious, is there any man here willing to put the needs of a child he believed at one time to be his biologically, before whatever he considers to be his own current interests?
> 
> Any woman willing to do the same?


Guess who is going to be the man walking his step daughter down the aisle at her wedding...and guess why that is...


----------



## jld

Married but Happy said:


> There are usually options. Perpetrating an injustice against one person is never an acceptable course of action to benefit another.
> 
> Here's an analogy that may help you understand my position ...
> 
> We are married, and have no children. I have an affair and my gf gets pregnant and has a lovely baby boy - but tragically dies in childbirth. I bring the child home to you, and say, Wife, this is your child. I've put your name on the birth certificate. Love him, nurture him, bond with him, and pay for all his needs until he goes into the world. Do so even if we do not last as a couple for any reason, even if our marriage is presently in deep trouble and we never have another child. Love and nurture his children and grandchildren, because they are yours, too.


At the birth would definitely be the time for me to object, if I wanted to do that.

Can't see myself doing that, though.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> And who pays the price for that?


Not the guy who didn't have a part in bringing the child into the world.

At least not in any sane part of the world.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Guess who is going to be the man walking his step daughter down the aisle at her wedding...and guess why that is...


Because she loves and trusts you.

And you did not even have to be her biological father for that to happen.

And that is probably the trend of the future, as new family configurations are formed.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> At the birth would definitely be the time for me to object, if I wanted to do that.
> 
> Can't see myself doing that, though.


The point is that you had a _choice_.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Not the guy who didn't have a part in bringing the child into the world.
> 
> At least not in any sane part of the world.


Really? Not all of society?

We do not all suffer the consequences of failing to provide for our country's children?


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Just curious, is there any man here willing to put the needs of a child he believed at one time to be his biologically, before whatever he considers to be his own current interests?
> 
> Any woman willing to do the same?


Nice try.

And barring some arcane science experiment, an inadvertent child swap in the neonatal nursery, etc, no woman anywhere has ever had a cogent reason for questioning the _maternity_ of her own child.

And seriously, how many affair baby threads are you going to open?


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> The point is that you had a _choice_.


Do I?

Is there any other moral choice?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I had one child born at the hospital. If I were ever to find out he were not biologically my child, that there had been some mixup, that would not change my feelings or perceived obligations to him in any way. I want the best for him, not only because I love him, but because I think that is what contributes to a healthy society.
> 
> In addition, I would be delighted to open my heart and home to my actual biological child.


And lets suppose that when that child is six or eight, you find out they are not your bio child, and that the real bio parents who got your bio child had that child die...there is a very strong, almost absolute certainty that all else being equal, if they take it to court, the courts will order you to turn that child over to the bio parents, and the only way you will ever have contact with that child again is if the bio parents are merciful enough to let you. Best interests of the child...

The courts primary interest is ensuring the financial interests of the child are served first and formeost. Emotional well being is most of the time an after thought.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,

I absolutely believe your post. And that Dug would fully support you. The story below is true and amazing. 

Lot of really good people in the world. 

https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/360/switched-at-birth





jld said:


> I had one child born at the hospital. If I were ever to find out he were not biologically my child, that there had been some mixup, that would not change my feelings or perceived obligations to him in any way. I want the best for him, not only because I love him, but because I think that is what contributes to a healthy society.
> 
> In addition, I would be delighted to open my heart and home to my actual biological child.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> And lets suppose that when that child is six or eight, you find out they are not your bio child, and that the real bio parents who got your bio child had that child die...there is a very strong, almost absolute certainty that all else being equal, if they take it to court, the courts will order you to turn that child over to the bio parents, and the only way you will ever have contact with that child again is if the bio parents are merciful enough to let you. Best interests of the child...
> 
> The courts primary interest is ensuring the financial interests of the child are served first and formeost. Emotional well being is most of the time an after thought.


If the court says I have to turn that child over, I would certainly have to comply.

And that would indeed be heartbreaking.


----------



## naiveonedave

Anon Pink said:


> None of those supersede the NEED of the child.
> 
> No one is suggesting it is fair. But a child's need is more important than an adults' equitable situation.


the needs of the child should be paid for by the biological parents. What you are asking for is the same as you being forced for paying for your WH's love child. EXACTLY THE SAME. 

You need to think about that for a couple of minutes before replying. Assume you D you WH, you would be responsible for his OCs, up to the current levels of CS, which could amount to 25+% of your TAKE HOME PAY.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> 
> I absolutely believe your post. And that Dug would fully support you. The story below is true and amazing.
> 
> Lot of really good people in the world.
> 
> https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/360/switched-at-birth


I can't imagine Dug would see it any other way, MEM. That is part of what I think is so inspiring about him.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Really? Not all of society?
> 
> We do not all suffer the consequences of failing to provide for our country's children?


You're talking direct vs indirect impact.

And if the indirect impact is so severe that it approaches direct impact levels, the real problem is the pervasive moral decay that you've allowed to take root in your society.

Oh wait, that was the problem all along.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> You're talking direct vs indirect impact.
> 
> And if the indirect impact is so severe that it approaches direct impact levels, the real problem is the pervasive moral decay that you've allowed to take root in your society.
> 
> Oh wait, that was the problem all along.


There will always be adultery, Gus. There will always be false paternity. Humans, attraction, fear, limited resources . . . 

Some are just trying to mitigate its effects on the ones they see as the most vulnerable: the _children_.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> To redirect the thread a bit, the debate seems to come down to Who has the most vulnerable interests here, the father or the child? Who are you most trying to protect?


I reject this premise, first of all the man is not the father yet you continue to insist that he is (because of the French I know). Second why is the assumption that the two are diametrically opposed. Personally it very well may be in the best interested of the child to have no relationship with the man his mother was conning while she was pregnant with them.

Again is the state compelling this man to have a personal relationship with the kid? Since it is not lets speak plainly what we are arguing about, who will monetarily support the child, and being that this really is the crux of the argument, I contend that is is immoral to ask a man to pay for another man's child just because he happened to be in a relationship under false pretenses when the con artist got impregnated. 

The argument isn't what is in the best interest of the child, it's who should be responsible to pay for the child. The state could care less about the best interest of the child. When you speak the truth about what this is really about I believe the moral response is clear to most.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> And lets suppose that when that child is six or eight, you find out they are not your bio child, and that the real bio parents who got your bio child had that child die...there is a very strong, almost absolute certainty that all else being equal, if they take it to court, the courts will order you to turn that child over to the bio parents, and the only way you will ever have contact with that child again is if the bio parents are merciful enough to let you. Best interests of the child...
> 
> The courts primary interest is ensuring the financial interests of the child are served first and formeost. Emotional well being is most of the time an after thought.


It could be argued that in today's world, where money is necessary to buy food and shelter, that considering the financial needs of a child are the first level of concern when considering the wellbeing of a child. 

In the scenario that you give here, I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the child to just hand it over it's biological parents and cut off all contact with the parents who have raised the child. It's a tough situation. But the child is bonded with the non-bio parents. So perhaps both parents should share custody over a prolonged transition period.

I've read about cases like this. The non-bio parents are usually devastated to lose the child that they love. At this point the DNA means nothing to them. The child is their child.


----------



## samyeagar

naiveonedave said:


> the needs of the child should be paid for by the biological parents. What you are asking for is the same as you being forced for paying for your WH's love child. EXACTLY THE SAME.
> 
> You need to think about that for a couple of minutes before replying. Assume you D you WH, you would be responsible for his OCs, up to the current levels of CS, which could amount to 25+% of your TAKE HOME PAY.


This is something that, while there are exceptions, most women do not have to experience...paying child support. The closest most come is to paying it by proxy if they marry a man who has to pay it to an ex-wife, and even that is a very common source of friction to the point of destruction in second marriages.

And as far as being court ordered to pay for a child that is not biologically hers...not sure how that could even happen as there really isn't any way to get the wrong mother on the birth certificate.


----------



## GusPolinski

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> 
> I absolutely believe your post. And that Dug would fully support you. The story below is true and amazing.
> 
> Lot of really good people in the world.
> 
> https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/360/switched-at-birth


Switched at birth?

Big deal. Most people would want a relationship with _both_ children.

Sprinkle in some adultery and the formula changes -- relationships with both kids, but divorce the adulterers, and DNA any other kids.


----------



## EleGirl

Our laws change slowly. Being able to check a child's DNA is a relatively new thing. When DNA could not be checked, assuming that the husband is the biological father of all the children his wife has while married to him was the best the law could do.

Today it's different. I think that if DNA proves that a man is not the biological father of a child that his wife gives birth to, then he should be able to opt out of being the legal father of that child. And then the mother can go after the actual father for child support. Of course then the biological father can also have custody and time-sharing rights too.

If the non-biological father has raised this child and has an emotional connection that he wants to maintain, then he should have legal rights as well as the primary father figure in the child's life.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> It could be argued that in today's world, where money is necessary to buy food and shelter, that considering the financial needs of a child are the first level of concern when considering the wellbeing of a child.
> 
> In the scenario that you give here, I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the child to just hand it over it's biological parents and cut off all contact with the parents who have raised the child. It's a tough situation. But the child is bonded with the non-bio parents. So perhaps both parents should share custody over a prolonged transition period.
> 
> I've read about cases like this. The non-bio parents are usually devastated to lose the child that they love. At this point the DNA means nothing to them. The child is their child.


And people who truly love that child would want the best for him or her, regardless of the effect on themselves.

If I were those bio parents, I would have to let that child stay with them. Love means doing what is in the best interest of the other person, especially a vulnerable person.

And ultimately, doing what is truly the moral thing is ultimately going to be best for everyone, long term. That is the whole point of morality.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> There will always be adultery, Gus. There will always be false paternity. Humans, attraction, fear, limited resources . . .
> 
> Some are just trying to mitigate its effects on the ones they see as the most vulnerable: the _children_.


If that was their only concern then the state would provide for them directly.

They don't want to budget for that, though (because in France it would be SUPER expensive), so they offload the cost to the cuckolded fauxthers.

Because encouraging morality is just messy and inconvenient.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> It could be argued that in today's world, where money is necessary to buy food and shelter, that considering the financial needs of a child are the first level of concern when considering the wellbeing of a child.
> 
> In the scenario that you give here, I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the child to just hand it over it's biological parents and cut off all contact with the parents who have raised the child. It's a tough situation. But the child is bonded with the non-bio parents. So perhaps both parents should share custody over a prolonged transition period.
> 
> I've read about cases like this. The non-bio parents are usually devastated to lose the child that they love. At this point the DNA means nothing to them. The child is their child.


Of course it's not in the best interest of the child, but that just exposes the inconsistencies within the family law and family court system in this country. Everything is about the best interest of the child...until it isn't.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Do I?
> 
> Is there any other moral choice?


That's for you to determine for YOU.

NOT for me.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> I reject this premise, first of all the man is not the father yet you continue to insist that he is (because of the French I know). Second why is the assumption that the two are diametrically opposed. Personally it very well may be in the best interested of the child to have no relationship with the man his mother was conning while she was pregnant with them.
> 
> Again is the state compelling this man to have a personal relationship with the kid? Since it is not lets speak plainly what we are arguing about, who will monetarily support the child, and being that this really is the crux of the argument, I contend that is is immoral to ask a man to pay for another man's child just because he happened to be in a relationship under false pretenses when the con artist got impregnated.
> 
> The argument isn't what is in the best interest of the child, it's who should be responsible to pay for the child. The state could care less about the best interest of the child. When you speak the truth about what this is really about I believe the moral response is clear to most.


Can you ever compel a personal relationship? Plenty of dads not seeing their kids by choice in our country. Some are not paying child support, either.

I agree with Ele that financial support is part of the best interest of the child. I was reading just yesterday that adequate financial support affects the well being of a child after divorce.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> And people who truly love that child would want the best for him or her, regardless of the effect on themselves.
> 
> If I were those bio parents, I would have to let that child stay with them. Love means doing what is in the best interest of the other person, especially a vulnerable person.
> 
> And ultimately, doing what is truly the moral thing is ultimately going to be best for everyone, long term. That is the whole point of morality.


The best interest of the child is not to rip him/her away from the people have been their parents.

Take a 9 year old kid. One day this kid finds out that his parents are not his bio parents and the court has ordered him to go to his bio parents. He now loses the parents he has had and loved for 9 years of his life. That is equivalent to his parents dying. It would be devastating to this child.

My father died when my youngest brothers were 9 and 7. Today my brothers are about 55 and 58. To this day they are still badly effected about the death of our father. 

That little 9 year old kid who was taken from the non-bio parents who raised him will be effected in the same way that they would if their first set of parents had died. 

That is not in the best interest of the child.


.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> If that was their only concern then the state would provide for them directly.
> 
> They don't want to budget for that, though (because in France it would be SUPER expensive), so they offload the cost to the cuckolded fauxthers.
> 
> Because encouraging morality is just messy and inconvenient.


Different societies define morality differently, I guess.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Different societies define morality differently, I guess.


Some choose to not define it at all.

Or to not care either way.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> The best interest of the child is not to rip him/her away from the people have been their parents.
> 
> Take a 9 year old kid. One day this kid finds out that his parents are not his bio parents and the court has ordered him to go to his bio parents. He now loses the parents he has had and loved for 9 years of his life. That is equivalent to his parents dying. It would be devastating to this child.
> 
> My father died when my youngest brothers were 9 and 7. Today my brothers are about 55 and 58. To this day they are still badly effected about the death of our father.
> 
> That little 9 year old kid who was taken from the non-bio parents who raised him will be effected in the same way that they would if their first set of parents had died.
> 
> That is not in the best interest of the child.
> 
> 
> .


Totally agree. And yet you and Sam say that that is the law? I am surprised that children's rights groups have not fought against that.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Just curious, is there any man here willing to put the needs of a child he believed at one time to be his biologically, before whatever he considers to be his own current interests?
> 
> Any woman willing to do the same?


Most of the stories you read where the man finds out after the fact (meaning years) the man does this. 2 prominent posters on this board are in this situation. I am sure if I found out after the fact and had bonded with the child I would as well. That would probably take a few months though. If I found out 2 days after the birth I am not sure I would. Thank God I never had to face that situation. 

How exactly would this situation come up for a Women besides some sort of hospital mix up exactly?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Can you ever compel a personal relationship? Plenty of dads not seeing their kids by choice in our country. Some are not paying child support, either.
> 
> I agree with Ele that financial support is part of the best interest of the child. I was reading just yesterday that adequate financial support affects the well being of a child after divorce.


Absolutely financial support is in the best interest of the child, however compelling someone who, in the case of infidelity, has already suffered the deepest of betrayals, and then compelling them to financially support the result of that betrayal is not in the best emotional interest of the child either. Like it or not, the effects of infidelity have very far reaching emotional consequences and even if it is unintentional and indirect, the added insult to injury of infidelity is going to cause an unhealthy environment. The best interest of the child would be to remove as many barriers as possible to fostering a good relationship between the child and the man who is being asked to go above and beyond.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Most of the stories you read where the man finds out after the fact (meaning years) the man does this. 2 prominent posters on this board is in this situation. I am sure if I found out after the fact and had bonded with the child I would as well. That would probably take a few months though. If I found out 2 days after the birth I am not sure I would. Thank God I never had to face that situation.
> 
> How exactly would this situation come up for a Women besides some sort of hospital mix up exactly?


Not sure.

I would not have any respect for my sons if they ever abandoned a child who knew them as the father, bio or not. I cannot think of anything more disgraceful than abandoning a child. This thread is making me realize I need to tell them that.

I just hope they will be wise in their choice of female companion. They will certainly suffer the consequences if they are not.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Totally agree. And yet you and Sam say that that is the law? I am surprised that children's rights groups have not fought against that.


In this country, biology trumps all. Remember the incredibly high profile case of Elian Gonzalez? Completely consistent with existing US law in virtually every jurisdiction. The bio parent will always get custody unless there is a clear and present physical danger to the child as a result.

So yes, it's the law. Biology trumps all...unless it involves child support.

ETA...my situation is the epitome of this actually. My daughter has been 100% no contact with me for the past four years despite continuing and ongoing attempts on my part. She is a complete stranger to me, except if I walked up to a complete stranger on the street and said Hi, they'd likely at least reply. However, since this stranger and I with no relationship beyond biology, share the same DNA, I am legally compelled to pay for her health insurance until she is 25, as well as pay for her college education.

ETA...I will also submit that as a legal adult, her ongoing behaviour is despicable, and is not remotely close to how I tried to raise her, and her behaviour is not good for society, and yet it is being fully rewarded and supported...how is encouraging this behaviour good in any way for anyone, especially the child?


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I agree with Ele that financial support is part of the best interest of the child. I was reading just yesterday that adequate financial support affects the well being of a child after divorce.


So you agree with my premise that this is really about financial support. As far as I can tell there is no precedent besides this instance where a non biological relation is responsible for another debt assuming there is no contract between the parties. We as a society feel it is wrong to compel adult children of deceased parents to take ownership of the parents dept, yet in this instance we compel a person to be financially responsible for someone who they have no biological relationship with. At the very least they should be permitted to sue for monetary damages both parties responsible for the fraud.


----------



## Married but Happy

jld said:


> Do I?
> 
> Is there any other moral choice?


So, you would accept the child, despite husband cheating on you, and continue your relationship with him even so? I think there are many other ethical choices that can be made, many of which would provide good outcomes for everyone.

Then what is the point of TAM (or any other such forum), if anyone can do anything in a relationship without any consequences, and even be rewarded? However, that is contrary to human nature and precedent.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Absolutely financial support is in the best interest of the child, however compelling someone who, in the case of infidelity, has already suffered the deepest of betrayals, and then compelling them to financially support the result of that betrayal is not in the best emotional interest of the child either. Like it or not, the effects of infidelity have very far reaching emotional consequences and even if it is unintentional and indirect, the added insult to injury of infidelity is going to cause an unhealthy environment. The best interest of the child would be to remove as many barriers as possible to fostering a good relationship between the child and the man who is being asked to go above and beyond.


I don't think it is wise to try to force a man, or really anyone, to have an actual relationship with a child. He may become abusive to the child.

I think obliging him to pay child support is fine, though, if a relationship was established prior to the testing. That can be his contribution to the well being of the child after the divorce.

If we have mandatory testing at birth, and the father wants to divorce, that would be the last best time to do it. Clear break, and no disrupted relationship for the child to suffer from.

I don't know why a mother would want a father in her child's life who did not want to be there, though, other than financial necessity. I hope that as women become more economically dominant, we will not even have these issues anymore.


----------



## jld

Married but Happy said:


> *So, you would accept the child, despite husband cheating on you, and continue your relationship with him even so?* I think there are many other ethical choices that can be made, many of which would provide good outcomes for everyone.
> 
> Then what is the point of TAM (or any other such forum), if anyone can do anything in a relationship without any consequences, and even be rewarded? However, that is contrary to human nature and precedent.


Of course. A child is a gift. Not one I would have been seeking, but one that landed on my doorstep, anyway.

Honestly, if he wanted to leave for whatever reason, or died, and I would need to raise the child, I could do that. The main thing is that the most vulnerable person is well cared for.

Dug is such a wonderful man. And that child would be a part of him, if I felt I needed a bio connection.

But if Dug and the bio mother were both dead, I would probably have to work something out with the family of the bio mother, or Dug's family, if they were interested. Or, lol, my own children!  

And if the bio family did not want me involved, for whatever reason, I would certainly have to respect that, and wish them well.
@Duguesclin, you are such an inspiration to me. As I reread your post from the other day, I feel more respect for you than ever, my love. You have wisdom that surely far exceeds my own. I am so lucky to be with you, and to learn from you.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> In this country, biology trumps all. Remember the incredibly high profile case of Elian Gonzalez? Completely consistent with existing US law in virtually every jurisdiction. The bio parent will always get custody unless there is a clear and present physical danger to the child as a result.
> 
> So yes, it's the law. Biology trumps all...unless it involves child support.
> 
> ETA...my situation is the epitome of this actually. My daughter has been 100% no contact with me for the past four years despite continuing and ongoing attempts on my part. She is a complete stranger to me, except if I walked up to a complete stranger on the street and said Hi, they'd likely at least reply. However, since this stranger and I with no relationship beyond biology, share the same DNA, I am legally compelled to pay for her health insurance until she is 25, as well as pay for her college education.
> 
> ETA...I will also submit that as a legal adult, her ongoing behaviour is despicable, and is not remotely close to how I tried to raise her, and her behaviour is not good for society, and yet it is being fully rewarded and supported...how is encouraging this behaviour good in any way for anyone, especially the child?


Once there is a divorce, a lot of influence is surely lost. That is probably why some people stay married, even in challenging situations.

If I were you, I would seek to be as kind and empathetic as possible with her. A gentle, humble touch can do wonders.


----------



## Married but Happy

jld said:


> I think obliging him to pay child support is fine, though, if a relationship was established prior to the testing. That can be his contribution to the well being of the child after the divorce.
> 
> If we have mandatory testing at birth, and the father wants to divorce, that would be the last best time to do it. Clear break, and no disrupted relationship for the child to suffer from.


