# Should birth paternity tests be mandatory?



## gameopoly5 (5 mo ago)

Many believe they have to wait until after a baby is born and then do a type of traditional DNA test.
But there are pre-birth paternity tests available. Pre-birth paternity tests are a non-invasive paternity test that are conducted to confirm the biological father of a child.
These tests are very accurate.
It is wise to conduct a paternity test for every pregnancy, whether it's with a girlfriend or a wife, just to confirm that a boyfriend of husband is the father.
Why is it advisable to be done for every pregnancy?
A very high percent (a third) of pre and post-birth DNA tests are coming back with negative results and that`s only the men that discover the children are not theirs, probably also many fathers bringing up children without knowing they are not the biological fathers.
These are situations where typically a father maybe has some suspicion of infidelity or just wants to confirm that he is the biological father of a child.
If women have nothing to worry about then they should have no problem taking the test.
If a man says I want to have a paternity test done because he is excited about being a father or a father again and just wants to have that confirmed with closure and peace of mind and if the wife or girlfriend gives a lot of reasons why that shouldn't be done, that's a red flag because they should have no problem.
Why is this most important?
The pain for a man finding out a child is not his and especially for children discovering the man that brought them up is not really their father, is one of the most psychologically damaging events a man and children can endure, even if happens 6, 7, 10, 15 or 30 years down the line.
I believe if paternity tests were to become mandatory the figures for infidelity among women would increase dramatically.
No man’s name should be placed on a birth certificate unless proven to be the biological father that would save a lot of heartbreak later on.


----------



## rockon (May 18, 2016)

Real paternity fraud should be treated as a crime.


----------



## snowbum (Dec 14, 2021)

No


----------



## D0nnivain (Mar 13, 2021)

No they should not become mandatory. If two people have reason to believe that the guy might not be the father the man always has the right to ask. But as a woman, if I was pregnant & the father asked for a paternity test, the level of paranoia & distrust shown there would cause me to end the relationship as soon as the request was made. Yikes.


----------



## Tiddytok5 (8 mo ago)

Of course it should be mandatory.
It should be mandatory to have it done twice.

Once, sometime during pregnancy (it can be determined before birth)

And 

Once

Before being discharged from the hospital.


For the potential father's sake (during pregnancy)


For both potential parents (after birthing) before discharge from the hospital.


It wouldn't hurt to have one more done outside of the hospital.



Millions, perhaps billions of children get switched, stolen, sold... right from the nursery in the hospital.....alot of times at the hands of some doctors, nurses, and staff members.


Alot of people take home and raise someone else's offspring... unaware of anything.


Both potential parents should know.

Potential father's only have the potential mother's "word" without it...

Potential mother's only have the hospital's "word" without it.


Plus, it's great to always have that documentation...in case one or both of the parents pass and the child needs further proof to possibly collect benefits.



Having that information


Prevents further heartbreak...

Possibly for everyone.


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

snowbum said:


> No


Why not, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

In fact if you are aware the child is not your partner's it should be a criminal offence to device him into believing the child is his.


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

If it was mandatory to have a paternity test then the matter of trust would be a moot point.

Far better than being conned into raising a child that is not your own.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Kind of a double edge sword...
On one hand, do I think on it's face it's reasonable considering infidelity percentages. Sure.

On the other hand, do I really want my DNA floating around government databases categorizing everyone. Nope. 

Plus the whole mandatory thing is not going to fly. We have already learned that after the whole covid debacle.


----------



## ABHale (Jan 3, 2016)

Yes, I believe it should be mandatory.

Just like it is mandatory to have the wife’s signed consent before a guy can get a vasectomy.


----------



## ShatteredKat (Mar 23, 2016)

D0nnivain said:


> No they should not become mandatory. If two people have reason to believe that the guy might not be the father the man always has the right to ask. But as a woman, if I was pregnant & the father asked for a paternity test, the level of paranoia & distrust shown there would cause me to end the relationship as soon as the request was made. Yikes.


I would think that (being not mandatory) a "husband" asking for the test is a (ahem) testament to his faith in wife's fidelity

So, ya, relationship is going downhill (at the time anyway) and for him - on the downhill for some time.


----------



## D0nnivain (Mar 13, 2021)

If you don't fully trust your partner, then don't have sex with them.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

ABHale said:


> Yes, I believe it should be mandatory.
> 
> Just like it is mandatory to have the wife’s signed consent before a guy can get a vasectomy.


That's just silly.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

I think if the state/government required it, it wouldn't be offensive. It would just be the way it is. I think it would_ feel_ offensive if it was something that my husband asked me to do, because of his own paranoia, and/or lack of trust in me. 