If a relationship is established, then yes, I can agree. However, at what point is that relationship established? For the child, it isn't until at least they're 4 years old, and more likely 7. Prior to that age, they will not remember any such relationship in the future, because childhood memories are fleeting and replaced by new memories, until at least 7 years, and up to 10 years. Prior to that - let's say 5 years for convenience of discussion - the child won't remember a father figure a short time later, and any prior bond is dissolved. Now, the presumed father will remember - but whether the discovery of paternity fraud harms the bond he feels or not should be his decision, at least up to that 5 year threshold, IMO.

Anyway, I'd favor mandatory testing at birth to help prevent the complications and possible heartbreak that could arise from later discovery. 

When Do Kids Form Their First Memories?

KinderLab | Popular Science


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

This is one of those questions that is probably so big as to be impossible to answer with certainty until you're actually in that situation. 

Just thinking up front, I think it would depend largely on when the truth was learned. Before birth or during infanthood, not gonna' happen.

But if later in life when there a history of bonded parent/child relationship, then I believe I would stay the course. 

Of course there's a lot of fuzziness between those two extremes, and answering in that timeframe is truly impossible for me. Fortunately, I've never had to face such a choice.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> So you agree with my premise that this is really about financial support. As far as I can tell there is no precedent besides this instance where a non biological relation is responsible for another debt assuming there is no contract between the parties. We as a society feel it is wrong to compel adult children of deceased parents to take ownership of the parents dept, yet in this instance we compel a person to be financially responsible for someone who they have no biological relationship with. At the very least they should be permitted to sue for monetary damages both parties responsible for the fraud.


I can think of another instance where a non-biological adult is made responsible for a child... college.

When my step children wanted to go to college, they tried to get things like pel grants. Their father had zero income. Their mother makes minimum wage. They should have been able to get financial aid.

Instead I was told that they could not get financial aid because I was married to their father and my income was too high. I would have to pay $19,000 a year towards their education before they could get any financial aid.

So their father and I got a divorce. Within a few weeks after that divorcee my step daughter was able to get a full scholarship that even covered her living expenses because her parents were poor.

A lot of step parents won't do the divorce and are thus forced to help pay for eh education for their step children.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

sokillme said:


> How exactly would this situation come up for a Women besides some sort of hospital mix up exactly?


This is what I addressed earlier and it was flatly dismissed.


----------



## sokillme

Anon Pink said:


> None of those supersede the NEED of the child.
> 
> No one is suggesting it is fair. But a child's need is more important than an adults' equitable situation.


No one here is arguing that the needs of the child shouldn't be met the argument is over who should meet them. Again there are hundreds of things the state does to meet the needs of children where needed. Your premise is seems to be it's the fuax-father (to steal the term from Gus) or no one.


----------



## EleGirl

Someone on here posted a story about a guy who is paying child support for a child his wife had from an affair. The mother is now married to her affair partner, the biological father of the child. 

Yet her ex is still paying child support for a child that is not his.

In a situation like this, all I can say is shame on the judge. The ex should not be paying a penny in child support. The child should be supported by his biological parents.

And since the ex raise this child for some number of years, he should have rights to visitation with the child if that's what he wants.


----------



## jld

Married but Happy said:


> If a relationship is established, then yes, I can agree. However,* at what point is that relationship established?* For the child, it isn't until at least they're 4 years old, and more likely 7. Prior to that age, they will not remember any such relationship in the future, because childhood memories are fleeting and replaced by new memories, until at least 7 years, and up to 10 years. Prior to that - let's say 5 years for convenience of discussion - the child won't remember a father figure a short time later, and any prior bond is dissolved. Now, the presumed father will remember - but whether the discovery of paternity fraud harms the bond he feels or not should be his decision, at least up to that 5 year threshold, IMO.
> 
> Anyway, I'd favor mandatory testing at birth to help prevent the complications and possible heartbreak that could arise from later discovery.
> 
> When Do Kids Form Their First Memories?
> 
> KinderLab | Popular Science


You know, that is an interesting question.

When our last child was born, Dug was doing his commute to India. He would be in India 3 weeks, the US 1 week. When our youngest was four months old, we joined Dug there.

What was amazing to me is that even during the few visits before we moved, our son seemed to recognize Dug. I remember the look on his face. He seemed to know his dad.


----------



## MEM2020

The women having a higher income won't change the outcome in the slightest if the woman in question has the morals of an alley cat. 

What possible connection is there between a woman's earning power and attempting to pull off this type of life altering deception?





jld said:


> I don't think it is wise to try to force a man, or really anyone, to have an actual relationship with a child. He may become abusive to the child.
> 
> I think obliging him to pay child support is fine, though, if a relationship was established prior to the testing. That can be his contribution to the well being of the child after the divorce.
> 
> If we have mandatory testing at birth, and the father wants to divorce, that would be the last best time to do it. Clear break, and no disrupted relationship for the child to suffer from.
> 
> I don't know why a mother would want a father in her child's life who did not want to be there, though, other than financial necessity. I hope that as women become more economically dominant, we will not even have these issues anymore.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> And people who truly love that child would want the best for him or her, regardless of the effect on themselves.


And since you and the state seem to think that money is what is best for the child as that seems to be the determining factor I ask, if the bio-father is in a higher economical position shouldn't the state compel him to support the child. After all if you used his income as an assessment as to the amount of compensation the child receives that would seem to make him the better parent, or at least the one that would provided better for it's best interest. 

If not why not?


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

EleGirl said:


> Someone on here posted a story about a guy who is paying child support for a child his wife had from an affair. The mother is now married to her affair partner, the biological father of the child.
> 
> Yet her ex is still paying child support for a child that is not his.
> 
> In a situation like this, all I can say is shame on the judge. The ex should not be paying a penny in child support. The child should be supported by his biological parents.
> 
> And since the ex raise this child for some number of years, he should have rights to visitation with the child if that's what he wants.


It isn't the judges fault, he should feel no shame. This is the exact reason why men get so heated about this debate. Remember when you posted this?


> Our laws change slowly. Being able to check a child's DNA is a relatively new thing. When DNA could not be checked, assuming that the husband is the biological father of all the children his wife has while married to him was the best the law could do.


 These are the EXACT ARCHAIC laws, still on the books, which forced the judge to do his job.


----------



## MEM2020

Elle,

While I agree that it's unfair - it is also true that the normal mechanism for termination of parental child support is tied to termination of parental rights/visitation.




EleGirl said:


> Someone on here posted a story about a guy who is paying child support for a child his wife had from an affair. The mother is now married to her affair partner, the biological father of the child.
> 
> Yet her ex is still paying child support for a child that is not his.
> 
> In a situation like this, all I can say is shame on the judge. The ex should not be paying a penny in child support. The child should be supported by his biological parents.
> 
> And since the ex raise this child for some number of years, he should have rights to visitation with the child if that's what he wants.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I agree with Ele that financial support is part of the best interest of the child. I was reading just yesterday that adequate financial support affects the well being of a child after divorce.


See my last post. Following that logic the person who makes the most money would be the one who should pay as more money = better support. Why is THAT not the case?


----------



## sokillme

samyeagar said:


> Absolutely financial support is in the best interest of the child, however compelling someone who, in the case of infidelity, has already suffered the deepest of betrayals, and then compelling them to financially support the result of that betrayal is not in the best emotional interest of the child either. Like it or not, the effects of infidelity have very far reaching emotional consequences and even if it is unintentional and indirect, the added insult to injury of infidelity is going to cause an unhealthy environment. The best interest of the child would be to remove as many barriers as possible to fostering a good relationship between the child and the man who is being asked to go above and beyond.


I think I could at least put up an augment that being separated from the (sociopathic) Mother may be in the best interest of the child in some instances.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> The women having a higher income won't change the outcome in the slightest if the woman in question has the morals of an alley cat.
> 
> What possible connection is there between a woman's earning power and attempting to pull off this type of life altering deception?


If the only reason she is not telling him he is not the father is because she needs him financially, then her having her own independent financial means would allow her to tell him immediately. He can take off if he wants, and she can focus on the needs of the child.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> Elle,
> 
> While I agree that it's unfair - it is also true that the normal mechanism for termination of parental child support is tied to termination of parental rights/visitation.


Are you sure? I have heard of dads not paying child support but still being allowed visitation.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I hope that as women become more economically dominant, we will not even have these issues anymore.


How telling that you used the word *dominant *and not _independent_. A window into your soul I think.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> I can think of another instance where a non-biological adult is made responsible for a child... college.
> 
> When my step children wanted to go to college, they tried to get things like pel grants. Their father had zero income. Their mother makes minimum wage. They should have been able to get financial aid.
> 
> Instead I was told that they could not get financial aid because I was married to their father and my income was too high. I would have to pay $19,000 a year towards their education before they could get any financial aid.
> 
> So their father and I got a divorce. Within a few weeks after that divorcee my step daughter was able to get a full scholarship that even covered her living expenses because her parents were poor.
> 
> A lot of step parents won't do the divorce and are thus forced to help pay for eh education for their step children.


Exactly the situation I am in with my step daughter, and because I am the only one of the lot of four parents involved...me, my wife, ex-wife, and her new husband...my income is what is being considered for all the kids...mine and my wife's. So I am legally ordered to pay around 18,000 for my daughter, 12,000 for my oldest son, and the family contribution expected for my step daughter is another 18,000. The mandates to pay for the other kids are not considered. 
Step daughter can't use her bio father because he is in prison. The kicker is...if any of the girls got knocked up, family contributions would no longer be considered or expected, and they would get full grants...boggles the mind.

So since parents paying for college is considered to be vital and essential for the well being of the kids...why aren't married parents legally compelled to pay for it?


----------



## EleGirl

phillybeffandswiss said:


> It isn't the judges fault, he should feel no shame. This is the exact reason why men get so heated about this debate. Remember when you posted this?
> These are the EXACT ARCHAIC laws, still on the books, which forced the judge to do his job.


When it comes to divorce and child support, a judge has a lot of latitude. I do believe that a judge could order that the non-biological father have no financial responsibility and the this goes to the biological father.

There are cases now where judges are doing this.

Revoking the Husband’s Paternity in a Divorce

https://michiganlegalhelp.org/self-help-tools/family/non-marital-children-born-during-marriage

I had a child while married but my husband is not the father.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> Someone on here posted a story about a guy who is paying child support for a child his wife had from an affair. The mother is now married to her affair partner, the biological father of the child.
> 
> Yet her ex is still paying child support for a child that is not his.
> 
> In a situation like this, all I can say is shame on the judge. The ex should not be paying a penny in child support. The child should be supported by his biological parents.
> 
> And since the ex raise this child for some number of years, he should have rights to visitation with the child if that's what he wants.


This assumes the judge actually has jurisdiction in this matter. There are lots of things that are just mandatory in the law. Parental financial responsibility is one of them. If the state sees you as the legal parent, you are going to have to pay.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Exactly the situation I am in with my step daughter, and because I am the only one of the lot of four parents involved...me, my wife, ex-wife, and her new husband...my income is what is being considered for all the kids...mine and my wife's. So I am legally ordered to pay around 18,000 for my daughter, 12,000 for my oldest son, and the family contribution expected for my step daughter is another 18,000. The mandates to pay for the other kids are not considered.
> Step daughter can't use her bio father because he is in prison. The kicker is...if any of the girls got knocked up, family contributions would no longer be considered or expected, and they would get full grants...boggles the mind.
> 
> So since parents paying for college is considered to be vital and essential for the well being of the kids...why aren't married parents legally compelled to pay for it?


Keep in mind that I was not compelled to pay the college education for my step children. I could chose not to. But if they wanted to go to college, they would have to get the money from me. I refused to pay for their education. I already supported them from the time that they were age 10. I have a son of my own who wanted to go to college too. There is no way I could pay $19,000 X 3 a YEAR.

By default, divorced parents are not required to pay for their children's college education. For some reason you agreed to do this in your divorce settlement. Or your ex put it in there and your lawyer did not fight hard enough to get it removed.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> I can think of another instance where a non-biological adult is made responsible for a child... college.
> 
> When my step children wanted to go to college, they tried to get things like pel grants. Their father had zero income. Their mother makes minimum wage. They should have been able to get financial aid.
> 
> Instead I was told that they could not get financial aid because I was married to their father and my income was too high. I would have to pay $19,000 a year towards their education before they could get any financial aid.
> 
> So their father and I got a divorce. Within a few weeks after that divorcee my step daughter was able to get a full scholarship that even covered her living expenses because her parents were poor.
> 
> A lot of step parents won't do the divorce and are thus forced to help pay for eh education for their step children.


This is not actually accurate, it's not compelling you to pay, it's preventing you from getting assistance. Similar but not the same.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> And since you and the state seem to think that money is what is best for the child as that seems to be the determining factor I ask, if the bio-father is in a higher economical position shouldn't the state compel him to support the child. After all if you used his income as an assessment as to the amount of compensation the child receives that would seem to make him the better parent, or at least the one that would provided better for it's best interest.
> 
> If not why not?


It certainly is not a bad idea to make a bio dad pay child support. But it may not always be possible to locate him, or he may have died.

Money is certainly an important factor in caring for a child. But I don't think it is the only one.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> When it comes to divorce and child support, a judge has a lot of latitude. I do believe that a judge could order that the non-biological father have no financial responsibility and the this goes to the biological father.
> 
> There are cases now where judges are doing this.
> 
> Revoking the Husband’s Paternity in a Divorce
> 
> https://michiganlegalhelp.org/self-help-tools/family/non-marital-children-born-during-marriage
> 
> I had a child while married but my husband is not the father.


The law should take away judicial latitude then...quick, simple, and just law...

If, upon demonstration of non paternity, the plaintiff shall be held harmless with regards to further financial responsibility.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Keep in mind that I was not compelled to pay the college education for my step children. I could chose not to. But if they wanted to go to college, they would have to get the money from me. I refused to pay for their education. I already supported them from the time that they were age 10. I have a son of my own who wanted to go to college too. There is no way I could pay $19,000 X 3 a YEAR.
> 
> By default, divorced parents are not required to pay for their children's college education. For some reason you agreed to do this in your divorce settlement. Or your ex put it in there and your lawyer did not fight hard enough to get it removed.


I think Sam is in Illinois. My sister's parenting agreement was done in Illinois, too, and they were both required to pay for their son through college. Maybe it is an Illinois thing?


----------



## MEM2020

Guys - my knee jerk reaction - to the guy finds out his 7 year old isn't biologically his - is the same as yours. 

But - my - delayed reaction is a bit different. 

I watch this tv series - The Americans. It's about these Russian sleeper agents/spies. 

Their handler is also kind of like a father figure. The wife - isn't totally into the h. He is totally into her. 

So the handler is trying to help the wife and she is talking about how she isn't in love with her H. 

Anyway - the handler - let's call him Yuri (cause he's Russian) - points to his Labrador retriever and asks the wife: Do you know why I love this dog? And she says no, and he explains that he loves the dog BECAUSE he takes care of him. 

I think you take care of a child/stepchild/affair child - and in the process - you feel love. Backward as it seems, I think it's true. 






sokillme said:


> No one here is arguing that the needs of the child shouldn't be met the argument is over who should meet them. Again there are hundreds of things the state does to meet the needs of children where needed. Your premise is seems to be it's the fuax-father (to steal the term from Gus) or no one.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> This assumes the judge actually has jurisdiction in this matter. There are lots of things that are just mandatory in the law. Parental financial responsibility is one of them. If the state sees you as the legal parent, you are going to have to pay.


Part of the issue might be that in some issues, the request to remove a man as father of a child would have to be filed within 2 years of the birth of a child. Once a man has established himself as the father of a child, our legal system believes that it's in the best interest of that child that he remain the legal father of that child.

It's a tough situation.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> Keep in mind that I was not compelled to pay the college education for my step children. I could chose not to. But if they wanted to go to college, they would have to get the money from me. I refused to pay for their education. I already supported them from the time that they were age 10. I have a son of my own who wanted to go to college too. There is no way I could pay $19,000 X 3 a YEAR.
> 
> By default, divorced parents are not required to pay for their children's college education. For some reason you agreed to do this in your divorce settlement. Or your ex put it in there and your lawyer did not fight hard enough to get it removed.


Oh, no I did not agree to it, and I did try and fight it, but in my jurisdiction, and state, college expenses are a default award unless extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated. Just like the child support formula, and the new alimony formula in my state...judges can't budge up or down unless extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I think Sam is in Illinois. My sister's parenting agreement was done in Illinois, too, and they were both required to pay for their son through college. Maybe it is an Illinois thing?



Nice detective work there jld...I am indeed in Illinois  And in the most conservative state judicial district to boot...

If one wants a really eye opening experience...just read through divorce and child support case law here...I spent hundreds of hours pouring through it...the stuff nightmares are made of if you are a man with kids.


----------



## MEM2020

Yes - continuity and stability 




EleGirl said:


> Part of the issue might be that in some issues, the request to remove a man as father of a child would have to be filed within 2 years of the birth of a child. Once a man has established himself as the father of a child, our legal system believes that it's in the best interest of that child that he remain the legal father of that child.
> 
> It's a tough situation.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> How telling that you used the word *dominant *and not _independent_. A window into your soul I think.


Women are ascending economically, sokillme. And as they do, they should indeed become economically dominant. And I think that will be a very good thing, especially for children.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I think Sam is in Illinois. My sister's parenting agreement was done in Illinois, too, and they were both required to pay for their son through college. Maybe it is an Illinois thing?


I looked it up. Illinois does make this a requirement in divorce. The obligation fall on BOTH parents. It sounds like this is also income dependent. 

https://ilfamilylaw.com/new-divorce-law-on-college-expenses/

"Section 513 requires both parents to contribute to the post-secondary educational expenses of their children according to factors that are intended to determine the amount each parent (and the student) must contribute. The list of possible expenses has been*open-ended and open to interpretation which left*room for disagreement and, therefore, sometimes led to protracted litigation.* The revisions regarding the covered expenses under Section 513 provide clarity, guidance and definition.

The new Section 513(a) contains a termination of the obligation to contribute to educational expenses at age 23, unless “good cause” can be shown why it should continue. It also**provides for the contribution obligation to end at age 25 regardless of the circumstances.* This will eliminate some of the fight over how long the obligation of the parents to pay college expenses must continue."

"There is*often disagreement over the type of college a parent should be obligated to provide for, and the sky has been*the limit. That left*people arguing whether a child should attend a local community college, an Ivy League school (with Ivy League tuition), a state school, a private school, etc. The new rules do not completely eliminate the potential for argument. Parents will still likely disagree whether Johnny is community college or Ivy League material, but the new rules cap the costs at the equivalent of a University of Illinois education."

"Section 513(g) now provides for the termination of the parents’ obligation to pay college expenses if the child fails to maintain a cumulative “C” grade point average. There is an exception for poor grades caused by serious illness or other good cause.* Additional termination provisions include the completion of a bachelor’s degree or marriage. Again, these are common sense rules that should eliminate some of the issues that parents have previously had to litigate about.

Under Section 513, the child’s ability to contribute to his or her own college expenses has always been part of the consideration, in addition to the parents’ abilities. The new Section 513(h) provides that a 529 plan or other college savings plan is considered to be a resource of the child., eliminating any room for disagreement or uncertainty."

https://ilfamilylaw.com/new-divorce-law-on-college-expenses/


----------



## EleGirl

By the way, there are cases of college students suing their parents to force their parents to pay for college. In some cases the students won.

Right now your financial aid program considers parents to be responsible for their kid's college expenses. So when financial aid is considered, the parents income counts as does the income of the student. 

A student whose parents refuses to provide their financial information on their FAFSA is SOL for getting financial aid of any kind. I know a few parents who have done this... pretty low of them.

At age 24 a student is considered independent from their parent. In some cases, a student can get a determination of independence prior to age 24. At some schools this is pretty easy. At others not so much.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> I looked it up. Illinois does make this a requirement in divorce. The obligation fall on BOTH parents. It sounds like this is also income dependent.
> 
> https://ilfamilylaw.com/new-divorce-law-on-college-expenses/
> 
> "Section 513 requires both parents to contribute to the post-secondary educational expenses of their children according to factors that are intended to determine the amount each parent (and the student) must contribute. The list of possible expenses has been*open-ended and open to interpretation which left*room for disagreement and, therefore, sometimes led to protracted litigation.* The revisions regarding the covered expenses under Section 513 provide clarity, guidance and definition.
> 
> The new Section 513(a) contains a termination of the obligation to contribute to educational expenses at age 23, unless “good cause” can be shown why it should continue. It also**provides for the contribution obligation to end at age 25 regardless of the circumstances.* This will eliminate some of the fight over how long the obligation of the parents to pay college expenses must continue."
> 
> "There is*often disagreement over the type of college a parent should be obligated to provide for, and the sky has been*the limit. That left*people arguing whether a child should attend a local community college, an Ivy League school (with Ivy League tuition), a state school, a private school, etc. The new rules do not completely eliminate the potential for argument. Parents will still likely disagree whether Johnny is community college or Ivy League material, but the new rules cap the costs at the equivalent of a University of Illinois education."
> 
> "Section 513(g) now provides for the termination of the parents’ obligation to pay college expenses if the child fails to maintain a cumulative “C” grade point average. There is an exception for poor grades caused by serious illness or other good cause.* Additional termination provisions include the completion of a bachelor’s degree or marriage. Again, these are common sense rules that should eliminate some of the issues that parents have previously had to litigate about.
> 
> Under Section 513, the child’s ability to contribute to his or her own college expenses has always been part of the consideration, in addition to the parents’ abilities. The new Section 513(h) provides that a 529 plan or other college savings plan is considered to be a resource of the child., eliminating any room for disagreement or uncertainty."
> 
> https://ilfamilylaw.com/new-divorce-law-on-college-expenses/


Yeah, it is income dependent, and when the able bodied ex-wife mother who has been divorced for five years still does not have a job, the court determined that her financial responsibility is zero, and because of the way financial aid is determined, my daughter is not eligible for pell grants or anything to help offset the cost...end result...I am stuck paying for it.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> This is not actually accurate, it's not compelling you to pay, it's preventing you from getting assistance. Similar but not the same.


Yes I stated that in one of the posts. 

But the feds and the schools see the step parent as responsible. That is the point I was trying to make.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Yeah, it is income dependent, and when the able bodied ex-wife mother who has been divorced for five years still does not have a job, the court determined that her financial responsibility is zero, and because of the way financial aid is determined, my daughter is not eligible for pell grants or anything to help offset the cost...end result...I am stuck paying for it.


If you were still married, it would be the same. They would look at your joint income. So if she were a SAHM, your income would be the only income taken into consideration.

Who filled out the FAFSA? When I filled out the FAFSA for my step kids, they asked for the income of the parent who had primary custody... and the income of their spouse. They did not ask the income of the two biological parents.

With my son's FAFSA, they only asked for my income (I was divorced from step kid's father at this point). They did not ask for the income of my son's father.. my ex.

So when your daughter's FAFSA was filled out, shouldn't only your ex's income be considered? This is a federal thing, not a state thing.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Yeah, it is income dependent, and when the able bodied ex-wife mother who has been divorced for five years still does not have a job, the court determined that her financial responsibility is zero, and because of the way financial aid is determined, my daughter is not eligible for pell grants or anything to help offset the cost...end result...I am stuck paying for it.


If you were still married to your ex, your income would be considered for your daughter's financial aid. So she would not get any financial aid, just like now.

Would you refuse to pay your daughter's education even if you were still married to her mother?


----------



## jld

Ele, did your son not live at home for undergrad?


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> If you were still married, they it would be the same. They would look at your joint income. So if she were a SAHM, your income would be the only income taken into consideration.
> 
> Who filled out the FAFSA? When I filled out the FAFSA for my step kids, they asked for the income of the parent who had primary custody... and the income of their spouse. They did not ask the income of the two biological parents.
> 
> With my son's FAFSA, they only asked for my income (I was divorced from step kid's father at this point). They did not ask for the income of my son's father.. my ex.
> 
> So when your daughter's FAFSA was filled out, shouldn't only your ex's income be considered? This is a federal thing, not a state thing.


If we were still married, I could decline to pay. Since I am divorced, I am forced to pay.

My ex is remarried, so for the purposes of the FAFSA, they had to include the new husband's income which put my daughter out of eligibility for Pell and state MAP grants. In the case of the state courts determining financial responsibility, they only looked at mine, and my ex wife's income, independent of household income...so it was the combination of two different requirements coming together that led to this.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

I've been through this with friends and family. No, there isn't a ton of latitude. Here is what the links you provided leave out.
Laws on False Paternity | LegalZoom Legal Info



> Married Fathers
> 
> Fathers who were legally married to the child's mother at the time of the child's birth are the child's presumed father. They are entitled to visitation and child custody if the parents divorce, and they must pay child support if they no longer live with the child. This paternity, however, may be challenged if another man asserts that he is the father of the child, and he undergoes a paternity test. However, fathers may still be obligated to support their children if they acted as the child's father for an extended period of time. *States are influenced by the child's best interests when making paternity decisions, and it is often not in the child's best interests to remove a father from her life.*
> Unmarried Fathers
> 
> Unmarried fathers are not legally acknowledged as the child's father until they or the mother petition the court to acknowledge him as the father. State procedures vary slightly, but typical requirements may include obtaining a paternity test or signing documentation, along with the mother, that the father acknowledges his paternity. *After a father becomes the child's legal father, he may be obligated to pay child support and entitled to custody or visitation with the child.* Men should not sign voluntary acknowledgments unless they are certain they are the child's father, because it is difficult to be removed as the legal father once you have signed such documentation.


The court system is set up to protect the child as many of you are currently arguing. Which is why I said there is no shame on the judge. The story you related will have many issues which most likely forced his hand. I could be wrong, but there is not a story available to fact check. When navigating this system state courts and laws do not play with the money. They'd rather be wrong, since most men can't afford to sue or are not allowed in some states, than be on the hook for a child's support.

Here's some more.



> Disproving Paternity
> 
> After a father has been established as the child's legal father, he may only disprove paternity by taking a paternity test or when another man takes a paternity test demonstrating that he is the biological father. In some states, the legal father may then petition the court to be removed as the child's legal father. Some states allow legal fathers to disprove paternity at any time; others only allow it while a child is still a baby. And in some states, men may not attempt to disprove paternity at all, and the only way to disprove paternity is via a paternity claim from another man. *In many cases, however, if the father has served as the child's parent for several years, the court may still classify him as the child's legal father. If there is not another father willing to fill the role or if removing the father is not in the best interests of the child, non-biological fathers may still be classified as legal fathers, obligating them to pay child support. This is why it is important to be absolutely certain the child is yours before signing a birth certificate or signing a stipulation to paternity.*
> Paternity Fraud
> 
> *Paternity fraud, which occurs when a mother tricks a man into believing he is a child's father, is extremely difficult to prove.* It is not sufficient simply to prove that the man is not the child's biological father. Instead, the accuser must demonstrate that the mother knowingly and willingly misled the father. Some states, such as Florida and Iowa, permit men to sue for paternity fraud to recover back child support payments and other payments made to the mother or the child.


Your first link provides advice basically on mutual revocation. Both parents decide to revoke the rights. The other is a how to which even adds in the time constrains and continued pay until the case is adjudicated.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> If you were still married to your ex, your income would be considered for your daughter's financial aid. So she would not get any financial aid, just like now.
> 
> Would you refuse to pay your daughter's education even if you were still married to her mother?


My kids always knew that they would be responsible for the bulk of their higher education be it scholarships, talent grants, working and saving...you know, learning how to be responsible, self sufficient adults and all that. I would always be there to provide a safety net if necessary.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Women are ascending economically, sokillme. And as they do, they should indeed become economically dominant. And I think that will be a very good thing, especially for children.


This language right here is a microcosm of everything that has happened to the women's movement and why so many people not no longer identify as feminist. Used to be the goal was to be independent now it's to be dominant. The more this becomes obvious the less support you will receive from men and some egalitarian women. I do applaud your honesty though, you have said what many of us think is the goal now. By the way I intend to fight either sex becoming economically dominant just as it has been unhealthy for men to dominate so it will be for women.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> This language right here is a microcosm of everything that has happened to the women's movement and why so many people not no longer identify as feminist. Used to be the goal was to be independent now it's to be dominant. The more this becomes obvious the less support you will receive from men and some egalitarian women. I do applaud your honesty though, you have said what many of us think is the goal now. By the way I intend to fight either sex becoming economically dominant just as it has been unhealthy for men to dominate so it will be for women.


I guess we will find out . . .


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> It's a tough situation.


Explain what you mean by tough? Tough on the poor guy who was abused by his crappy ex and then had the state add insult to injury in this case? If so I agree but it's more than tough.

Or is it tough as in there is no easy choice? If it is the latter then you honestly believe that this particular situation is a tough situation? What is tough about it? I think if you asked every person besides the couple who are getting the money they would say it's pretty obvious what should happen, and it is morally wrong to make the guy pay for a child that is not his. 

The response like this "Well these are difficult decisions" it precisely the kind of cop out that has lead us down this path. Injustice always hurts society.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> If you were still married to your ex, your income would be considered for your daughter's financial aid. So she would not get any financial aid, just like now.
> 
> Would you refuse to pay your daughter's education even if you were still married to her mother?


My parents didn't pay for my schooling after high school. The helped support me but I took out college loans. It actually taught me the value of dept and savings. I really don't understand the thinking that kids are somehow entitled to monitory support for higher education. Again it fits the times however.


----------



## samyeagar

sokillme said:


> My parents didn't pay for my schooling after high school. The helped support me but I took out college loans. It actually taught me the value of dept and savings. I really don't understand the thinking that kids are somehow entitled to monitory support for higher education. Again it fits the times however.


Both my parents are university professors. Mom in Psychology, Dad in Sociology and Collective Behaviour, so obviously they value higher education. When it came to me going to college, they helped me out when I needed it, but the bulk of the responsibility was mine to figure out how to make it happen. I worked, got scholarships, took out loans, and it taught me a whole bunch about life and the value of money, and making good decisions.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Explain what you mean by tough? Tough on the poor guy who was abused by his crappy ex and then had the state add insult to injury in this case? If so I agree but it's more than tough.
> 
> Or is it tough as in there is no easy choice? If it is the latter then you honestly believe that this particular situation is a tough situation? What is tough about it? I think if you asked every person besides the couple who are getting the money they would say it's pretty obvious what should happen, and it is morally wrong to make the guy pay for a child that is not his.
> 
> The response like this "Well these are difficult decisions" it precisely the kind of cop out that has lead us down this path. Injustice always hurts society.


So where does Mike figure into the situation, then? You think he should pay nothing?


----------



## MJJEAN

Anon Pink said:


> Secondly, if she is unmarried the man she identifies as the father should also sign off.


In my state there are 3 ways to list a father on the birth record. 1) legal husband of mother 2) he signs for it 3) court order. The state doesn't just take the mothers word for it if she's unmarred.

If you are married AND you tell the registrar that your husband is NOT the father, they still list him anyway because that's the law. So, they actually don't take the mothers​ word either way, really.

I was still legally married to exH when my son was born. My then AP and now DH and I had been living together, he was there for the labor and delivery, ready to give our son his last name and sign the Affidavit of Parentage. I was allowed to give our son whatever last name I wanted. To list the correct father I had to add to my divorce petition that DS was not issue of the marriage, go to court and testify that there was no chance exH could be the father, he had to testify to same, then take the final divorce decree along with the signed and notarized Affidavit of Parentage and a birth record amendment form, some fees, and send it all to the vital statistics office. With all parties cooperating it was a royal pain. 

I was literally forced to commit paternity fraud. It took more than 18 months for me to financially swing filing for divorce and for it to be finalized. During that time, exH was listed as father and there wasn't anything anyone could do.


----------



## samyeagar

MJJEAN said:


> In my state there are 3 ways to list a father on the birth record. 1) legal husband of mother 2) he signs for it 3) court order. The state doesn't just take the mothers word for it if she's unmarred.
> 
> If you are married AND you tell the registrar that your husband is NOT the father, they still list him anyway because that's the law. So, they actually don't take the mothers​ word either way, really.
> 
> I was still legally married when my son was born. My then AP and now DH and I had been living together and he was there for the labor and delivery, ready to give our son his last name and sign the Affidavit of Parentage. I was allowed to give our son whatever last name I wanted. To list the correct father I had to add to my divorce petition that DS was not issue of the marriage, go to court and testify that there was no chance exH could be the father, he had to testify to same, then take the final divorce decree along with the signed and notarized Affidavit of Parentage and a birth record amendment form, some fees, and send it all to the vital statistics office. With all parties cooperating it was a royal pain.


When a simple paternity test at birth being the name that goes on the certificate, or it staying blank if paternity can't be established regardless of marital status...so much easier and quicker.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Ele, did your son not live at home for undergrad?


He has lived with me the whole time. His father and I covered his tuition and everything else for undergrad. For his masters he taught at the university. Wage was low so he still lived with me. Now with the Phd we will have a fellowship here sooner or later, the paperwork is just not complete. But he will still live with me. It's cheaper than helping him with an apartment.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> jld said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women are ascending economically, sokillme. And as they do, they should indeed become economically dominant. And I think that will be a very good thing, especially for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This language right here is a microcosm of everything that has happened to the women's movement and why so many people not no longer identify as feminist. Used to be the goal was to be independent now it's to be dominant. The more this becomes obvious the less support you will receive from men and some egalitarian women. I do applaud your honesty though, you have said what many of us think is the goal now. By the way I intend to fight either sex becoming economically dominant just as it has been unhealthy for men to dominate so it will be for women.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Jld uses the work 'dominant' (not sure why) and you turn it into the manifesto for women. Come on.

And keep in mind, jld is a woman who is a SAHM.

I do agree that neither sex should be economically dominate. And in marriage, it should be about working together... not dominance.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> Explain what you mean by tough? Tough on the poor guy who was abused by his crappy ex and then had the state add insult to injury in this case? If so I agree but it's more than tough.
> 
> Or is it tough as in there is no easy choice? If it is the latter then you honestly believe that this particular situation is a tough situation? What is tough about it? I think if you asked every person besides the couple who are getting the money they would say it's pretty obvious what should happen, and it is morally wrong to make the guy pay for a child that is not his.
> 
> The response like this "Well these are difficult decisions" it precisely the kind of cop out that has lead us down this path. Injustice always hurts society.


OMG, you are over thinking things to a point that it's amazing to watch.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> OMG, you are over thinking things to a point that it's amazing to watch.


That's not an explanation.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> Oh come on. Jld uses the work 'dominant' (not sure why) and you turn it into the manifesto for women. Come on.
> 
> And keep in mind, jld is a woman who is a SAHM.
> 
> I do agree that neither sex should be economically dominate. And in marriage, it should be about working together... not dominance.


jld post consistently show a strong misandry, is it any wonder she wants women to "dominate" economically. Not really sure why you are (not sure why), bigotry is bigotry. Sorry if my calling her out on that bugs you. I suspect if the gender roles were reversed you would do the same, as I have seen you do it many times and rightfully so. I am right there with you when you do.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> jld post consistently show a strong misandry, is it any wonder she wants women to "dominate" economically. Not really sure why you are (not sure why), bigotry is bigotry. Sorry if my calling her out on that bugs you. I suspect if the gender roles were reversed you would do the same, as I have seen you do it many times and rightfully so. I am right there with you when you do.


Misandry, huh?

You do know I am the mother of four sons?


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Misandry, huh?
> 
> You do know I am the mother of four sons?


You act like I am the first person to point out your bias against men. 

Which makes it all the more disconcerting that you want them to grow up in a world where they are dominated economically by women. Or your husband is against them having the right to DNA test their child if they happen to marry a women who is a fraud.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> You act like I am the first person to point out your bias against men.
> 
> Which makes it all the more disconcerting that you want them to grow up in a world where they are dominated economically by women. Or your husband is against them having the right to DNA test their child if they happen to marry a women who is a fraud.


Your or anyone else's thinking it does not make it so.

I think a world in which women are ascending economically has great potential to become more just, more nurturing.

At any rate, we will see how it goes.


----------



## Duguesclin

sokillme said:


> You act like I am the first person to point out your bias against men.
> 
> Which makes it all the more disconcerting that you want them to grow up in a world where they are dominated economically by women. Or your husband is against them having the right to DNA test their child if they happen to marry a women who is a fraud.


My kids have a great mom. They are very fortunate and they will be fine men.

This world needs more men less focused on their DNA and more focused on making the world better. Women rising economically is a good thing and will make men better. It will force them to respect women. Men will not be able to control women with money anymore.

But I am sure there will always be some bitter guys.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Your or anyone else's thinking it does not make it so.
> 
> I think a world in which women are ascending economically has great potential to become more just, more nurturing.
> 
> At any rate, we will see how it goes.


As far as your thinking on men you and I have had this argument many times. We probably will again. 

Besides that I am all for women ascending and being equals in all area of life hell I fight for it but once you start talking about dominating that is where I stop. My only point was to point how your tone is an example of how 2nd wave feminism changed to now 3 wave feminism. It use to be for equality, now it's for dominance, it's actually refreshing to see someone admit it. I would consider myself 2nd wave in most things, where you are very clearly 3rd wave. Why don't you both just own it, plenty of chauvinistic men own their want to dominate.


----------



## sokillme

Duguesclin said:


> My kids have a great mom. They are very fortunate and they will be fine men.
> 
> This world needs more men less focused on their DNA and more focused on making the world better. Women rising economically is a good thing and will make men better. It will force them to respect women. Men will not be able to control women with money anymore.
> 
> But I am sure there will always be some bitter guys.


Never questioned her as a mother. Just her words typed on this board. 

Have you even taken the time to read some of the horror stories of the men who had this done to them?

It's so easy to say "just get over it and don't be bitter" from the position of having security that your choices were not taken away from you from someone who lied and deceived you into raising and paying for another man's child, when you will never have one of your own. Or even just the basic human right of knowing the truth. It's sad that you don't seem to have any sympathy for such men. 

Instead of condemning these men why don't you take the time to read their stories.

But I am sure there will always be people who tell those suffering to just get over it.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> That's not an explanation.


I'm not explaining anything to you. Every time you start asking me questions like this, you just keep spiraling the discussion-- I usually just stupidly, patiently, answer your questions, over and over .. and it spirals out of control. I'm not playing the game this time. 

I already posted a lot about what I think on the topic. I was clear enough.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> I'm not explaining anything to you. Every time you start asking me questions like this, you just keep spiraling the discussion-- I usually just stupidly, patiently, answer your questions, over and over .. and it spirals out of control. I'm not playing the game this time.
> 
> I already posted a lot about what I think on the topic. I was clear enough.


OK.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> jld post consistently show a strong misandry, is it any wonder she wants women to "dominate" economically. Not really sure why you are (not sure why), bigotry is bigotry. Sorry if my calling her out on that bugs you. I suspect if the gender roles were reversed you would do the same, as I have seen you do it many times and rightfully so. I am right there with you when you do.


I was not responding to you calling her out. I was responding to taking what she said and making it sound like there is some big female conspiracy because she said it.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> I was not responding to you calling her out. I was responding to taking what she said and making it sound like there is some big female conspiracy because she said it.


It was not a conspiracy, I just thought it was an interesting choice of words, that kind of fits how the women's movement has changed in my lifetime. When I was in my 20's I would have agreed with most of the stuff that the so called feminists were asking for. Now I won't even identify with them. That exchange between us about the word dominate pretty much encapsulated that. For example the phrase "toxic masculinity". what an insult that is to me as a man. To call my very nature toxic, how do you expect me to respond to that. When you tell me my very nature is bad you lose me as an ally and gain me as an enemy. The thing that makes it worse is I think that is part of the point, they want me to be their enemy. 

It wasn't meant as an attack on women. Half the time I am on here arguing your point when it comes to child support, sexism in the workplace all that stuff. As I have said to you before, there is no doubt in my mind women are just as capable as men in most things and more capable in others. But even more so and this is where both the men's and women's movement both miss the boat. Even if we are not, even if men have strengths that women don't and women have strengths that men don't that doesn't make either gender's wants, needs, or contributions of any lesser value.

When it comes to this subject. You know who gets hurt by women who do this to men? Other women. As an example this post, it pisses me off as a man that some frat boys and one selfish ex-boyfriend have caused this young women such doubt about all men. Mostly because I remember being her age and I was a good guy. There is some guy out there who is a good guy and whose actions have been tainted by this douchb*gory (that's one of my favorite words in the English language by the way). They will have to work through the abuse she has suffered and that sucks for her, and it sucks for him. 

In the same way I don't understand why more women are offended by what these women have done. It hurts good women when other women do such terrible things to men. If you love marriage I would think you would want to do things to strengthen it, well these kinds of outcomes don't strengthen it. It benefits women when men feel safer about marriage. It benefits marriage.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> I'm not explaining anything to you. Every time you start asking me questions like this, you just keep spiraling the discussion-- I usually just stupidly, patiently, answer your questions, over and over .. and it spirals out of control. I'm not playing the game this time.
> 
> I already posted a lot about what I think on the topic. I was clear enough.


That's another thing, me asking you questions is not me attacking you. I actually like dialoging with you because you can be just as real on here as I am. In my mind it is good to have challenging opinions and discussions. I am not trying to play a game or bate you. This isn't even a topic where someone is asking for help so I don't see the big deal if the conversation gets a little more broad.