The state is playing a neutral role, while my husband's request would feel more personal. All of that said, with how many stories we read on here about cheaters, and all of the marriages that I've seen break up over it, it's not _that _outlandish of a request for men to want to feel ''protected'' before putting their name on a legal document that binds them financially to taking care of a child.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

The threads about this make me roll my eyes.

Any man is free to pay for a paternity test. No need to make it mandatory.

If we're gonna make it "mandatory" then we also need to make STD/I testing mandatory before people have sex with each other.


----------



## gameopoly5 (5 mo ago)

D0nnivain said:


> No they should not become mandatory. If two people have reason to believe that the guy might not be the father the man always has the right to ask. But as a woman, if I was pregnant & the father asked for a paternity test, the level of paranoia & distrust shown there would cause me to end the relationship as soon as the request was made. Yikes.


It`s not a matter of a man requesting a paternity test or should not ask for a paternity but instead should give the mother unconditional trust.
If a paternity test became compulsory by law than that would eliminate any means of deception, paternity fraud and any disputes of who is the father if a woman has been with more than one man within a close period of time and also this would establish a father as an official biological father and not just a legal father with a name on a birth certificate.
To me this makes perfect sense.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

gameopoly5 said:


> It`s not a matter of a man requesting a paternity test or should not ask for a paternity but instead should give the mother unconditional trust.
> If a paternity test became compulsory by law than that would eliminate any means of deception and also this would establish a father as a biological father and not just a legal father with a name on a birth certificate.
> To me this makes perfect sense.


Again, no need. Any person can do their own test anytime they want.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Livvie said:


> The threads about this make me roll my eyes.
> 
> Any man is free to pay for a paternity test. No need to make it mandatory.
> 
> If we're gonna make it "mandatory" then we also need to make STD/I testing mandatory before people have sex with each other.


The mandatory slope is a slippery slide. Seems to me it would fall under unreasonable search and seizure if government tried to mandate it. There would have to be an opt out, which would land us right back where we currently are.

It's like who do I trust more... my wife or big brother?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

IMO, paternity tests should be routinely done by default, but the father should have the option to choose not to have it done (or if the mother wants it, the father can choose to not be told the results, _and_ vice versa). I don't know why a father would opt out, but for some, ignorance is bliss - or somehow irrelevant.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

Well if 1/3 of test come back negative that means that only 1/3 of people, who got a test because they had reason to doubt paternity, turned out to have their doubts confirmed. If you take into account the total number of pregnancies The number is probably a lot lower. The numbers I have seen are around 2%, which in sheer numbers is still a lot of male victims. 

That being said I don't think there is any problem making it standard/mandatory. It's not something I would go out of my way to push for, more like a whatever scenario. 

I do think paternity fraud should be a very serious crime with punishments equal to those for rape. I think that is the bigger issue.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Livvie said:


> Again, no need. Any person can do their own test anytime they want.


Well the idea is that if it's mandatory men don't have to look like the bad guy by accusing their wife of being a cheater and thereby avoid the ugly chitstorm of a woman (hormonal at that) scorned.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I'd have no issue with it if it was standard hospital policy.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> The mandatory slope is a slippery slide. Seems to me it would fall under unreasonable search and seizure if government tried to mandate it. There would have to be an opt out, which would land us right back where we currently are.
> 
> It's like who do I trust more... my wife or big brother?


Well when you put it like that......I really hate big brother.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

I don't think the DNA test should be mandatory, however the father should be informed it's available if he wants to know.

I do think the Mother should have to sign a legally binding form attesting to who the Father is. Perhaps with checkoffs for unsure, not my legal husband etc.

Similar to the man has to sign a form declaring they are the Father.


----------



## D0nnivain (Mar 13, 2021)

Most things mandated by the government are the opposite of common sense. When somebody has to step in & make it a law, we're already on the wrong track.


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

ABHale said:


> Yes, I believe it should be mandatory.
> 
> Just like it is mandatory to have the wife’s signed consent before a guy can get a vasectomy.


I've never heard you need your wife's consent. I don't think thats true, I have a friend who didn't tell his wife he was getting snipped until the night before the procedure. Maybe some doctors require it for some reason.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

ABHale said:


> Yes, I believe it should be mandatory.
> 
> Just like it is mandatory to have the wife’s signed consent before a guy can get a vasectomy.


You speak as if this is the rule rather than the exception. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

This was 7 or 8 years ago but it's my favorite TAM advice.

A woman suspected her husband of cheating. It was seriously suggested that she have her child tested to make sure it was really hers (and it wasn't a case of possible switching). 😂


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well the idea is that if it's mandatory men don't have to look like the bad guy by accusing their wife of being a cheater and thereby avoid the ugly chitstorm of a woman (hormonal at that) scorned.