Your quote that I was responding to made it seem like you were saying these kinds of things are just too hard to deal with. My point was that is why nothing changes because no one has the courage to deal with them, and most of the time they seem pretty simple to deal with to me.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> It was not a conspiracy, I just thought it was an interesting choice of words, that kind of fits how the women's movement has changed in my lifetime. When I was in my 20's I would have agreed with most of the stuff that the so called feminists were asking for. Now I won't even identify with them. That exchange between us about the word dominate pretty much encapsulated that. For example the phrase "toxic masculinity". what an insult that is to me as a man. To call my very nature toxic, how do you expect me to respond to that. When you tell me my very nature is bad you lose me as an ally and gain me as an enemy. The thing that makes it worse is I think that is part of the point, they want me to be their enemy.
> 
> It wasn't meant as an attack on women. Half the time I am on here arguing your point when it comes to child support, sexism in the workplace all that stuff. As I have said to you before, there is no doubt in my mind women are just as capable as men in most things and more capable in others. But even more so and this is where both the men's and women's movement both miss the boat. Even if we are not, even if men have strengths that women don't and women have strengths that men don't that doesn't make either gender's wants, needs, or contributions of any lesser value.
> 
> When it comes to this subject. You know who gets hurt by women who do this to men? Other women. As an example this post, it pisses me off as a man that some frat boys and one selfish ex-boyfriend have caused this young women such doubt about all men. Mostly because I remember being her age and I was a good guy. There is some guy out there who is a good guy and whose actions have been tainted by this douchb*gory (that's one of my favorite words in the English language by the way). They will have to work through the abuse she has suffered and that sucks for her, and it sucks for him.
> 
> *In the same way I don't understand why more women are offended by what these women have done. * It hurts good women when other women do such terrible things to men. If you love marriage I would think you would want to do things to strengthen it, well these kinds of outcomes don't strengthen it. It benefits women when men feel safer about marriage. It benefits marriage.


This post is all over the place. Just who are "these women" and what did they do?

If you are talking about this thread; about women who commit paternity fraud? I'm not sure I understand why you think that women who have not committed paternity fraud (especially the women on this thread) would ever be ok with that. Nor do I understand why you think women have a obligation to make a statement to clarify that we do not support paternity fraud. You requiring that we make such a statement means that you think that by default we support paternity fraud. 

That's pretty insulting.

I have as much responsibly for some random woman who committed paternity fraud as you do--none at all. And let's not forget, for every women who commits paternity fraud, there is a man who is her accomplice.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> This post is all over the place. Just who are "these women" and what did they do?
> 
> If you are talking about this thread; about women who commit paternity fraud, I'm not sure I understand why you think that women who have not committed paternity fraud (especially the women on this thread) would ever be ok with that. Nor do I understand why you think women have a obligation to make a statement to clarify that we do not support paternity fraud. You requiring that we much such a statement means that you think that by default we support paternity fraud.
> 
> That's pretty insulting.
> 
> I have as much responsibly for some random woman who committed paternity fraud as you do--none at all. And let's not forget, for every women who commits paternity fraud, there is a man who is her accomplice.


That should read aren't. 

I am talking about women in general, not you specifically. My point is we should all be working to get this stuff fixed, just as much as we are working to get dead beat dads to pay for their kids. Not the people in this thread in particular.



> In 2004 the court of appeal reversed the trial court decision ruling in favor of Mr. Navarro and became the first published California case to hold that the statute of limitations did not apply in setting aside an old default judgment against a paternity fraud victim.[33] *Immediately after the ruling was issued, the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department announced that it would request that the case be depublished so it could not be used as a precedent by other men in Mr. Navarro's situation.*[34] That request was later denied by the California Supreme Court.[35]


The bolded part there is an example how the direct opposite is happening. The state is trying to prevent men from escaping these archaic decisions. Who is making these decisions?


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> As far as your thinking on men you and I have had this argument many times. We probably will again.
> 
> Besides that I am all for women ascending and being equals in all area of life hell I fight for it but once you start talking about dominating that is where I stop. My only point was to point how your tone is an example of how 2nd wave feminism changed to now 3 wave feminism. It use to be for equality, now it's for dominance, it's actually refreshing to see someone admit it. I would consider myself 2nd wave in most things, where you are very clearly 3rd wave. Why don't you both just own it, plenty of chauvinistic men own their want to dominate.


I am not even sure I could tell you what "2nd" or "3rd wave" feminism is. But you seem to know.

Women are ascending economically. That seems to be a fact. If they continue to pull ahead of men academically and economically, it is a simple conclusion to draw that they will become economically dominant in our society. And that seems to scare some men.

And what is strange about that in relation to paternity fraud is that economic dependence is one of the reasons given for women not telling men when they are not the father of the baby. 

So if finances are no longer an issue, paternity fraud may not be, either. It may usher in a whole new wave of transparency, as these women will no longer have anything to fear.

One would think men would cheer for that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> To redirect the thread a bit, the debate seems to come down to Who has the most vulnerable interests here, the father or the child? Who are you most trying to protect?


It's true... when I hear of ANY case like this.. I immediately think of the MAN more than the child.. as the BETRAYAL started HERE.... she KNEW... she chose to HIDE IT.. I feel the fall out should rest on HER.... I hate liars , connivers of any sort.... why wasn't she vulnerable in coming forth *with the truth*?? How can someone look themselves in the mirror every day living with a lie of this magnitude ?? 

It would eat me alive to live with something like this, it would steal all my joy... I'd hate myself for it.. I am a firm believer in NOT BETRAYING SOMEONE WHO TRUSTS YOU... that is just evil... Don't screw the good guy... if you don't want him, if you have an affair partner.. allow him his freedom... 

Some men would be able to look past a Liaison, even embrace an affair child... I just Feel strongly he has EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW...no man should be lied to , manipulated into paying for another man's child... 

IF a woman cares about the future of her children.. she would not do this to her family... 

Now granted... I understand not every man/ husband are GOOD MEN.. I tend to look at these situations thinking of my own husband or a good man...which is why it boils my blood so much... My husband is the type that COULD probably look past it being another man's child and embrace & love them... thinking more of the child.. I love him for that.. we talked about it last night - this thread... he is somewhere between how I feel and @jld feels (thinking of the child primarily) .... ME.. NOPE.. I'd want to pitch forth the woman who betrayed me liked that...it'd feel like the ground was taken from me...everything I thought I knew would be DEAD...

I am a strong believer .. if you **** up - you OWN IT ... you give the other person the truth -even if it hurts YOU.....If there is genuine heart wrenching remorse there...this could save a family... but they need to come clean from the beginning.. not years later.. that's just not acceptable in any way...


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> It's true... when I hear of ANY case like this.. I immediately think of the MAN more than the child.. as the BETRAYAL started HERE.... she KNEW... she chose to HIDE IT.. I feel the fall out should rest on HER.... I hate liars , connivers of any sort.... why wasn't she vulnerable in coming forth *with the truth*?? How can someone look themselves in the mirror every day living with a lie of this magnitude ??
> 
> It would eat me alive to live with something like this, it would steal all my joy... I'd hate myself for it.. I am a firm believer in NOT BETRAYING SOMEONE WHO TRUSTS YOU... that is just evil... Don't screw the good guy... if you don't want him, if you have an affair partner.. allow him his freedom...
> 
> Some men would be able to look past a Liaison, even embrace an affair child... I just Feel strongly he has EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW...no man should be lied to , manipulated into paying for another man's child...
> 
> IF a woman cares about the future of her children.. she would not do this to her family...
> 
> Now granted... I understand not every man/ husband are GOOD MEN.. I tend to look at these situations thinking of my own husband or a good man...which is why it boils my blood so much... My husband is the type that COULD probably look past it being another man's child and embrace & love them... thinking more of the child.. I love him for that.. we talked about it last night - this thread... he is somewhere between how I feel and @jld feels (thinking of the child primarily) .... ME.. NOPE.. I'd want to pitch forth the woman who betrayed me liked that...it'd feel like the ground was taken from me...everything I thought I knew would be DEAD...
> 
> I am a strong believer .. if you **** up - you OWN IT ... you give the other person the truth -even if it hurts YOU.....If there is genuine heart wrenching remorse there...this could save a family... but they need to come clean from the beginning.. not years later.. that's just not acceptable in any way...


I cannot figure out why a woman would not want to tell a man right away. Why would she ever want a man around her child if he did not freely want to be there? It is a gift to be a parent, after all.

Financial need is the only reason I can come up with. And I really hope that will be remedied in the coming decades.

Glad to hear Mr SA would embrace the child. He is indeed a good man, SA. No wonder you are inspired by him. It makes me respect him, too.


----------



## Andy1001

SimplyAmorous said:


> It's true... when I hear of ANY case like this.. I immediately think of the MAN more than the child.. as the BETRAYAL started HERE.... she KNEW... she chose to HIDE IT.. I feel the fall out should rest on HER.... I hate liars , connivers of any sort.... why wasn't she vulnerable in coming forth *with the truth*?? How can someone look themselves in the mirror every day living with a lie of this magnitude ??
> 
> It would eat me alive to live with something like this, it would steal all my joy... I'd hate myself for it.. I am a firm believer in NOT BETRAYING SOMEONE WHO TRUSTS YOU... that is just evil... Don't screw the good guy... if you don't want him, if you have an affair partner.. allow him his freedom...
> 
> Some men would be able to look past a Liaison, even embrace an affair child... I just Feel strongly he has EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW...no man should be lied to , manipulated into paying for another man's child...
> 
> IF a woman cares about the future of her children.. she would not do this to her family...
> 
> Now granted... I understand not every man/ husband are GOOD MEN.. I tend to look at these situations thinking of my own husband or a good man...which is why it boils my blood so much... My husband is the type that COULD probably look past it being another man's child and embrace & love them... thinking more of the child.. I love him for that.. we talked about it last night - this thread... he is somewhere between how I feel and @jld feels (thinking of the child primarily) .... ME.. NOPE.. I'd want to pitch forth the woman who betrayed me liked that...it'd feel like the ground was taken from me...everything I thought I knew would be DEAD...
> 
> I am a strong believer .. if you **** up - you OWN IT ... you give the other person the truth -even if it hurts YOU.....If there is genuine heart wrenching remorse there...this could save a family... but they need to come clean from the beginning.. not years later.. that's just not acceptable in any way...


The worst thing about a woman having a child with an affair partner is that it may be revealed at the worst possible time.You could have a child that is very sick and maybe needs a bone marrow or even an organ transplant,the "father"volunteers immediately only to be told he is not the child's biological father.So as well as going through the hell of maybe losing his child,he then finds out his wife has being cheating on him.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I cannot figure out why a woman would not want to tell a man right away. Why would she ever want a man around her child if he did not freely want to be there? It is a gift to be a parent, after all.


 I can definitely think of reasons why... which I almost addressed in my last post.. but left it where it was - as I explained I tend to have the GOOD husband's being cheated on in mind.. since it's so often said, pounded here at TAM... how women get tired of their Nice guy / good guy husbands ...and seek to be with a Bad boy type.. whether dating or married....

But what if the husband is abusive, or bordering abusive, her fearing his response.. like he may HURT her physically... this would be a huge concern.. in such a situation.. I wouldn't advise a woman to be alone telling him.. but to seek divorce or try to get out of the marriage before even going there...no one's life should be in danger...in such a situation, it could have been WHY she initially found herself in an affair.. but either way...she should want out of the marriage anyway.. to be free from such a man.. 



> Glad to hear Mr SA would embrace the child. He is indeed a good man, SA. No wonder you are inspired by him. It makes me respect him, too.


 We talked about how we'd feel towards the child after learning he or she wasn't ours, trying to imagine this awful situation..... he admits it would CHANGE things, his perception...(like I was saying also)...but he could never hold that against the child...he'd be there for them.. yes..


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> The worst thing about a woman having a child with an affair partner is that it may be revealed at the worst possible time.You could have a child that is very sick and maybe needs a bone marrow or even an organ transplant,the "father"volunteers immediately only to be told he is not the child's biological father.So as well as going through the hell of maybe losing his child,he then finds out his wife has being cheating on him.


We used a donor cord transplant for our son's second bone marrow transplant. It has held up longer than the first transplant from our daughter.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I can definitely think of reasons why... which I almost addressed in my last post.. but left it where it was - as I explained I tend to have the GOOD husband's being cheated on in mind.. since it's so often said, pounded here at TAM... how women get tired of their Nice guy / good guy husbands ...and seek to be with a Bad boy type.. whether dating or married....
> 
> But what if the husband is abusive, or bordering abusive, her fearing his response.. like he may HURT her physically... this would be a huge concern.. in such a situation.. I wouldn't advise a woman to be alone telling him.. but to seek divorce or try to get out of the marriage before even going there...no one's life should be in danger...in such a situation, it could have been WHY she initially found herself in an affair.. but either way...she should want out of the marriage anyway.. to be free from such a man..
> 
> We talked about how we'd feel towards the child after learning he or she wasn't ours, trying to imagine this awful situation..... he admits it would CHANGE things, his perception...(like I was saying also)...but *he could never hold that against the child...he'd be there for them*.. yes..


That is the mark of a Real Man, my dear. And again, why I respect him.  

Remember that Real Man image, from the Ultimate Husband website? It says that Real Men are willing to raise someone else's child.

You make an excellent point about the mother being afraid to tell the father. And yes, I could see a mother being afraid of being beaten up. 

And if she already has children with him, she might be afraid he will take them away and start beating them, too. 

My goodness, she really would be stuck. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

And some even wanting to put her in jail! My goodness!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Andy1001 said:


> The worst thing about a woman having a child with an affair partner is that it may be revealed at the worst possible time.You could have a child that is very sick and maybe needs a bone marrow or even an organ transplant,the "father"volunteers immediately only to be told he is not the child's biological father.So as well as going through the hell of maybe losing his child,he then finds out his wife has being cheating on him.


Yep...I watched a 20/20 like this years ago.. can't remember what was wrong with the child.. but tests were being run...this father of 3 ends up learning 2 of his kids were not his... here his wife had an affair partner for years, he may have even known the guy.. I can't remember now... meanwhile when it came out in the open.. she moved in with her affair partner...but who was on the hook to pay for the these 2 kids... of course the Betrayed Father.. the sperm donor and her get off scott free... like there was no wrong done here...

It's one of those shows that brought this whole issue to a forefront for me.. never thought about it before, never knew anyone in such a situation... I WAS SHOCKED... LIVID for the injustice to this father... The mother was all about "what about the children" like she had 0 self awareness to what she caused here... all I felt was the horrendous wrong down to him...



MJJEAN said:


> So, I did some more checking because I'm bored. Anyways...
> 
> If a married woman commits paternity fraud and the husband paid child support for a child that wasn't his, he can't sue the father. *He has to sue the mother for the support because she was the recipient of the money. Then, to make the "sperm donor" accountable, the mother has to sue him for the support. However, the mother can only start a suit while the child is a minor.
> *
> *I also found out that if there is already a father on the birth certificate, no DNA testing can be court ordered. First, they have to get a court order to remove the listed father and then the court will allow DNA testing ordered or an Affidavit of Parentage to be presented.*
> 
> The more I read, the more I become in favor or DNA testing during pregnancy! They do so many tests during the first and last trimesters that adding one more test would be a drop in the bucket.


This information/ post should be posted on every thread concerning this issue... it's absolutely absurd the hoops to a man has to go through, the cost, the paperwork, dealing with the courts how many times ! Meanwhile what are the consequences for the women who betray these men just so they will be financial supporters till the kid is 18...


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> We used a donor cord transplant for our son's second bone marrow transplant. It has held up longer than the first transplant from our daughter.


I'm sorry if I struck a nerve it wasn't intentional.
My point was really about what a terrible way to find out that your wife has been cheating,when you have a very sick child.This is an awful time for any parent and then to have salt rubbed into the wound must be a nightmare.I watched a tv show from the UK once about this very thing and it was heartbreaking.And in some cases where the child's life was at stake the mother still wouldn't reveal who the father was.
The show was a couple of years ago and there were a lot of estimates about the percentage of children being raised by men who wrongly think they are the biological fathers.It went as high as nine percent but even the most conservative estimate was between one and a half and two percent.


----------



## jld

Andy1001 said:


> I'm sorry if I struck a nerve it wasn't intentional.
> My point was really about what a terrible way to find out that your wife has been cheating,when you have a very sick child.This is an awful time for any parent and then to have salt rubbed into the wound must be a nightmare.I watched a tv show from the UK once about this very thing and it was heartbreaking.And in some cases where the child's life was at stake the mother still wouldn't reveal who the father was.
> The show was a couple of years ago and there were a lot of estimates about the percentage of children being raised by men who wrongly think they are the biological fathers.It went as high as nine percent but even the most conservative estimate was between one and a half and two percent.


I appreciate your sensitivity, Andy. We just hope the transplant will continue to work.

I did see one statistic saying occurrences of false paternity may be less than one percent. Most others had it higher, though.


----------



## MEM2020

Strikes me as odd to have 5 children (more than double the replacement number - which is two) and then chide other men for focusing on DNA. 

In fact - objectively - finding a prospective wife who is willing to have:
- Lots o kids
- Be a SAHM to care for those kids
- Home school them

Shows a nearly absolute focus on copying, caring for and educating ones own DNA. 

I am pointing this out - because genes are powerful. And it's easy to stone throw at others while optimizing our own DNA's propagation. 





Duguesclin said:


> My kids have a great mom. They are very fortunate and they will be fine men.
> 
> This world needs more men less focused on their DNA and more focused on making the world better. Women rising economically is a good thing and will make men better. It will force them to respect women. Men will not be able to control women with money anymore.
> 
> But I am sure there will always be some bitter guys.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

jld said:


> I am not even sure I could tell you what "2nd" or "3rd wave" feminism is. But you seem to know.
> 
> Women are ascending economically. That seems to be a fact. If they continue to pull ahead of men academically and economically, it is a simple conclusion to draw that they will become economically dominant in our society. And that seems to scare some men.
> 
> And what is strange about that in relation to paternity fraud is that economic dependence is one of the reasons given for women not telling men when they are not the father of the baby.
> 
> So if finances are no longer an issue, paternity fraud may not be, either. It may usher in a whole new wave of transparency, as these women will no longer have anything to fear.
> 
> One would think men would cheer for that.


Paternity fraud will exist regardless of the financial situation so, why would a man cheer for that? See how quick you pulled out "I am the mother of fours sons?" This is why I said many women do not understand. It is why financials, DNA and adoption are always dropped in these threads. Adoption is a choice. Blended family is a choice. Paternity fraud is not a choice. No, trying to equate a man KNOWING he has an adopted child to thinking your wife gave birth to your biological son is ridiculous. Again, it is not the same.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

MJJEAN said:


> So, I did some more checking because I'm bored. Anyways...
> 
> If a married woman commits paternity fraud and the husband paid child support for a child that wasn't his, he can't sue the father. He has to sue the mother for the support because she was the recipient of the money. Then, to make the "sperm donor" accountable, the mother has to sue him for the support. However, the mother can only start a suit while the child is a minor.
> 
> I also found out that if there is already a father on the birth certificate, no DNA testing can be court ordered. First, they have to get a court order to remove the listed father and then the court will allow DNA testing ordered or an Affidavit of Parentage to be presented.
> 
> The more I read, the more I become in favor or DNA testing during pregnancy! They do so many tests during the first and last trimesters that adding one more test would be a drop in the bucket.


Keep digging it is way worse than you can imagine. It wasn't until a few years ago and a ton of research I fell on the side of DNA testing as a requirement after birth. I know they can do it during, but until they are more sure it won't affect the baby I'm okay with waiting.


----------



## jld

phillybeffandswiss said:


> Paternity fraud will exist regardless of the financial situation so, why would a man cheer for that? See how quick you pulled out "I am the mother of fours sons?" This is why I said many women do not understand. It is why financials, DNA and adoption are always dropped in these threads. Adoption is a choice. Blended family is a choice. Paternity fraud is not a choice. No, trying to equate a man KNOWING he has an adopted child to thinking your wife gave birth to your biological son is ridiculous. Again, it is not the same.


Being a father is a gift, however you get there. 

Sorry, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> That should read aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2004 the court of appeal reversed the trial court decision ruling in favor of Mr. Navarro and became the first published California case to hold that the statute of limitations did not apply in setting aside an old default judgment against a paternity fraud victim.[33] *Immediately after the ruling was issued, the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department announced that it would request that the case be depublished so it could not be used as a precedent by other men in Mr. Navarro's situation.*[34] That request was later denied by the California Supreme Court.[35]
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded part there is an example how the direct opposite is happening. The state is trying to prevent men from escaping these archaic decisions. Who is making these decisions?
Click to expand...

That case is a great example of how changes happen in our court systms…. Escruciatingly slow.

Apparenlty Mr. Navarro has never been the father of the child who he was required ot pay child support for. The mother of the child simply gave the name of some guy who lived in her neighborhood as the father of her child. And the office that collects child support went after him with no proof. Part fo the fault of this decision rests on Mr. Navarro becaseu shen he got the mail saying that he was named as the father of a child, he ignored it. He should have fought it at that time. So he ignored the appeal process and only tried to get this turned over a few years later. I would think that a man who knew for a fact tha the was not the father would act in a timely manner. Maybe he had sex with the mother and could have been the father????

Anyway, so he contested and eventually won. The court tried to have the case depublished so that it could not be used at precedence. The higher court refused the request to not have the case published. So, it now stands as precedence. The case is a win for the rights of men who are falsely named as the father of a child. 

“Child support officials quickly moved to get the Navarro decision "depublished" or rendered moot for use in court. But in November, the California Supreme Court denied their request, and the law stands.

The second pivotal event came in September when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a paternity fraud law called AB 252, which allows men to challenge established child support orders under limited circumstances. It went into effect Jan. 1.

A spokeswoman for the California Department of Child Support Services told The Washington Times that it has been updating its officials on AB 252. Child support workers, she added, are using better tools to locate fathers, which means fewer default orders are issued.”​
So what you thought was an indictment of the system, is actually a strong example of the system finally doing something right.

I found the below article. The article mentions the FEMALE lawyer who helped Mr. Navarro set this right and helped to change the system. It says that as of the time the below article was published, she has helped 7 men beat paternity fraud cases.

Paternity fraud...


----------



## phillybeffandswiss

jld said:


> Being a father is a gift, however you get there.
> 
> Sorry, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.


No, we disagree on your straw man usage of fatherhood. I NEVER said, nor do I believe, you have to be biologically related to be a father. I despise paternity fraud financially related or not. So, in simple terms paternity fraud is crap. I can argue against it while maintaining anyone with the right mindset and attributes, regardless of biology/DNA, can enjoy the "gift" of being a father.


----------



## MEM2020

JLD,
The child isn't delivered by a stork in a vacuum. Being treated like a sucker by someone you care about is at the high end of the punishment scale - no matter how you look at it. 

We may have to agree to disagree on that point. 

As to this very strange argument you keep making about financial dependence - I'm really confused. Why not have the bio dad pay for his bio child. In the US - you can point at any man, and say: he's the father - at which point that man has rhyming choices:
- Plead - meaning sign the birth certificate
- Bleed - take a DNA test and accept the outcome

Excusing the apex of dexceptive female behavior - because men earn more money - is a real head scratcher. This is not a subsistence economy. 




jld said:


> Being a father is a gift, however you get there.
> 
> Sorry, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.


----------



## EleGirl

phillybeffandswiss said:


> Keep digging it is way worse than you can imagine. It wasn't until a few years ago and a ton of research I fell on the side of DNA testing as a requirement after birth. I know they can do it during, but until they are more sure it won't affect the baby I'm okay with waiting.


There is DNA testing now that can be done early in pregnancy that does not jeapordize the baby. Apparently a baby's DNA ciruculates in it's mother blood. So they do the test using a blood sample from the mother.

The issue is that the prenatal blood DNA test costs are > $1,000

The test after birth is between $100 and $200


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> Being a father is a gift, however you get there.
> 
> Sorry, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.


While I agree that being a father is a gift just as being a mother is a gift, I disagree that being a father via paternity fraud is a gift.

Any kind of fraud is wrong. A man deserves the truth of paternity. Then he can decide if he wants to be the father to a child that is not his biological child.

The child has a biological father. That is the man who is responsible to support the child.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I am not even sure I could tell you what "2nd" or "3rd wave" feminism is. But you seem to know.
> 
> Women are ascending economically. That seems to be a fact. If they continue to pull ahead of men academically and economically, it is a simple conclusion to draw that they will become economically dominant in our society. And that seems to scare some men.


I think that your use of the word ‘dominant’ on this thread is causing a bit of a problem. Women are not becoming dominate, nor are women as a block trying to become dominate. Instead women are working to be economically more equal.

For example, while there might be more women in college by some small percentage, most of those women are getting degrees that will only get them low paying jobs. For some reason women are still avoiding the higher paying careers like in STEM. That’s hardly chasing economic dominance.

The percentage of young men in college today is about twice what is was a few decades ago. So, men are also in college at a much higher percentage than in the past. And the men are much more likely to purse a degree in a discipline that will ensure that he earns well.


jld said:


> And what is strange about that in relation to paternity fraud is that economic dependence is one of the reasons given for women not telling men when they are not the father of the baby.
> 
> So if finances are no longer an issue, paternity fraud may not be, either. It may usher in a whole new wave of transparency, as these women will no longer have anything to fear.


Since a woman can get the biological father to pay child support for the child, there is a lot more than that going on. My guess is that it’s the normal cheater’s lying, controlling behavior. The woman wants to cheat and she does not want her marriage to end.

Our court system works to help cheating women hide their infidelity. That is just not right. If she wants to cheat, she just might end up divorced and have to support herself. That I what equality looks like. She can look to the biological father of the child for child support. The law is lazy. It does not want to deal with the hard cases, so it makes rules/laws and then tries to shove square pegs into round holes—to make cases fit precedence instead of to deal with the nuances of each case.



jld said:


> One would think men would cheer for that.


I agree that men should cheer for women becoming economically more equal. 

But I do not think that economic equality will stop lying, cheating women from lying, cheating and defrauding via paternity fraud.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I cannot figure out why a woman would not want to tell a man right away. Why would she ever want a man around her child if he did not freely want to be there?


Jld, my dear, I don’t think you can even comprehend how evil some people can be. I have no doubt that if you had an affair and got pregnant, the first thing that you would do is to run to Dug and tell him.

Surely you know that there are women out there who are liars, cheaters, users. These women are not poor helpless things. They are horrible people. It’s a terrible thing to lie to a man about paternity. I don’t care what her economic situation is. She made the choice to cheat. If she can make that kind of choice, she can figure out how to support herself and the OM’s child. For one thing she can sue the OM for paternity and get child support off him. You act like the only man that she can go after for child support is her husband .. wrong.



jld said:


> It is a gift to be a parent, after all.


I disagree that being a parent is always a gift. A man whose wife is pregnant by her affair partner probably does not see the child as a gift. I can understand why.

If a man gets his affair partner pregnant, does that mean that his wife should look at that child as a gift to her? Should his wife be financially responsible for the affair partners child for 18 or more years? 



jld said:


> Financial need is the only reason I can come up with. And I really hope that will be remedied in the coming decades.


This is the only reason that you can come up with because you cannot get into the head of a lying, cheating, narcissistic woman (and men). I can. I’ve seen enough of that to know what goes on in their heads and it’s not pretty.


----------



## Andy1001

EleGirl said:


> There is DNA testing now that can be done early in pregnancy that does not jeapordize the baby. Apparently a baby's DNA ciruculates in it's mother blood. So they do the test using a blood sample from the mother.
> 
> The issue is that the prenatal blood DNA test costs are > $1,000
> 
> The test after birth is between $100 and $200


I paid 1200 dollars in November in Boston and for another six hundred they told me the sex of the baby.Blood was taken from me and my gf and it took nine days to confirm the result.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> I cannot figure out why a woman would not want to tell a man right away. Why would she ever want a man around her child if he did not freely want to be there? It is a gift to be a parent, after all.


This is part of the problem. There are truly selfish evil people in the world who's whole world revolves around whatever make them feel good, other people, even their children be damned. Or maybe they don't want to lose their home or financial support, or they know the fauxfather would make a better parent and the real father is just a hookup, or maybe they even feel guilty. I mean this is pretty typical human behavior, not rocket science, so if you don't get this you are really not going to understand the issue. 

There is a guy on another board where his church going pro-life wife had an abortion to hide her affair. She presented and still presents herself as far as I can tell as the type of pro life person who believe every growing embro is a person, given life by God, and that abortion is murder (don't want to have a debate on that, I am only making the point that people do believe this). If she believes this then in her mind she had her own child killed to hide her crimes. She was prepared to live with that and did until she got caught some other way. People do awful things every day. 

By the way at this point her husband took her back, that's the thinking I don't understand.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> That is the mark of a Real Man, my dear. And again, why I respect him.
> 
> Remember that Real Man image, from the Ultimate Husband website? It says that Real Men are willing to raise someone else's child.
> 
> You make an excellent point about the mother being afraid to tell the father. And yes, I could see a mother being afraid of being beaten up.
> 
> And if she already has children with him, she might be afraid he will take them away and start beating them, too.
> 
> My goodness, she really would be stuck. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.
> 
> And some even wanting to put her in jail! My goodness!


The women is always the victim in your mind. Which is a subtle form of misandry.


----------



## sokillme

phillybeffandswiss said:


> See how quick you pulled out "I am the mother of fours sons?"


I know right, Charlie Sheen has daughters, does that make him a feminist?


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> That case is a great example of how changes happen in our court systms…. Escruciatingly slow.
> 
> Apparenlty Mr. Navarro has never been the father of the child who he was required ot pay child support for. The mother of the child simply gave the name of some guy who lived in her neighborhood as the father of her child. And the office that collects child support went after him with no proof. Part fo the fault of this decision rests on Mr. Navarro becaseu shen he got the mail saying that he was named as the father of a child, he ignored it. He should have fought it at that time. So he ignored the appeal process and only tried to get this turned over a few years later. I would think that a man who knew for a fact tha the was not the father would act in a timely manner. Maybe he had sex with the mother and could have been the father????
> 
> Anyway, so he contested and eventually won. The court tried to have the case depublished so that it could not be used at precedence. The higher court refused the request to not have the case published. So, it now stands as precedence. The case is a win for the rights of men who are falsely named as the father of a child.
> 
> “Child support officials quickly moved to get the Navarro decision "depublished" or rendered moot for use in court. But in November, the California Supreme Court denied their request, and the law stands.
> 
> The second pivotal event came in September when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a paternity fraud law called AB 252, which allows men to challenge established child support orders under limited circumstances. It went into effect Jan. 1.
> 
> A spokeswoman for the California Department of Child Support Services told The Washington Times that it has been updating its officials on AB 252. Child support workers, she added, are using better tools to locate fathers, which means fewer default orders are issued.”​
> So what you thought was an indictment of the system, is actually a strong example of the system finally doing something right.
> 
> I found the below article. The article mentions the FEMALE lawyer who helped Mr. Navarro set this right and helped to change the system. It says that as of the time the below article was published, she has helped 7 men beat paternity fraud cases.
> 
> Paternity fraud...


It wasn't indicting the system I was indicting the fact that a government agency actually went out of it's way to try to have the case depublished. So the weight of the government was thrown against me and every other man out there when this is a perfectly fair ruling by any morally thinking person. This is actually scary to me. It shows the complete bias of the state of California. Yet over and over we here how there is no bias, men's rights are a bunch of chauvinist pigs. 

This is a great example of why there needs to be people fight against the people in government who would depublish a perfectly just ruling. In effect saying, "We know you are not the father but you have to pay anyway". How all people can't be outraged at this injustice is beyond me. Thank God the system worked, but it doesn't always. Thank God for this women lawyer and others like her, there are plenty of bigots out there who don't. As we have seen some white knights are even fighting to have us be like France and take away my ability to even find out via DNA testing.


----------



## Married but Happy

jld said:


> Being a father is a gift, however you get there.
> 
> Sorry, we may just have to agree to disagree on this.


Then so is herpes. And do you think infidelity is a gift, too? Should I have _thanked_ my ex for cheating on me? I think your views are warped and delusional on this subject, even though I often agree with you about other things.


----------



## sokillme

MEM2020 said:


> Excusing the apex of dexceptive female behavior - because men earn more money - is a real head scratcher. This is not a subsistence economy.


Not really it's just pure old fashion bigotry, it's just the female version of men who thought women shouldn't vote. Once your realize this it's not a head scratcher anymore.


----------



## MEM2020

Ele,

Well done. You've nailed the analogy. 

Richard (or ummm rick for short) and Jane have two children. Jane works full time and rick is the SAHD. Rick has an affair with Virginia, gets her pregnant. When Virginia has their daughter - and names her Payback - she sues Rick for child support. He quietly agrees to settle and begins diverting money from his and Janes shared bank account to pay for it. He also gets a part - off the books job to avoid taking so much from joint checking that Virginia will notice. 

He also claims to have friends who - aren't real - to make time to visit Payback whenever he can. 

As the children age, Jane presses Rick to get a full time job but he refuses. The real reason he is refusing is that he likes volunteering at Paybacks school as it is a good way to see her. 

On her 18th birthday - Payback shows up at Janes house - and the crap hits the fan. 

Jane eventually calms down and says to ummm - rick: Let me get this straight - if you'd been working the last 10 years - I would be 5 years from retirement. But now - instead - I have to give you half our assets and pay you alimony for 3 years. Can't retire for 15 years. 





EleGirl said:


> Jld, my dear, I don’t think you can even comprehend how evil some people can be. I have no doubt that if you had an affair and got pregnant, the first thing that you would do is to run to Dug and tell him.
> 
> Surely you know that there are women out there who are liars, cheaters, users. These women are not poor helpless things. They are horrible people. It’s a terrible thing to lie to a man about paternity. I don’t care what her economic situation is. She made the choice to cheat. If she can make that kind of choice, she can figure out how to support herself and the OM’s child. For one thing she can sue the OM for paternity and get child support off him. You act like the only man that she can go after for child support is her husband .. wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that being a parent is always a gift. A man whose wife is pregnant by her affair partner probably does not see the child as a gift. I can understand why.
> 
> If a man gets his affair partner pregnant, does that mean that his wife should look at that child as a gift to her? Should his wife be financially responsible for the affair partners child for 18 or more years?
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only reason that you can come up with because you cannot get into the head of a lying, cheating, narcissistic woman (and men). I can. I’ve seen enough of that to know what goes on in their heads and it’s not pretty.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> It wasn't indicting the system I was indicting the fact that a government agency actually went out of it's way to try to have the case depublished. So the weight of the government was thrown against me and every other man out there when this is a perfectly fair ruling by any morally thinking person. It shows the complete bias of the state of California. Yet over and over we here how there is no bias, men's rights are a bunch of chauvinist pigs.


My bet is that with this case, that government agency stands to loose millions as men use the Navarro case to fight paternity fraud. That's bureaucracy, more interested in their own existence than in what is right. But you see the courts did the right thing. And the state changed it's laws. So here we see people, via law suits, changing the law in the right direction. That's good. This was back in 2005/2007. So these new laws in CA have been in place for 10 years now.



sokillme said:


> This is a great example of why there needs to be people fight against the people in government who would depublish a perfectly just ruling. In effect saying, "We know you are not the father but you have to pay anyway". How all people can't be outraged at this injustice is beyond me. Thank God the system worked, but it doesn't always. Thank God for this women lawyer and others like her, there are plenty of bigots out there who don't. As we have seen some white knights are even fighting to have us be like France and take away my ability to even find out via DNA testing.


Of course the system does not always work. I could show you hundreds, if not thousands, of situations in which our laws and system have harmed people... the victims are hardly always men. There are plenty of things that harm women as well. And things that harm children... and the list can go on and on.

People typically fight the things that directly affect them because there are so many injustices out there that no one can fight them all.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> My bet is that with this case, that government agency stands to loose millions as men use the Navarro case to fight paternity fraud. That's bureaucracy, more interested in their own existence than in what is right. But you see the courts did the right thing. And the state changed it's laws. So here we see people, via law suits, changing the law in the right direction. That's good. This was back in 2005/2007. So these new laws in CA have been in place for 10 years now.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the system does not always work. I could show you hundreds, if not thousands, of situations in which our laws and system have harmed people... the victims are hardly always men. There are plenty of things that harm women as well. And things that harm children... and the list can go on and on.
> 
> People typically fight the things that directly affect them because there are so many injustices out there that no one can fight them all.


This ain't just the speed of bureaucracy. 

Paternity can now be verified by a simple test – but that doesn’t mean it should be. You will never convince me that the person or persons in the government who tried to depublish that ruling didn't think exactly like the person who wrote this article. Especially in progressive state like CA. 

Here is an article with some rather blatant ad-hominem attacks on DNA testing at birth. Interestingly this was a bill which would have required DNA testing at birth, put forth in NJ of course. Guess it went no where. Until men stand up and demand it like women did with abortion (whether you agree or not with it) it's never going to be made a law. This is how they should sell it, as a part of male reproductive rights. 

It's illegal in France as we have talked about on this thread, though someone brought up a good point with the high rate of infidelity over there maybe the men don't want to open up Pandora's box too so to speak. 

It's legal in New Zealand only with the mother's consent before the age of 16.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> This ain't just the speed of bureaucracy.
> 
> Paternity can now be verified by a simple test – but that doesn’t mean it should be. You will never convince me that the person or persons in the government who tried to depublish that ruling didn't think exactly like the person who wrote this article. Especially in progressive state like CA.


Do you know of any topic of significance for which every person in society has the exact same point of view? I don’t.

People who run bureaucracies have vested interest in the keeping their little fiefdom thriving. Just think what would happen if large numbers of men sued to end their child support payments. The bureaucracy is going to have to spend millions fighting these cases. And yes, they will fight them because if they don’t their bottom line is hurt. And if they must spend money on law cases and then also lose the payments, then the administrators are going to get bad performance reviews. They might not be promoted. You now that is how this works. They do not care what is right or wrong. They care about their own careers.

Of course, they could do the right thing. If a man can prove that he is not the biological father then they (of a kid who was not adopted) then they should just drop the child support case and go after the man who is the father. But that’s too easy I guess. 



sokillme said:


> Here is an article with some rather blatant ad-hominem attacks on DNA testing at birth.
> 
> Interestingly this was a bill which would have required DNA testing at birth, put forth in NJ of course. Guess it went no where. Until men stand up and demand it like women did with abortion (whether you agree or not with it) it's never going to be made a law. This is how they should sell it, as a part of male reproductive rights.


I think it’s a good article. It talks about issues such as a woman who is pregnant due to rape; surrogate pregnancies, and other things. I do not see any ad hominem attacks in that article. And I don’t see any comments below the article. So, I don’t know what “ad hominem attacks” you are talking about.
There are a lot of issues that have to be ironed out before we can have a law that would force DNA testing for every pregnancy. For exmapel, who pays for it? The woman? The man? Insurance? Since a huge percentage of babies are born to women on Medicaid, our taxes would pay for most of the testing.

If the testing is done prenatal with the blood tests, that’s about $1,200 a test. So, for 100 births, that is $120,000 spent. With paternity fraud being about 1%-2% that’s a lot of money to catch one or two cases.

If it’s done postnatal, that’s about $200 a test. So that’s $20,00 for 100 births. 
There were about 4 million babies born in the USA last year.
The cost for the $200 test is about $800Million for the $1,2000 is about $4.8Brillion.
About 60% of all births are covered by Medicaid. So, the cost of Medicaid is about $480Million to $2.9Billion.

Follow the money, always. Insurance companies do not pay to pay this. Our country cannot afford to spend $480Billion so that 1%-2% of men can catch their wives in having a child that is not their child.

If a man is concerned about this, he needs to let his wife know up front, before he marries her that he will require her to do a DNA test before the baby is born. If it turns out that the baby is not his, he will then decide what to do. Or he can tell her that he will dump her if the kid is no his. This is a personal matter.

Now the laws should change so that a man has a period of time to refute paternity of a child born into his marriage. 2 years is reasonable. He has plenty of time to quietly do a $200 DNA test. And we tax payers don’t even have to pay for it.

Do we really want more government intrusion and the need for increased taxes when this can be handled just fine on the personal level? Also keep in mind that if the government mandates these DNA tests, the next step is going to be that the DNA for every person born goes into a federal government database. Do you really want the feds to have a DNA database on everyone? There are a lot of people fighting that.

What we need are laws that allow a man to challenge paternity within the first 2 years after birth (or some doable time frame.)


sokillme said:


> It's illegal in France as we have talked about on this thread, though someone brought up a good point with the high rate of infidelity over there maybe the men don't want to open up Pandora's box too so to speak.


I agree. Infidelity seems to be part of the accepted culture in France. Aren’t we American’s often lectured by the French about how silly we are getting all bent out of shape over infidelity. 
When people make laws, they generally make laws that benefit themselves. I have no doubt that this is why the law makers in France do not want paternity test, their indiscretions just but be discovered.


sokillme said:


> It's legal in New Zealand only with the mother's consent before the age of 16.


This too will probably change with time. I do think that eventually, worldwide, men will have the right to challenge paternity. Of course, the men who want this are going to have to fight the men who do not want it because those men don’t want all their offspring from infidelity discovered. As I said earlier, for every paternity fraud case, there is a male accomplice.


----------



## MEM2020

Jean wasn't born in France, he came up in a poor Eastern European country. 

Smart, charming and irresistible Jean read an interview given by Martha Stewart. During the interview she described a mating strategy that instantly made sense to him. 

Step 1: move to France 
Step 2: Find a very rich and physically tolerable partner. (This is the Mark)
Step 3: In parallel find a genetically high value girlfriend. (This is the co conspirator)

Marry the rich woman, roofie her and then IVF her (your legal wife) with the embryo produced by your sperm and GF's egg. 

Voila - your wife is now pregnant with a child has none of her DNA. Upon birth - she is suspicious. Sends the DNA to the U.K. for testing. Learns it isn't hers. 

Ok - so - now she wants out. Completely out. But the French court will not allow introduction of the DNA evidence showing that she has been defrauded. So even if she divorces, she is on the hook for 18 years of large (she is after all wealthy) support payments.

My gut reaction to this - feels like she was raped physically, biologically and finally financially. 