Or just grab your stones and do it yourself. 

The more we allow government to do compulsory things to us, the less free we are as a people. 

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

I don't have a problem with everybody getting their DNA on file at birth because it would be a great tool for law enforcement to catch criminals. Right now if everyone had to put a DNA sample on file it would clear up so many cold cases.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Livvie said:


> The threads about this make me roll my eyes.
> 
> Any man is free to pay for a paternity test. No need to make it mandatory.
> 
> If we're gonna make it "mandatory" then we also need to make STD/I testing mandatory before people have sex with each other.


Yeah.

That would be a real marriage booster, these required tests!

I am sure it would make woman feel (so loved and trusted).

Expensive dogs are often given a saliva test to determine their breed, and whether they are pure or mixed.
Is this what we have come to?

All it will do is make women hate, and fear men, even more.

Paternity tests should be a rare thing, and only given when some hard evidence demands its need.

...........................................................................................................

STD tests (for syphilis) used to be required, before a Marriage License could be obtained.

Pregnant women get one before birthing, to protect the baby while traveling out of the birth canal.
All kinds of blood tests are given, nowadays for variety of reasons.

Plumbers are routinely given Hepatitis C tests and shots, because of their work exposure, and conditions.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

DownByTheRiver said:


> I don't have a problem with everybody getting their DNA on file at birth because it would be a great tool for law enforcement to catch criminals. Right now if everyone had to put a DNA sample on file it would clear up so many cold cases.


Those who exchange freedom for safety deserve neither...


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

farsidejunky said:


> Or just grab your stones and do it yourself.
> 
> The more we allow government to do compulsory things to us, the less free we are as a people.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


Good point.

You used the word "people'.

Ah, but so many people are 'sheeple".

That serf mentality lingers in our genome.

Big Brother is watching us, intently.
So, is Big Tech.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Those who exchange freedom for safety deserve neither...


Tell me specifically what freedom having your DNA on file takes from you, aside from the fact it wasn't your choice.

I care more for the freedom of innocents and victims than I care for the freedom of criminals.


----------



## ABHale (Jan 3, 2016)

farsidejunky said:


> You speak as if this is the rule rather than the exception.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk


I fought with my doctors for 4 years that it was my body my decision if I wanted to get snipped. Still came down to state law I guess. My guess is that it makes sure the wife knows so she can use more caution if cheating.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

It is not exactly non-invasive, true it may not necessarily require an amniocentesis or chorionic villi sampling, but it still requires mom provide a blood sample. Since infidelity and sex out of marriage are not against the law, not sure how one would mandate such a test. 

SCOTUS has already ruled their 1961 MAPP v Ohio that this would constitute an illegal search and seizure. This is a non-starter.


----------



## ABHale (Jan 3, 2016)

happyhusband0005 said:


> I've never heard you need your wife's consent. I don't think thats true, I have a friend who didn't tell his wife he was getting snipped until the night before the procedure. Maybe some doctors require it for some reason.


Very true in my case. I cussed the nurse up one side and down the other. Then ask her if she got an abortion would she be required to tell her husband, she looked straight at me and said “of course not”. I believe it is state law here. None of the urologist in my area would do it without the signed document saying it was state law.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well the idea is that if it's mandatory men don't have to look like the bad guy by accusing their wife of being a cheater and thereby avoid the ugly chitstorm of a woman (hormonal at that) scorned.


No. My taxpayer dollars aren't going to fund your paternity test because you might have _chosen_ a rotten egg of a woman to impregnate and you are scared of looking like the bad guy and are afraid of her reaction 🤣

Pay for your own test.


----------



## kad216 (8 mo ago)

I’d have no problem with it and we just found out I’m pregnant with our first. I think paternity fraud is one of the biggest betrayals that exist and men should have the right to know. I wouldn’t be offended if my husband wanted a paternity test because I have nothing to hide.


----------



## kad216 (8 mo ago)

Livvie said:


> No. My taxpayer dollars aren't going to fund your paternity test because you might have _chosen_ a rotten egg of a woman to impregnate and you are scared of looking like the bad guy and are afraid of her reaction 🤣
> 
> Pay for your own test.


Your taxpayer dollars already pay for a lot of things that are significantly more wasteful than paternity tests… Even a simple blood type test could confirm or deny paternity before using a real DNA sample.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

kad216 said:


> I’d have no problem with it and we just found out I’m pregnant with our first. I think paternity fraud is one of the biggest betrayals that exist and men should have the right to know. I wouldn’t be offended if my husband wanted a paternity test because I have nothing to hide.


And that is your option to do so, but to make it mandatory violates unlawful search and seizure (amended in constitution and upheld by SCOTUS). 