But hey - I'm sure she simply sees the child as a gift and doesn't really think about it beyond that point....




sokillme said:


> This is part of the problem. There are truly selfish evil people in the world who's whole world revolves around whatever make them feel good, other people, even their children be damned. Or maybe they don't want to lose their home or financial support, or they know the fauxfather would make a better parent and the real father is just a hookup, or maybe they even feel guilty. I mean this is pretty typical human behavior, not rocket science, so if you don't get this you are really not going to understand the issue.
> 
> There is a guy on another board where his church going pro-life wife had an abortion to hide her affair. She presented and still presents herself as far as I can tell as the type of pro life person who believe every growing embro is a person, given life by God, and that abortion is murder (don't want to have a debate on that, I am only making the point that people do believe this). If she believes this then in her mind she had her own child killed to hide her crimes. She was prepared to live with that and did until she got caught some other way. People do awful things every day.
> 
> By the way at this point her husband took her back, that's the thinking I don't understand.


----------



## MEM2020

Ele,
Your posture on this topic is admirably gender neutral. And the men of TAM collectively thank you for that. 

Your arithmetic below is off by three orders of magnitude. 

4 million babies at $200/test = 800 Million dollars / year not 800 billion dollars per year 
-
4 million babies at $1,200/test = 4.8 Billion dollars / year not 4.8 Trillion dollars per year 

As a reference point - there are 140 million taxpayers in the US. Post natal testing (800 Million dollars) costs them a bit less than $6/each. Pre natal testing is more like $34/dollars each. 





EleGirl said:


> Do you know of any topic of significance for which every person in society has the exact same point of view? I don’t.
> 
> People who run bureaucracies have vested interest in the keeping their little fiefdom thriving. Just think what would happen if large numbers of men sued to end their child support payments. The bureaucracy is going to have to spend millions fighting these cases. And yes, they will fight them because if they don’t their bottom line is hurt. And if they must spend money on law cases and then also lose the payments, then the administrators are going to get bad performance reviews. They might not be promoted. You now that is how this works. They do not care what is right or wrong. They care about their own careers.
> 
> Of course, they could do the right thing. If a man can prove that he is not the biological father then they (of a kid who was not adopted) then they should just drop the child support case and go after the man who is the father. But that’s too easy I guess.
> 
> 
> I think it’s a good article. It talks about issues such as a woman who is pregnant due to rape; surrogate pregnancies, and other things. I do not see any ad hominem attacks in that article. And I don’t see any comments below the article. So, I don’t know what “ad hominem attacks” you are talking about.
> There are a lot of issues that have to be ironed out before we can have a law that would force DNA testing for every pregnancy. For exmapel, who pays for it? The woman? The man? Insurance? Since a huge percentage of babies are born to women on Medicaid, our taxes would pay for most of the testing.
> 
> If the testing is done prenatal with the blood tests, that’s about $1,200 a test. So, for 100 births, that is $120,000 spent. With paternity fraud being about 1%-2% that’s a lot of money to catch one or two cases.
> 
> If it’s done postnatal, that’s about $200 a test. So that’s $20,00 for 100 births.
> There were about 4 million babies born in the USA last year.
> The cost for the $200 test is about $800Billion for the $1,2000 is about $4.8Trillion.
> About 60% of all births are covered by Medicaid. So, the cost of Medicaid is about $480Billion to $2.9Trillion.
> 
> Follow the money, always. Insurance companies do not pay to pay this. Our country cannot afford to spend $480Billion so that 1%-2% of men can catch their wives in having a child that is not their child.
> 
> If a man is concerned about this, he needs to let his wife know up front, before he marries her that he will require her to do a DNA test before the baby is born. If it turns out that the baby is not his, he will then decide what to do. Or he can tell her that he will dump her if the kid is no his. This is a personal matter.
> 
> Now the laws should change so that a man has a period of time to refute paternity of a child born into his marriage. 2 years is reasonable. He has plenty of time to quietly do a $200 DNA test. And we tax payers don’t even have to pay for it.
> 
> Do we really want more government intrusion and the need for increased taxes when this can be handled just fine on the personal level? Also keep in mind that if the government mandates these DNA tests, the next step is going to be that the DNA for every person born goes into a federal government database. Do you really want the feds to have a DNA database on everyone? There are a lot of people fighting that.
> 
> What we need are laws that allow a man to challenge paternity within the first 2 years after birth (or some doable time frame.)
> 
> I agree. Infidelity seems to be part of the accepted culture in France. Aren’t we American’s often lectured by the French about how silly we are getting all bent out of shape over infidelity.
> When people make laws, they generally make laws that benefit themselves. I have no doubt that this is why the law makers in France do not want paternity test, their indiscretions just but be discovered.
> 
> This too will probably change with time. I do think that eventually, worldwide, men will have the right to challenge paternity. Of course, the men who want this are going to have to fight the men who do not want it because those men don’t want all their offspring from infidelity discovered. As I said earlier, for every paternity fraud case, there is a male accomplice.


----------



## sokillme

MEM2020 said:


> Ele,
> Your posture on this topic is admirably gender neutral. And the men of TAM collectively thank you for that.
> 
> Your arithmetic below is off by three orders of magnitude.
> 
> 4 million babies at $200/test = 800 Million dollars / year not 800 billion dollars per year
> -
> 4 million babies at $1,200/test = 4.8 Billion dollars / year not 4.8 Trillion dollars per year
> 
> As a reference point - there are 140 million taxpayers in the US. Post natal testing (800 Million dollars) costs them a bit less than $6/each. Pre natal testing is more like $34/dollars each.


And if the test was done that much the price would go down. I wonder what a a test that is typically done 4 million times year cost.


----------



## EleGirl

MEM2020 said:


> Ele,
> Your posture on this topic is admirably gender neutral. And the men of TAM collectively thank you for that.
> 
> Your arithmetic below is off by three orders of magnitude.
> 
> 4 million babies at $200/test = 800 Million dollars / year not 800 billion dollars per year
> -
> 4 million babies at $1,200/test = 4.8 Billion dollars / year not 4.8 Trillion dollars per year


Opps, thanks. I fixed my post.



MEM2020 said:


> As a reference point - there are 140 million taxpayers in the US. Post natal testing (800 Million dollars) costs them a bit less than $6/each.


And our country owes how many trillions in national debt. Everything costs only a few dollars family. Yet we work till some time in May every year to pay our taxes.



MEM2020 said:


> Pre natal testing is more like $34/dollars each.


Andy1001 said that he paid $1200 for the prenatal test.

Here are a couple of sites that give their prices: 

*Our Test Price was $1600, Now only $800*

*This company charges $999*


----------



## MEM2020

Ele,

Your contribution to this thread has been invaluable. I was merely doing arithmetic and spreading the cost across all tax payers.

Don't let my aspie commentary break your stride, 






EleGirl said:


> Opps, thanks. I fixed my post.
> 
> 
> 
> And our country owes how many trillions in national debt. Everything costs only a few dollars family. Yet we work till some time in May every year to pay our taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Andy1001 said that he paid $1200 for the prenatal test.
> 
> Here are a couple of sites that give their prices:
> 
> *Our Test Price was $1600, Now only $800*
> 
> *This company charges $999*


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM2020 said:


> Strikes me as odd to have 5 children (more than double the replacement number - which is two) and then chide other men for focusing on DNA.
> 
> In fact - objectively - finding a prospective wife who is willing to have:
> - Lots o kids
> - Be a SAHM to care for those kids
> - Home school them
> 
> Shows a nearly absolute focus on copying, caring for and educating ones own DNA.
> 
> I am pointing this out - because genes are powerful. And it's easy to stone throw at others while optimizing our own DNA's propagation.


If we could not have had any children, we would have adopted. We have the financial means and the strength to care for children, so we should do it. It is how humans improve and mature.

If I learned that none of our five kids are biologically mine, but from 5 other men, the last thing I would do is abandon my wife and kids. I have invested 24 years in them. Why would I want to just let them go, just because the kids do not have my DNA?

I would not go after those men, even if I knew them, because then I would have to share my kids with them. Child support comes with ties. 

The news would have a profound impact on the relationship with my wife. Obviously there would be a trust issue that would have to be worked out. But any decision I would make would be with my wife and kids best interests in mind.

Our animal instinct is to spread our DNA. Our men's morality is to care for our families first.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> JLD,
> The child isn't delivered by a stork in a vacuum. Being treated like a sucker by someone you care about is at the high end of the punishment scale - no matter how you look at it.
> 
> We may have to agree to disagree on that point.
> 
> As to this very strange argument you keep making about financial dependence - I'm really confused. Why not have the bio dad pay for his bio child. In the US - you can point at any man, and say: he's the father - at which point that man has rhyming choices:
> - Plead - meaning sign the birth certificate
> - Bleed - take a DNA test and accept the outcome
> 
> Excusing the apex of dexceptive female behavior - because men earn more money - is a real head scratcher. This is not a subsistence economy.


I will try to clear up your confusion. Let me know if this makes sense.

If the reason the woman does not tell her husband the baby is not his is because she and the baby need his economic support, then her becoming economically independent would eliminate that vulnerability and free her to be upfront with him. He would then be free to stay or go, and she and the baby would be fine either way. 

She could certainly pursue the birth father legally. He may not be able to be located, though, or he may have died. There is no guarantee any money would be forthcoming. Child support units may not be the best funded nor most active units in local gov't. It could be a while before any money might come in, if ever. And it may stop suddenly, too, never to reappear.

Much better, imo, for her to pursue economic independence through her own family-supporting career.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> While I agree that being a father is a gift just as being a mother is a gift, I disagree that being a father via paternity fraud is a gift.
> 
> Any kind of fraud is wrong. A man deserves the truth of paternity. Then he can decide if he wants to be the father to a child that is not his biological child.
> 
> The child has a biological father. That is the man who is responsible to support the child.


Certainly, any kind of fraud is wrong. (Though, paternity fraud may be the only fraud that does offer the man a pretty nice reward.) Transparency from the beginning of the relationship would be my recommendation.

Unfortunately, men do not always pay, even when required. And as Dug said, child support comes with strings. Better, imo, to pursue economic independence and let the husband stay or go, his choice.


----------



## EleGirl

We have looked at paternity fraud and DNA testing from the view point of many men here. Now let's look at the DNA testing issue from what might be the view point of the vast majority of women who have not and would never commit paternity fraud.

A lot of the guys here feel that all babies should be DNA tested at birth to prove paternity and that it should even be a law that this has to be done.

On a societal level, if this becomes law, that is a strong statement that the society as a whole believes that all women are inherently dishonest and cheaters. So men must be protected because if we do not have such laws, all or most women will abuse them with paternity fraud.

It's a pretty strong statement for a society to make... that all women are so inherently dishonest. I think that would be a huge slap in the fact to the good, honest women in our society because if it's a law the underlying implication applies to all women.

Here is an analogy for you men to help you understand this point of view.

We know that some percentage of men are child molesters and rapists. So would you agree to collecting the DNA of every man at birth so that we can track rapists. Every time a rape kit is run, the police can run against all men. That way we could solve more rape cases. 

Would you men go along with that? After all we could catch more rapists and most a the world a much safer place.


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> If we could not have had any children, we would have adopted. We have the financial means and the strength to care for children, so we should do it. It is how humans improve and mature.
> 
> If I learned that none of our five kids are biologically mine, but from 5 other men, the last thing I would do is abandon my wife and kids. I have invested 24 years in them. Why would I want to just let them go, just because the kids do not have my DNA?
> 
> I would not go after those men, even if I knew them, because then I would have to share my kids with them. Child support comes with ties.
> 
> The news would have a profound impact on the relationship with my wife. Obviously there would be a trust issue that would have to be worked out. But any decision I would make would be with my wife and kids best interests in mind.
> 
> Our animal instinct is to spread our DNA. Our men's morality is to care for our families first.


I talked about this thread with a friend of mine today. He has 3 children of his own. He said about the same thing you said here.

He said that if his wife had a baby from an affair, he would still see the child as his own child. And he would not even consider going after the OM because he would not what that man in the child's life. After all, if that man wanted to be in his child's life he would have had sex with a married woman.

And to those who are not calling my friend a liberal whatever in their heads, he's right leaning and a Trump supporter.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> I think that your use of the word ‘dominant’ on this thread is causing a bit of a problem. Women are not becoming dominate, nor are women as a block trying to become dominate. Instead women are working to be economically more equal.


I think women are working to achieve their potential. It may be equality, it may be dominance, it may be subservience. Depends on her potential and ability to develop it.



> For example, while there might be more women in college by some small percentage, most of those women are getting degrees that will only get them low paying jobs. For some reason women are still avoiding the higher paying careers like in STEM. That’s hardly chasing economic dominance.
> 
> The percentage of young men in college today is about twice what is was a few decades ago. So, men are also in college at a much higher percentage than in the past. And the men are much more likely to purse a degree in a discipline that will ensure that he earns well.


This is a big, interesting subject with a lot being written on it. Achieving a sex's potential is a process. Where women are in 2017 is unlikely where they are to be in 2047, for example. 

Dartmouth last year graduated more female engineers than male. It was the first time that had ever happened. But not likely to be the last.

My daughter graduated last month in chemical engineering from a school here in the Midwest. She had the top GPA in her department and gave the student speech at graduation, after the chair spoke. The top engineering student in all 10 departments was also a female.

She will be starting her professional career soon in a elite technical division of a major international corporation. Of the 10-12 young STEM grads hired for this coveted program, nearly all were women. I would not be surprised if this is the trend of the future.



> Since a woman can get the biological father to pay child support for the child, there is a lot more than that going on. My guess is that it’s the normal cheater’s lying, controlling behavior. The woman wants to cheat and she does not want her marriage to end.


Again, child support from a birth father may not be forthcoming. We do not know the reasons for the affair, and we do not know the reasons she may not want the marriage to end.

And some of us just want to make sure the baby is well taken care of.



> Our court system works to help cheating women hide their infidelity. That is just not right. If she wants to cheat, she just might end up divorced and have to support herself. That I what equality looks like. She can look to the biological father of the child for child support. The law is lazy. It does not want to deal with the hard cases, so it makes rules/laws and then tries to shove square pegs into round holes—to make cases fit precedence instead of to deal with the nuances of each case.


I do not know enough about the court system to have an opinion on whether or not it is trying to help cheating women hide their infidelity. I do think it is trying to make sure the child is provided for.



> I agree that men should cheer for women becoming economically more equal.
> 
> But I do not think that economic equality will stop lying, cheating women from lying, cheating and defrauding via paternity fraud.


I doubt anything is going to erase infidelity from this planet. I do hope we reach a day when caring for all children is our society's priority.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> We have looked at paternity fraud and DNA testing from the view point of many men here. Now let's look at the DNA testing issue from what might be the view point of the vast majority of women who have not and would never commit paternity fraud.
> 
> A lot of the guys here feel that all babies should be DNA tested at birth to prove paternity and that it should even be a law that this has to be done.
> 
> On a societal level, if this becomes law, that is a strong statement that the society as a whole believes that all women are inherently dishonest and cheaters. So men must be protected because if we do not have such laws, all or most women will abuse them with paternity fraud.
> 
> It's a pretty strong statement for a society to make... that all women are so inherently dishonest. I think that would be a huge slap in the fact to the good, honest women in our society because if it's a law the underlying implication applies to all women.
> 
> Here is an analogy for you men to help you understand this point of view.
> 
> We know that some percentage of men are child molesters and rapists. So would you agree to collecting the DNA of every man at birth so that we can track rapists. Every time a rape kit is run, the police can run against all men. That way we could solve more rape cases.
> 
> Would you men go along with that? After all we could catch more rapists and most a the world a much safer place.


I would but it really wouldn't change much. I can already go and get a court order to get a DNA test if I want. Now to identify rapists and murders when you have no suspect leads..... I'm all for it for both men and women. 

On paternity I think if it's in dispute a test should be done or no support required. But world doesn't work according to me however I'm all for it :smthumbup:


----------



## Duguesclin

EleGirl said:


> I talked about this thread with a friend of mine today. He has 3 children of his own. He said about the same thing you said here.
> 
> He said that if his wife had a baby from an affair, he would still see the child as his own child. And he would not even consider going after the OM because he would not what that man in the child's life. After all, if that man wanted to be in his child's life he would have had sex with a married woman.
> 
> And to those who are not calling my friend a liberal whatever in their heads, *he's right leaning and a Trump supporter*.


There are good people, even among Trump supporters :wink2:.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> The women is always the victim in your mind. Which is a subtle form of misandry.


The man is always the victim in your mind. Which is a subtle form of misogyny.

Where does this type of rhetoric get us, sokillme?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> I doubt anything is going to erase infidelity from this planet. I do hope we reach a day when caring for all children is our society's priority.


True. Nothing will stop infidelity. People choose to cheat and often know the consequences and do it anyway. Spouses are truely hurt by it but children also pay a terrible price.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> True. Nothing will stop infidelity. People choose to cheat and often know the consequences and do it anyway. Spouses are truely hurt by it *but children also pay a terrible price*.


Yes. 

I read a few months ago about how Paul Newman cheated on his first wife with Joanne Woodward. He eventually left his wife for Woodward.

That had to have hurt his daughter from his first marriage terribly. Apparently neither she nor her mother were worth staying for.

Newman said that ever since leaving them he felt guilty about it. 

Did not keep him from doing it, though.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> I agree. Infidelity seems to be part of the accepted culture in France. Aren’t we American’s often lectured by the French about how silly we are getting all bent out of shape over infidelity.


_Nowhere is the prohibition against infidelity in the West more severe – and the consequences more dire – than in America. “People in the States are massively hypocritical,” says Perel. “They don’t cheat any less than the French. They just feel more guilty about it.” _

. . .

_Yet Americans have a uniquely narrow-minded take on infidelity, says Perel. “Most Europeans see it as an imperfection, and not something worth destroying your marriage over.” But Americans, who tend to see sex as corrupting and approach pleasure with scepticism, often view affairs in more binary terms. “Here there’s a persecutor and a victim, these are the only two options,” Perel says. “The language is criminal. I think that speaks volumes.”_

https://www.1843magazine.com/features/whats-wrong-with-infidelity


----------



## MEM2020

Ele,

The bold statement from your post is simply not true. I get a pat down every week going through airport security. The government doesn't think all us flyers are terrorists. They are simply taking reasonable precautions. 

And in fact the situations are analogous, fairly unlikely but in the event that it is true, very very disruptive to everyone concerned.....


*On a societal level, if this becomes law, that is a strong statement that the society as a whole believes that all women are inherently dishonest and cheaters. So men must be protected because if we do not have such laws, all or most women will abuse them with paternity fraud.
*








EleGirl said:


> We have looked at paternity fraud and DNA testing from the view point of many men here. Now let's look at the DNA testing issue from what might be the view point of the vast majority of women who have not and would never commit paternity fraud.
> 
> A lot of the guys here feel that all babies should be DNA tested at birth to prove paternity and that it should even be a law that this has to be done.
> 
> On a societal level, if this becomes law, that is a strong statement that the society as a whole believes that all women are inherently dishonest and cheaters. So men must be protected because if we do not have such laws, all or most women will abuse them with paternity fraud.
> 
> It's a pretty strong statement for a society to make... that all women are so inherently dishonest. I think that would be a huge slap in the fact to the good, honest women in our society because if it's a law the underlying implication applies to all women.
> 
> Here is an analogy for you men to help you understand this point of view.
> 
> We know that some percentage of men are child molesters and rapists. So would you agree to collecting the DNA of every man at birth so that we can track rapists. Every time a rape kit is run, the police can run against all men. That way we could solve more rape cases.
> 
> Would you men go along with that? After all we could catch more rapists and most a the world a much safer place.


----------



## EleGirl

MEM2020 said:


> Ele,
> 
> The bold statement from your post is simply not true. I get a pat down every week going through airport security. The government doesn't think all us flyers are terrorists. They are simply taking reasonable precautions.
> 
> And in fact the situations are analogous, fairly unlikely but in the event that it is true, very very disruptive to everyone concerned.....
> 
> 
> *On a societal level, if this becomes law, that is a strong statement that the society as a whole believes that all women are inherently dishonest and cheaters. So men must be protected because if we do not have such laws, all or most women will abuse them with paternity fraud.
> *


So you would also be ok with a national data base of men's DNA so that law enforcement can run DNA from rape cases against all men in the country?


----------



## Duguesclin

MEM2020 said:


> Ele,
> 
> The bold statement from your post is simply not true. I get a pat down every week going through airport security. The government doesn't think all us flyers are terrorists. They are simply taking reasonable precautions.
> 
> And in fact the situations are analogous, fairly unlikely but in the event that it is true, very very disruptive to everyone concerned.....
> 
> 
> *On a societal level, if this becomes law, that is a strong statement that the society as a whole believes that all women are inherently dishonest and cheaters. So men must be protected because if we do not have such laws, all or most women will abuse them with paternity fraud.
> *


A plane blowing up is not the same as a child being born.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> So you would also be ok with a national data base of men's DNA so that law enforcement can run DNA from rape cases against all men in the country?


I am in favor of national funding for DNA testing to clear all the backlogged cases. I am also in favor of every capital crime requiring a DNA test, this would be in conjunction with tort reform to speed up the process and reforms. Most capital crimes such a rape and murder should be mandatory life sentences. Minor crime such as drug dealing and stuff like that should be heavily based on reform and rehabilitation.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> I am in favor of national funding for DNA testing to clear all the backlogged cases. I am also in favor of every capital crime requiring a DNA test, this would be in conjunction with tort reform to speed up the process and reforms. Most capital crimes such a rape and murder should be mandatory life sentences. Minor crime such as drug dealing and stuff like that should be heavily based on reform and rehabilitation.


I agree with all of this. 

But it's still not what I asked. My question was about having every man in this country get their DNA in a database.

While running DNA tests on all the back logged rape kids is a good first step, we will never find the owners of all that DNA unless we have a database of DNA to run it against. So why not have every man give his DNA so we can get the rapists?


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> _Nowhere is the prohibition against infidelity in the West more severe – and the consequences more dire – than in America. “People in the States are massively hypocritical,” says Perel. “They don’t cheat any less than the French. They just feel more guilty about it.” _
> 
> . . .
> 
> _Yet Americans have a uniquely narrow-minded take on infidelity, says Perel. “Most Europeans see it as an imperfection, and not something worth destroying your marriage over.” But Americans, who tend to see sex as corrupting and approach pleasure with scepticism, often view affairs in more binary terms. “Here there’s a persecutor and a victim, these are the only two options,” Perel says. “The language is criminal. I think that speaks volumes.”_
> 
> https://www.1843magazine.com/features/whats-wrong-with-infidelity


The answer for hypocrisy is not ending the stigma on cheating, it's cutting down on the cheating. Have you not read the pain of people here enough to know that it's a terrible thing? 

I love how Perel thinks braking up the marriage is destroying it but not they spouse who ****s someone else.
@jld how would you feel if Dug was “monogamish” – that is, they will aspire to be faithful to each other, but also tolerate the occasional fling? Like Perel recommends?

God save us from or betters please.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> I agree with all of this.
> 
> But it's still not what I asked. My question was about having every man in this country get their DNA in a database.
> 
> While running DNA tests on all the back logged rape kids is a good first step, we will never find the owners of all that DNA unless we have a database of DNA to run it against. So why not have every man give his DNA so we can get the rapists?


This seems too much like and invasion of privacy and government over reach. There in lies the danger of mandatory DNA testing for newborns, which is what you are kind of highlighting. Inevitably it would end up in some government database. Honestly though as DNA screening becomes more simple I could see the day that it works like the finger print scanner on your phone and will eventually replace all forms of ID. 

Touch the button and it uses your DNA to identify you. As the coming generations get more and more used to giving up privacy I think they will not have the stigma that we do. They already give away so much as it is, DNA for convenience doesn't seem that much of a stretch when thinking how their children will think. In the long run that will go a long way to solving crimes such as rape so there is a benefit. So I actually think the point might be moot but maybe not in our (the people here over 40) lifetime.


----------



## Duguesclin

sokillme said:


> The answer for hypocrisy is not ending the stigma on cheating, it's cutting down on the cheating. Have you not read the pain of people here enough to know that it's a terrible thing?
> 
> I love how Perel thinks braking up the marriage is destroying it but not they spouse who ****s someone else.
> 
> @jld how would you feel if Dug was “monogamish” – that is, they will aspire to be faithful to each other, but also tolerate the occasional fling? Like Perel recommends?
> 
> God save us from or betters please.


DNA testing is not going to cut down on the cheating. Bringing up children in a loving and stable environment will make healthy and responsible adults.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> This seems too much like and invasion of privacy and government over reach. There in lies the danger of mandatory DNA testing for newborns, which is what you are kind of highlighting. Inevitably it would end up in some government database. Honestly though as DNA screening becomes more simple I could see the day that it works like the finger print scanner on your phone and will eventually replace all forms of ID.
> 
> Touch the button and it uses your DNA to identify you. As the coming generations get more and more used to giving up privacy I think they will not have the stigma that we do. They already give away so much as it is, DNA for convenience doesn't seem that much of a stretch when thinking how their children will think. In the long run that will go a long way to solving crimes such as rape so there is a benefit. So I actually think the point might be moot but maybe not in our (the people here over 40) lifetime.


Ok, so you did not answer who YOU feel about having a DNA test on men only because most rapists are men.

The rest of your response above is interesting. I'm not sure that a scanner on a cell phone can read a person's DNA. Seems to me that a DNA test requires more processing of the biological sample and some sort of very high end device to 'see' the DNA.

While the younger generation is more used to the idea of putting all their private stuff online, I could see this attitude changing as they age and start to realize what it would mean for the gov to basically have the DNA of every single person. But it will be their world so they can decide that.


----------



## sokillme

Duguesclin said:


> DNA testing is not going to cut down on the cheating. Bringing up children in a loving and stable environment will make healthy and responsible adults.


I am not sure opening up marriage like this women in the article is advocating for is going to help bring children up in a loving and stable environment. I also thing in the long run it will be women and children who will suffer because of it. 

I do like the idea of people who are not monogamous being completely open about it. I think that will weed out the 30% or so who think this way. Good maybe there will be less cheating. But something tells me people will just hide it because if they are attracted to someone who is monogamous they will just pretend like they do now. Cheaters are selfish by nature.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> Ok, so you did not answer who YOU feel about having a DNA test on men only because most rapists are men.
> 
> This is hyperbowl, just as the statement that most women are cheaters is, so I completely discount it. I see the comparison of guilty until proven innocent and I tried to relate it to government intrusion. That is to say, I think if society decided to test all kids at birth, in the end the kid, the mother and the father's DNA would end up in a government database. So in a sense then both, "all women are cheaters' and "all men are rapists" would be in effect. Bottom line I am not sure if the battle of the sexes even matters. Hence I didn't even touch on that point.
> 
> The rest of your response above is interesting. I'm not sure that a scanner on a cell phone can read a person's DNA. Seems to me that a DNA test requires more processing of the biological sample and some sort of very high end device to 'see' the DNA.
> 
> Think bio tech which is in it's infancy now, once the scanners can be grown in a way to interact with electronic tech the testing will be easy. IMHO.
> 
> While the younger generation is more used to the idea of putting all their private stuff online, I could see this attitude changing as they age and start to realize what it would mean for the gov to basically have the DNA of every single person. But it will be their world so they can decide that.
> 
> Think of it this way, it may not even be the government it may be Apple for instance, at least at first. The government may have to sue to get it the beginning.
> 
> So you are in your 20s growing up in 2045, you have been using DNA scanners almost all your life, on all your devices. So Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, VR-Porn palace.com all have a copy of your genome. This has been common for for most of your life, back in the early days of the 30s there was some privacy advocates who talked about the dangers but those arguments have gone away in favor of convenience and the security of true unique identification. So now just like those advocates feared the government passes a bill that does away with social security numbers and replaces the human genome instead. This will be greeted with a huge collective sigh as it's really no different then what all the big companies have been doing for years.



That's how I see it. 

We didn't even talk about how the sex-bots are going to change society, and not for the better.


----------



## farsidejunky

.


----------



## Married but Happy

Duguesclin said:


> DNA testing is not going to cut down on the cheating. Bringing up children in a loving and stable environment will make healthy and responsible adults.


I think it would. It would certainly cut down on paternity fraud, which is cheating. It would cut out the associated financial fraud, which is also cheating. It might possibly reduce infidelity, but if not, people might still be more careful about birth control.

I also question that a relationship where infidelity and paternity fraud occur is a loving and stable environment. It is a fraudulent relationship based in lies and deceit.


----------



## jld

Married but Happy said:


> I think it would. It would certainly cut down on paternity fraud, which is cheating. It would cut out the associated financial fraud, which is also cheating. It might possibly reduce infidelity, but if not, people might still be more careful about birth control.
> 
> I also question that a relationship where infidelity and paternity fraud occur is a loving and stable environment. It is a fraudulent relationship based in lies and deceit.


I think what Dug was trying to say was that if you bring up kids in the right environment, it may make them less likely to cheat when they are adults. Trying to scare them with DNA testing may not be as powerful a tool.

Personally, I do not think you will ever eliminate infidelity. Certain strategies may lessen its probability. But it is likely to always exist to some degree in human society.


----------



## MEM2020

Sounds like anti male bias Elle.

If you want to DNA test all adults - fine by me. Plenty of crimes (murders) scenes with unknown DNA. 

As to the backlog of untested DNA - it's a mystery.




EleGirl said:


> So you would also be ok with a national data base of men's DNA so that law enforcement can run DNA from rape cases against all men in the country?


----------



## GusPolinski

Happy Fauxthers' Day, France!


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Happy Fauxthers' Day, France!


Disrespectful and unnecessary. 

Contributes nothing of value to an otherwise thoughtful discussion.


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> Sounds like anti male bias Elle.
> 
> If you want to DNA test all adults - fine by me. Plenty of crimes (murders) scenes with unknown DNA.
> 
> As to the backlog of untested DNA - it's a mystery.


Are you familiar with the concerns Ele alluded to regarding a national database?


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> Yes.
> 
> I read a few months ago about how Paul Newman cheated on his first wife with Joanne Woodward. He eventually left his wife for Woodward.
> 
> That had to have hurt his daughter from his first marriage terribly. Apparently neither she nor her mother were worth staying for.
> 
> Newman said that ever since leaving them he felt guilty about it.
> 
> Did not keep him from doing it, though.


Exactly. Hence why when I hear wayward say how quilty they feel after the fact I wonder.....hmm where was that before you cheated? I think many substitute quilt for regret of being caught


----------



## GusPolinski

GusPolinski said:


> Happy Fauxthers' Day, France!





jld said:


> Disrespectful and unnecessary.
> 
> Contributes nothing of value to an otherwise thoughtful discussion.


Hey, that was sincere and heartfelt.

I genuinely feel for every man unknowingly coerced into raising a child (or children) born of his wife's infidelity, and even more so for those suffering under the yoke of France's oppressive nanny state pro-infidelity laws.

After all, if you're being forced to drag someone else's cross up the hill, you might as well be happy about it.

Smile and be happy, France!

You might be sitting in ****, but at least it's your own ****, right?

Or maybe it's your neighbor's.

Guess you'll never know.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Hey, that was sincere and heartfelt.
> 
> I genuinely feel for every man unknowingly coerced into raising a child (or children) born of his wife's infidelity, and even more so for those suffering under the yoke of France's oppressive nanny state pro-infidelity laws.
> 
> After all, if you're being forced to drag someone else's cross up the hill, you might as well be happy about it.
> 
> Smile and be happy, France!
> 
> You might be sitting in ****, but at least it's your own ****, right?
> 
> Or maybe it's your neighbor's.
> 
> Guess you'll never know.


It was sarcastic and gratuitous. Inappropriate for this thoughtful discussion.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> It was sarcastic and gratuitous. Inappropriate for this thoughtful discussion.


I'll take your inability to handle reasoned criticism of France's pro-infidelity laws as you conceding that the laws are disrespectful and unnecessary.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> I'll take your inability to handle reasoned criticism of France's pro-infidelity laws as you conceding that the laws are disrespectful and unnecessary.


I am not going to continue going back and forth with you, nor respond to your baiting.

Back to the discussion.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I am not going to continue going back and forth with you, nor respond to your baiting.
> 
> Back to the discussion.


I'm not "baiting" anything or anyone.

I'm doing nothing more than pointing out that today, in France, and as a direct result of their laws prohibiting the pursuit of the most basic, fundamental truth due each of us, there are likely tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands (if not more) of men unjustly held hostage by those laws.

Some know, others don't, and I feel badly for them all.

Especially today.

This IS the discussion, by the way.

It's the most unsavory part of the discussion, but you can't say you're talking about something if you're ignoring that part of it.


----------



## MJJEAN

Umm, folks? DNA testing at birth doesn't mean the government would have a database with everyone's DNA in it.

Legally required DNA testing to determine paternity works very similarly to private testing and common medical testing. You submit the sample to a lab contracted by the state, the results are sent to all involved parties and the court, then the sample is destroyed with the rest of the labs medical waste.

There really isn't any reason not to test at birth or during pregnancy.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> I'm not "baiting" anything or anyone.
> 
> I'm doing nothing more than pointing out that today, in France, and as a direct result of their laws prohibiting the pursuit of the most basic, fundamental truth due each of us, there are likely tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands (if not more) of men unjustly held hostage by those laws.
> 
> Some know, others don't, and I feel badly for them all.
> 
> Especially today.
> 
> This IS the discussion, by the way.
> 
> It's the most unsavory part of the discussion, but you can't say you're talking about something if you're ignoring that part of it.


And if you had not made that flip remark to begin with, maybe this could have been a part of our thoughtful discussion. 

Which never actually was intended to be a discussion of legality, btw. It was about people's feelings about their own dad asking for a DNA test, and the people possibly urging him to do it.

If I had meant it to be a purely legal or moral discussion, I would have put it in P&R.


----------



## jld

MJJEAN said:


> Umm, folks? DNA testing at birth doesn't mean the government would have a database with everyone's DNA in it.
> 
> Legally required DNA testing to determine paternity works very similarly to private testing and common medical testing. You submit the sample to a lab contracted by the state, the results are sent to all involved parties and the court, then the sample is destroyed with the rest of the labs medical waste.
> 
> There really isn't any reason not to test at birth or during pregnancy.


I think she was referring to a rape database. 

At any rate, why don't those who want to discuss those legal issues go start a thread in P&R. 

I would like to get back to the original intent of the discussion, as embodied by the two original questions.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I think what Dug was trying to say was that if you bring up kids in the right environment, it may make them less likely to cheat when they are adults. Trying to scare them with DNA testing may not be as powerful a tool.


Why do you think that children will even know about DNA testing? Why would they even be told that it was done?



jld said:


> Personally, I do not think you will ever eliminate infidelity. Certain strategies may lessen its probability. But it is likely to always exist to some degree in human society.


I agree that infidelity will always exist. It has always existed and is not going to stop.

However, if a woman who gets pregnant by an affair partner knows that a DNA test will be done, she if highly likely to get an abortion. I think it will not decrease infidelity. But it will increase abortions by some very small percentage.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> And if you had not made that flip remark to begin with, maybe this could have been a part of our thoughtful discussion.


That "flip remark" is basically a summary with respect to the way that ANY man with a healthy dose of self esteem (or any at all, really) will view what amounts to state-mandated cuckoldry, and I'd think that the overwhelming majority of women who don't hate said men would feel similarly.



jld said:


> Which never actually was intended to be a discussion of legality, btw. It was about people's feelings about their own dad asking for a DNA test, and the people possibly urging him to do it.
> 
> If I had meant it to be a purely legal or moral discussion, I would have put it in P&R.


Be real.

You can't have the first conversation without having the second, and if you truly think otherwise, all I can say is this:

Hi. Welcome to TAM.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> Contributes nothing of value to an otherwise thoughtful discussion.


I made me laugh out loud! Contributed a lot to my day!


----------



## EleGirl

MEM2020 said:


> Sounds like anti male bias Elle.
> 
> If you want to DNA test all adults - fine by me. Plenty of crimes (murders) scenes with unknown DNA.


And a lot of women will interpret DNA testing of every baby born as an anti-female bias. The statement is that no woman can be trusted. I used the DNA DB of men to try to explain to men, how many women feel about the DNA testing of every baby... .it's a statement by society that every women untrustworthy.

with that said, I have no problem at all with the idea of laws that give men something like 2 years to contest paternity of a child born to their wife. Any man who has a concern can quietly do a DNA test. No court order needed. And he pays for it.



MEM2020 said:


> As to the backlog of untested DNA - it's a mystery.


What do you mean that "it's a mystery"?


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Why do you think that children will even know about DNA testing? Why would they even be told that it was done?


I think he meant when they grow up and become adults. Not when they are kids.



> I agree that infidelity will always exist. It has always existed and is not going to stop.
> 
> However, if a woman who gets pregnant by an affair partner knows that a DNA test will be done, she if highly likely to get an abortion. I think it will not decrease infidelity. But it will increase abortions by some very small percentage.


It may make both men and women think more carefully about allowing a pregnancy to occur. But we all know that pregnancies can happen no matter careful planning.

At any rate, I would ask that we leave the legality and morality of paternity fraud to those who would like to start a discussion on it in P&R, and get back to the two feelings-based questions that were the original intent of this discussion.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> That "flip remark" is basically a summary with respect to the way that ANY man with a healthy dose of self esteem (or any at all, really) will view what amounts to state-mandated cuckoldry, and I'd think that the overwhelming majority of women who don't hate said men would feel similarly.
> 
> 
> 
> Be real.
> 
> You can't have the first conversation without having the second, and if you truly think otherwise, all I can say is this:
> 
> Hi. Welcome to TAM.


We are back to the original two questions on the thread. Feel free to start any separate discussions elsewhere.


----------



## sokillme

jld said:


> It was sarcastic and gratuitous. Inappropriate for this thoughtful discussion.


Ridiculous. Two words Christopher Hitchens.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> Ridiculous. Two words Christopher Hitchens.


We are back to the two original questions, sokillme.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I think she was referring to a rape database.
> 
> At any rate, why don't those who want to discuss those legal issues go start a thread in P&R.
> 
> I would like to get back to the original intent of the discussion, as embodied by the two original questions.


I was also talking about a DNA database of every baby born in the USA if DNA testing at birth is mandatory.

Most of the births in this country are paid for by Medicaid. That's government funding. I have no doubt that if Medicaid was paying for most of the births, the folks in Washington will decide that they have the right to the DNA results. And a national database will be created for those results. Plus they will also include the births not paid for by gov funds.

The results of the DNA test will already become part of the child's permanent medical record.


----------



## jld

sokillme said:


> I made me laugh out loud! Contributed a lot to my day!


I am glad you made yourself laugh out loud, sokillme. 

Now let's get back to the two original questions of the thread.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I think he meant when they grow up and become adults. Not when they are kids.


Do you mean that he's talking about doing DNA testing on children when they are adults for the purpose of determining paternity? Is this what you are talking about? I'm confused?


----------



## sokillme

jld why don't you give us the full story instead of this cryptic stuff?


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> I was also talking about a DNA database of every baby born in the USA if DNA testing at birth is mandatory.
> 
> Most of the births in this country are paid for by Medicaid. That's government funding. I have no doubt that if Medicaid was paying for most of the births, the folks in Washington will decide that they have the right to the DNA results. And a national database will be created for those results. Plus they will also include the births not paid for by gov funds.
> 
> The results of the DNA test will already become part of the child's permanent medical record.


I think those are excellent and important points, Ele, and I appreciate your letting us know about them. They could be the focus of a very interesting and thought-provoking thread in P&R.

Now, respectfully, I would like to refocus the thread on its original two questions.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Do you mean that he's talking about doing DNA testing on children when they are adults for the purpose of determining paternity? Is this what you are talking about? I'm confused?


No, I think he meant that if kids grow up in a healthy environment they may be more likely to have the tools to avoid cheating. Knowing there could be testing may further encourage them to avoid cheating. But on its own, it may not be enough.

Now, let's get back to the original two questions on the thread.


----------



## MEM2020

Ele,
Now you are using the same delivery style that Alex Jones does. When pressed hard, he doesn't personally claim sandy hook didn't happen. He's just repeating what others are saying. 

Airports force mandatory lugagge scanning as a precaution not because they believe ALL travelers are terrorists. 

Big Companies have internal audit groups - not because they believe every employee is criminal but because they recognize the risk that some employees may steal. 

Note: I didn't oppose widespread DNA testing. I opposed widespread DNA testing limited only to men. 






EleGirl said:


> And a lot of women will interpret DNA testing of every baby born as an anti-female bias. The statement is that no woman can be trusted. I used the DNA DB of men to try to explain to men, how many women feel about the DNA testing of every baby... .it's a statement by society that every women untrustworthy.
> 
> with that said, I have no problem at all with the idea of laws that give men something like 2 years to contest paternity of a child born to their wife. Any man who has a concern can quietly do a DNA test. No court order needed. And he pays for it.
> 
> 
> What do you mean that "it's a mystery"?


----------



## jld

MEM2020 said:


> Ele,
> Now you are using the same delivery style that Alex Jones does. When pressed hard, he doesn't personally claim sandy hook didn't happen. He's just repeating what others are saying.
> 
> Airports force mandatory lugagge scanning as a precaution not because they believe ALL travelers are terrorists.
> 
> Big Companies have internal audit groups - not because they believe every employee is criminal but because they recognize the risk that some employees may steal.
> 
> Note: I didn't oppose widespread DNA testing. I opposed widespread DNA testing limited only to men.


MEM and Ele,

You have the makings of a very interesting discussion here, one likely appropriate for P&R.

I would like to refocus this discussion on its original two questions. Thank you for your understanding.


----------



## EleGirl

MEM2020 said:


> Ele,
> Now you are using the same delivery style that Alex Jones does. When pressed hard, he doesn't personally claim sandy hook didn't happen. He's just repeating what others are saying.
> 
> Airports force mandatory lugagge scanning as a precaution not because they believe ALL travelers are terrorists.


The security at airports was instituted because aircraft are common target of terrorist. And when an aircraft is blown out of the sky, or used as a missal to fly into buildings, it hurts our entire society and financial structure. IT can put our entire country on its knees as it did after 9/11.




MEM2020 said:


> Big Companies have internal audit groups - not because they believe every employee is criminal but because they recognize the risk that some employees may steal.


Yep. Audits are for two reasons. One is to check for employee theft. The other is to evaluate the company's procedures/processes. I've done dozens of audits and been subjected to them. A company has a lot of latitude than our government does. The company has a vested interested in protecting it's own assets. 



MEM2020 said:


> Note: I didn't oppose widespread DNA testing. I opposed widespread DNA testing limited only to men.


I would argue that DNA testing babies is a form of widespread DNA testing that is very much against women. There is only once reason to DNA test every baby born for paternity... the only reason is that women are considered inherently liars and cheaters. I am telling you that a lot of women feel this way. Just like the men here are asking that women understand their point of view about paternity fraud, I am asking that men understand who DNA testing every baby makes a lot of women feel attack and insulted.

I know for a fact that a lot of the men on TAM would oppose a DNA database of men on the grounds that the assumption is that every man is a potential rapist. There are threads here on TAM on which men have stated this.

There is a similarity in sentiments here.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> MEM and Ele,
> 
> You have the makings of a very interesting discussion here, one likely appropriate for P&R.
> 
> I would like to refocus this discussion on its original two questions. Thank you for your understanding.


IMHO, this discussion is part of responding to your original questions. Why? Because it addresses the broader picture of why someone might or might not be offended/hurt if their father DNA tested them.


----------



## Duguesclin

If I found out my dad had done a DNA test on me to find out if I was his natural son, I would be crushed. I do not have a high opinion of my dad, but that would put it even further down.

If I learned his friends or his family had urged him to do it, I would have lost all respect for them and would not want to interact with them anymore.

It is a big trust breaker.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> MEM and Ele,
> 
> You have the makings of a very interesting discussion here, one likely appropriate for P&R.
> 
> I would like to refocus this discussion on its original two questions. Thank you for your understanding.


I see one original question.



jld said:


> And if you learned that a group of people had urged him to do it, how would you feel about those people?
> 
> Just wondering.


How would I feel about those people? I'd need a lot more info to be able to answer that. Who are those people. Why do they think he might want to do a DNA test? Why doesn't he trust my mother? Why don't they trust her? Do they even know her?


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> If I found out my dad had done a DNA test on me to find out if I was his natural son, I would be crushed. I do not have a high opinion of my dad, but that would put it even further down.
> 
> If I learned his friends or his family had urged him to do it, I would have lost all respect for them and would not want to interact with them anymore.
> 
> It is a big trust breaker.


What if they knew for a fact that your mother was having an affair at the time you were conceived? (Sorry, am not maligning your mother here. This is hypothetical.)


----------



## sokillme

Duguesclin said:


> If I found out my dad had done a DNA test on me to find out if I was his natural son, I would be crushed. I do not have a high opinion of my dad, but that would put it even further down.
> 
> If I learned his friends or his family had urged him to do it, I would have lost all respect for them and would not want to interact with them anymore.
> 
> It is a big trust breaker.


What would you think if you found out it was true?


----------



## Duguesclin

EleGirl said:


> What if they knew for a fact that your mother was having an affair at the time you were conceived? (Sorry, am not maligning your mother here. This is hypothetical.)


I would ask him what would be the consequences of him finding out I was not his biological son. I would feel that if he really cared about me, he would not care whether I was his biological son or not. 

I can understand him being upset about my mom's possible affair (as a kid I would have been upset at my mom as well). But requesting a DNA test would have made me feel that his love was conditional. It would have been very destabilizing.


----------



## Duguesclin

sokillme said:


> What would you think if you found out it was true?


My dad is an immature selfish guy. So, I would have understood my mom having an affair. But I still would have been upset with her.

For kids it is very disturbing to think of their parents with someone else.


----------



## MEM2020

My fathers trust or distrust of my mother is about her - not about me. If he had DNA tested me, I would just shrug.

My parents adopted my older sister - so they aren't hostile to extra-familial DNA.





Duguesclin said:


> If I found out my dad had done a DNA test on me to find out if I was his natural son, I would be crushed. I do not have a high opinion of my dad, but that would put it even further down.
> 
> If I learned his friends or his family had urged him to do it, I would have lost all respect for them and would not want to interact with them anymore.
> 
> It is a big trust breaker.


----------



## EleGirl

Duguesclin said:


> I would ask him what would be the consequences of him finding out I was not his biological son. I would feel that if he really cared about me, he would not care whether I was his biological son or not.
> 
> I can understand him being upset about my mom's possible affair (as a kid I would have been upset at my mom as well). But requesting a DNA test would have made me feel that his love was conditional. It would have been very destabilizing.


I'm not sure that I would be upset by it if there was good reason to that there is a question of paternity. I don't think that verifying paternity has all that much to do with love.

What I mean is that I know that when a person raises a child of their own, there is no difference in the quality of love even if the child is not biologically their child. DNA has nothing to do with love. I would not even assume that if the DNA test showed that he was not my father, that it would change his love for me in any way.

However, it just might affect his feelings for my mother.

I guess I just would have enough trust in my father to know that it would be about his love for me and it would not change his love for me.

I would however want the question answered to get rid of the ghost of uncertainly that would hang over everything. I just believe that the truth is important. Get to the truth and then deal with it.


----------



## Duguesclin

EleGirl said:


> I'm not sure that I would be upset by it if there was good reason to that there is a question of paternity. I don't think that verifying paternity has all that much to do with love.
> 
> What I mean is that I know that when a person raises a child of their own, there is no difference in the quality of love even if the child is not biologically their child. DNA has nothing to do with love. I would not even assume that if the DNA test showed that he was not my father, that it would change his love for me in any way.
> 
> However, it just might affect his feelings for my mother.
> 
> I guess I just would have enough trust in my father to know that it would be about his love for me and it would not change his love for me.
> 
> I would however want the question answered to get rid of the ghost of uncertainly that would hang over everything. I just believe that the truth is important. Get to the truth and then deal with it.


As a child, whatever impacted my mom, impacted me. If my dad decided to divorce my mom, it would have had a huge impact on me. 

My life would have been greatly impacted and I would not have forgiven my dad for that, regardless of what my dad said about his love for me.

He would have made my life harder, plain and simple, for his own immature and selfish reasons.


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband

Anon Pink said:


> So you're suggesting that a paternity test be used to gain full custody of all the kids because the WW is an unfit mother?
> 
> Worth contemplating.


I disagree with the assumption that a male would automatically ditch the non-bio child, in my friends case, the JUDGE said "You can't have custody because you are NOT bio dad. Wasn't until the WW & POS BF/bio dad put the kid in ER due to abuse that the ex got custody of all the kids as judge didn't want to break up the siblings.

My friend raised all the siblings, they all call him dad, even thou the non bio child knows what happened. They want nothing to do with WW/mom as she put her BF before them when it came to pressing charges for abuse.


----------



## jld

FrazzledSadHusband said:


> I disagree with the assumption that a male would automatically ditch the non-bio child, in my friends case, the JUDGE said "You can't have custody because you are NOT bio dad. Wasn't until the WW & POS BF/bio dad put the kid in ER due to abuse that the ex got custody of all the kids as judge didn't want to break up the siblings.
> 
> My friend raised all the siblings, they all call him dad, even thou the non bio child knows what happened. They want nothing to do with WW/mom as she put her BF before them when it came to pressing charges for abuse.


Just a reminder that we are refocusing back on the original two questions on the thread. Thanks, everyone, for your understanding.


----------



## Andy1001

jld said:


> Just a reminder that we are refocusing back on the original two questions on the thread. Thanks, everyone, for your understanding.


To answer your original question it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.My mom would have probably killed him or divorced him,not necessarily in that order.As to friends influencing him I don't think he let anyone close enough to discuss something like this with them.If you ever met my dad,my brother and me together you would know straight away we were a family.


----------



## oneMOreguy

I'm not gonna get pulled into the drama but.....I'm secure enough in myself to just inquire why it was done and listen. Isn't that the mature approach everyone recommends? It seems like many are projecting in a direction to justify their own agendas......seems dishonest or manipulative.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

oneMOreguy said:


> I'm not gonna get pulled into the drama but.....I'm secure enough in myself to just inquire why it was done and listen. Isn't that the mature approach everyone recommends? It seems like many are projecting in a direction to justify their own agendas......seems dishonest or manipulative.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


Hi, onemoreguy. We are refocusing on the original two questions. Feel free to answer them, and thank you for understanding.


----------



## sokillme

Duguesclin said:


> My dad is an immature selfish guy. So, I would have understood my mom having an affair. But I still would have been upset with her.
> 
> For kids it is very disturbing to think of their parents with someone else.


I guess this really depends on how sure you are of your fathers love. My father cheated on my Mom but I have never once had any doubt that he loved me. I think I would feel the same way about the DNA test. I could see though if there was some doubt how this would be difficult.


----------



## sokillme

Duguesclin said:


> As a child, whatever impacted my mom, impacted me. If my dad decided to divorce my mom, it would have had a huge impact on me.
> 
> My life would have been greatly impacted and I would not have forgiven my dad for that, regardless of what my dad said about his love for me.
> 
> He would have made my life harder, plain and simple, for his own immature and selfish reasons.


So would you blame your Dad if he divorced your Mom if she was cheating or is always Dad's fault?


----------



## oneMOreguy

jld said:


> Hi, onemoreguy. We are refocusing on the original two questions. Feel free to answer them, and thank you for understanding.


I answered the first part of the question, and the second part of the question folds into the answer for the first part....ask, and then listen with an open heart and mind. 
For background, I have already had to do this for my father re his violent and abrupt outbursts and behaviors, albeit decades after his death. Decided he actually was an improvement from his father, a poor uneducated immigrant from poland. I factor in adhd (all males on my lineage deal with a brain that can swing out of control) his immigrant stature in a unfriendly country, death of a 12 yo brother when he was 13, and the mom abandoning the family shortly thereafter. 

Of course he behavior causes me issues to this day, but I put it in perspective and do not judge him, he was more of a victim than me. My older brother and sister cannot find a path to figure these things out.....their view of the world requires him to be a bad guy, if they are a victim.

It really seems best to not assume the worst of a person's actions.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## Quality

jld said:


> _Nowhere is the prohibition against infidelity in the West more severe – and the consequences more dire – than in America. “People in the States are massively hypocritical,” says Perel. “They don’t cheat any less than the French. They just feel more guilty about it.” _
> 
> . . .
> 
> _Yet Americans have a uniquely narrow-minded take on infidelity, says Perel. “Most Europeans see it as an imperfection, and not something worth destroying your marriage over.” But Americans, who tend to see sex as corrupting and approach pleasure with scepticism, often view affairs in more binary terms. “Here there’s a persecutor and a victim, these are the only two options,” Perel says. “The language is criminal. I think that speaks volumes.”_
> 
> https://www.1843magazine.com/features/whats-wrong-with-infidelity



Ester Perel also believes monogamy is outdated and actually "counsels" couples encouraging "hall pass" weekend where maybe the wife and/or husband goes to Vegas and can do whatever he/she wants.


Quick check of some stats - in 2011 there were 231,000 marriages (3.54 new marriages per thousand) in France versus 2,120,000 (6.8 new marriages per thousand).

No wonder the French don't care, hardly anyone is married and they all can screw whomever they want. 

I mean, I just don't get it, is Perel suggesting that adulterer guilt is a real problem and the solution is we all should just lighten up and stop making them feel bad?

If you don't want to be monogamous ~ don't get married {then you can be like the "cheating without guilt" French all you want}.


----------



## jld

Quality said:


> Ester Perel also believes monogamy is outdated and actually "counsels" couples encouraging "hall pass" weekend where maybe the wife and/or husband goes to Vegas and can do whatever he/she wants.
> 
> 
> Quick check of some stats - in 2011 there were 231,000 marriages (3.54 new marriages per thousand) in France versus 2,120,000 (6.8 new marriages per thousand).
> 
> No wonder the French don't care, hardly anyone is married and they all can screw whomever they want.
> 
> I mean, I just don't get it, is Perel suggesting that adulterer guilt is a real problem and the solution is we all should just lighten up and stop making them feel bad?
> 
> If you don't want to be monogamous ~ don't get married {then you can be like the "cheating without guilt" French all you want}.


The thread is refocusing on the original two questions, Quality. Feel free to answer them, and thank you for respecting the refocus.


----------



## Quality

jld said:


> The thread is refocusing on the original two questions, Quality. Feel free to answer them, and thank you for respecting the refocus.


Sorry.


DNA tests are great. All for the Truth.

Never needed one myself and don't think taxpayers should pay for it. 

If you're not sure if the child is yours, buy your own DNA test.


----------



## sokillme

Quality said:


> Ester Perel also believes monogamy is outdated and actually "counsels" couples encouraging "hall pass" weekend where maybe the wife and/or husband goes to Vegas and can do whatever he/she wants.
> 
> 
> Quick check of some stats - in 2011 there were 231,000 marriages (3.54 new marriages per thousand) in France versus 2,120,000 (6.8 new marriages per thousand).
> 
> No wonder the French don't care, hardly anyone is married and they all can screw whomever they want.
> 
> I mean, I just don't get it, is Perel suggesting that adulterer guilt is a real problem and the solution is we all should just lighten up and stop making them feel bad?
> 
> If you don't want to be monogamous ~ don't get married {then you can be like the "cheating without guilt" French all you want}.


Quality this is a post that you and I completely agree on.


----------



## jld

Quality said:


> Sorry.
> 
> 
> DNA tests are great. All for the Truth.
> 
> Never needed one myself and don't think taxpayers should pay for it.
> 
> If you're not sure if the child is yours, buy your own DNA test.


The refocus is on the original two questions: one in the title and one in the first post.

Again, thank you to everyone for respecting the refocus.


----------



## Quality

jld said:


> The refocus is on the original two questions: one in the title and one in the first post.
> 
> Again, thank you to everyone for respecting the refocus.


You are so welcome. I hadn't read the refocus requests until after I posted about Ms Perel's ridiculousness.

To answer your questions.

I'd feel fine. I'm an adult and my dad's in his nineties. I'd respect him no matter what he decided to do and I wouldn't "feel" bad about it at all. 

I also wouldn't care about posters posting to him encouraging him to do it. The problem isn't with discovering and exposing truth {and encouraging someone to do the same}, it's actually with the deeds and likely misdeeds that lead up to the mistruths that would be the problem, if any problem ~ is discovered at all. 

I'm an equal opportunity exposer ~ cheaters, swingers, criminals, fraudsters {including paternity fraudsters} ~ it's really for their own benefit. Being reprobate is bad for one's health. 

Getting upset about the poor illegitimate children is just a misdirection. People can handle the truth about themselves and others ~ it's the lies that hurt.


----------



## Broken at 20

I can't answer the original question, because it didn't happen to me. I can only answer how I felt reading the paternity test, and learning the man who raised me, wasn't my father. 

The first test, I felt rage. Granted, I was drinking quite heavily at the time. But I was beyond livid, beyond enraged. A rage brighter than the sun. I wanted to yell and scream at my wh0re of a mother, but I knew I couldn't. 


But then we had a second DNA test. I met him in a restaurant, and we opened and read the DNA test results together. 
What should one feel when they read "0.0%" for paternity? 

I felt denial, and said we needed a third test. He said what would a third test prove? Even if it came back positive, does that mean we just ignore the other two test that were negative? 

My rage had largely subsided at this point and I felt remorse. For the man who raised me, I felt great pity, great...pain, and...wishing there was some way I could help him. There is only one thing in my life that I feel any remorse and guilt for; it's this. How poorly I treated him, how much I hated him, because I didn't know the full story. 
We had yelled horrible things at each other. We had hit each other, punched each other. We had gotten into terrible fights. I even posted on here somewhere (I think) that I wished he wasn't my father. And I know I yelled that at him. 
What should one feel in that moment when they read that negative test result?

I don't know what one would feel if their father asked for a paternity test. I don't know what one should feel. 

I still remember the last thing the man who raised me, said to me. 
HIM: I gotta tell you something.
ME: Is it 'I still love you son?' 
HIM: No, no, it's I'm going to forget you.

He said that to me March 2015. I haven't seen him, or heard from him since. 
I have tried to reach out to him, but because he has never responded, I assume he doesn't want to see me. The only thing I feel like I can do, is honor his, more-or-less, unspoken request, and I haven't attempted to contact him.


----------



## sokillme

Broken at 20 said:


> I can't answer the original question, because it didn't happen to me. I can only answer how I felt reading the paternity test, and learning the man who raised me, wasn't my father.
> 
> The first test, I felt rage. Granted, I was drinking quite heavily at the time. But I was beyond livid, beyond enraged. A rage brighter than the sun. I wanted to yell and scream at my wh0re of a mother, but I knew I couldn't.
> 
> 
> But then we had a second DNA test. I met him in a restaurant, and we opened and read the DNA test results together.
> What should one feel when they read "0.0%" for paternity?
> 
> I felt denial, and said we needed a third test. He said what would a third test prove? Even if it came back positive, does that mean we just ignore the other two test that were negative?
> 
> My rage had largely subsided at this point and I felt remorse. For the man who raised me, I felt great pity, great...pain, and...wishing there was some way I could help him. There is only one thing in my life that I feel any remorse and guilt for; it's this. How poorly I treated him, how much I hated him, because I didn't know the full story.
> We had yelled horrible things at each other. We had hit each other, punched each other. We had gotten into terrible fights. I even posted on here somewhere (I think) that I wished he wasn't my father. And I know I yelled that at him.
> What should one feel in that moment when they read that negative test result?
> 
> I don't know what one would feel if their father asked for a paternity test. I don't know what one should feel.
> 
> I still remember the last thing the man who raised me, said to me.
> HIM: I gotta tell you something.
> ME: Is it 'I still love you son?'
> HIM: No, no, it's I'm going to forget you.
> 
> He said that to me March 2015. I haven't seen him, or heard from him since.
> I have tried to reach out to him, but because he has never responded, I assume he doesn't want to see me. The only thing I feel like I can do, is honor his, more-or-less, unspoken request, and I haven't attempted to contact him.


I was wondering if you would comment. I remember your posts, I believe if I remembered correctly that matched this story almost exactly. I read your story when I first got on here, it's maybe one of the saddest. How have you been doing man? Please update you thread and let us know how you are doing. You have been dealt such a terrible hand. I hope life has been at least treating you better from that time forward.


----------



## samyeagar

MEM2020 said:


> My fathers trust or distrust of my mother is about her - not about me. If he had DNA tested me, I would just shrug.
> 
> My parents adopted my older sister - so they aren't hostile to extra-familial DNA.


I think the recent posts by dug are very instructive and insightful and shed a lot of light as to his views of men, women and relationships.

As to the questions...wouldn't bat an eye if my father did a dna test. Wouldn't change a thing towards my father, nor to anyone who'd encouraged him. Those relationships stand on their own merits, and I guess I'm just not as sensitive and fragile about it as some men are.


----------



## jld

When I wrote the questions, I envisioned them being answered by the poster as a child, say eight or ten years old. I think some people are answering through the eyes of an adult child, say at 40. Those perspectives may indeed differ.

In light of that, you may want to include in your answers which aged eyes, so to speak, you are looking through as you answer the questions. Thank you.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> When I wrote the questions, I envisioned them being answered by the poster as a child, say eight or ten years old. I think some people are answering through the eyes of an adult child, say at 40. Those perspectives may indeed differ.
> 
> In light of that, you may want to include in your answers which aged eyes, so to speak, you are looking through as you answer the questions. Thank you.


Seeing how none of us here are eight or ten years old, and have varying years of, often harsh life experience since we were that age, trying to put our selves objectively back at that age, and contemplating that question with an eight or ten year olds understanding would be speculative at best to the point of being a meaningless answer.

But I'll try and answer as best I can...

I would scream and yell and rage, kill kittens, and torture puppies, and spend the rest of my life in prison for serial killing vagrant men in a vain attempt to work through my daddy issues.


----------



## GusPolinski

samyeagar said:


> Seeing how none of us here are eight or ten years old, and have varying years of, often harsh life experience since we were that age, trying to put our selves objectively back at that age, and contemplating that question with an eight or ten year olds understanding would be speculative at best to the point of being a meaningless answer.
> 
> But I'll try and answer as best I can...
> 
> I would scream and yell and rage, kill kittens, and torture puppies, and spend the rest of my life in prison for serial killing vagrant men in a vain attempt to work through my daddy issues.


Ha!

Exactly what they wanted to hear.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Seeing how none of us here are eight or ten years old, and have varying years of, often harsh life experience since we were that age, trying to put our selves objectively back at that age, and contemplating that question with an eight or ten year olds understanding would be speculative at best to the point of being a meaningless answer.
> 
> But I'll try and answer as best I can...
> 
> I would scream and yell and rage, kill kittens, and torture puppies, and spend the rest of my life in prison for serial killing vagrant men in a vain attempt to work through my daddy issues.


I believe it is possible for at least some people to imagine themselves as children again, and answer through those eyes.

Answers given through the eyes of adult children are also pertinent to the thread.

Please just specify through which eyes you are answering. Thank you.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Ha!
> 
> Exactly what they wanted to hear.


Gus, this is meant to be a respectful, productive discussion. Please refrain from making comments that are not in alignment with those guidelines, and are not answers to the two original questions. Thank you.


----------