This would never fly, making paternity test mandatory.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

DownByTheRiver said:


> Tell me specifically what freedom having your DNA on file takes from you, aside from the fact it wasn't your choice.
> 
> I care more for the freedom of innocents and victims than I care for the freedom of criminals.


Really Riv?

insuranxe companies could use it to deny health coverage.
Banks could deny loans,
Lots and lots. And lots of reasons not to give anyone the rights to your DNA.

And imagine the millions of ladies wanting a clone of me? Geez. Possibilities are endless!


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Evinrude58 said:


> Really Riv?
> 
> insuranxe companies could use it to deny health coverage.
> Banks could deny loans,
> ...


It's that last one I'd be the most worried about!

Would be tragic if we had to scrap our perfect health insurance system, wouldn't it?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

ABHale said:


> Very true in my case. I cussed the nurse up one side and down the other. Then ask her if she got an abortion would she be required to tell her husband, she looked straight at me and said “of course not”. I believe it is state law here. None of the urologist in my area would do it without the signed document saying it was state law.


That's fked up.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

DownByTheRiver said:


> Tell me specifically what freedom having your DNA on file takes from you, aside from the fact it wasn't your choice.
> 
> I care more for the freedom of innocents and victims than I care for the freedom of criminals.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4th Amendment. US Constitution


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Yeah, well, DNA is already being used widely and available through other sources such as ancestry entries, so it's only a matter of time. May as well go about it in an organized way. They are already catching criminals by ancestry. 

You can't holler about paternity shenanigans and then refuse to have your DNA taken. You are part of the equation, you know.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yeah, well, DNA is already being used widely and available through other sources such as ancestry entries, so it's only a matter of time. May as well go about it in an organized way. They are already catching criminals by ancestry.
> 
> You can't holler about paternity shenanigans and then refuse to have your DNA taken. You are part of the equation, you know.


That's why it's not mandatory. If the government wants my DNA, they can get a valid warrant. Otherwise, go pound sand.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Livvie said:


> The threads about this make me roll my eyes.
> 
> *Any man is free to pay for a paternity test. No need to make it mandatory.*
> 
> If we're gonna make it "mandatory" then we also need to make STD/I testing mandatory before people have sex with each other.



Yeah, I'm left scratching my head too. If a man wants a paternity test, then he can just ask for one.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

DownByTheRiver said:


> I don't have a problem with everybody getting their DNA on file at birth because it would be a great tool for law enforcement to catch criminals. Right now if everyone had to put a DNA sample on file it would clear up so many cold cases.


Think long and hard about this one. I'm a scientist and this new "touch DNA" science is very, very scary. People have been wrongfully accused of awful crimes on really shady evidence.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Lila said:


> Think long and hard about this one. I'm a scientist and this new "touch DNA" science is very, very scary. People have been wrongfully accused of awful crimes on really shady evidence.


I keep my ear to the ground on it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I think both paternity and maternity test should be done on every baby. They still mix up babies in hospitals to this day! Every parent should make sure they are taking home the right baby.


----------



## Benbutton (Oct 3, 2019)

Ikaika said:


> Since infidelity and sex out of marriage are not against the law, not sure how one would mandate such a test.


Adultery is a felony in my state.


----------



## kad216 (8 mo ago)

Lila said:


> Yeah, I'm left scratching my head too. If a man wants a paternity test, then he can just ask for one.


Unless he lives in France where paternity tests are only granted by court order. Paternity fraud is common there.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

kad216 said:


> Unless he lives in France where paternity tests are only granted by court order. Paternity fraud is common there.


They should work on changing the laws so that anyone who wants one can get it.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

kad216 said:


> Unless he lives in France where paternity tests are only granted by court order. Paternity fraud is common there.


It doesn't matter, since there are no men living in France.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

I wouldn't agree to one and if forced I wouldn't read the results because I don't need to.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> It doesn't matter, since there are no men living in France.


You made me spit out my drink!!!


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

kad216 said:


> I’d have no problem with it and we just found out I’m pregnant with our first. I think paternity fraud is one of the biggest betrayals that exist and men should have the right to know. I wouldn’t be offended if my husband wanted a paternity test because I have nothing to hide.


I would be offended if I was asked because there clearly is no trust.


----------



## Gabriel (May 10, 2011)

D0nnivain said:


> No they should not become mandatory. If two people have reason to believe that the guy might not be the father the man always has the right to ask. But as a woman, if I was pregnant & the father asked for a paternity test, the level of paranoia & distrust shown there would cause me to end the relationship as soon as the request was made. Yikes.


I think that's the crux of the question. If it's mandatory, then it's not about trust. It's a clinical, mundane thing that is done automatically, taking judgement out of it.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Lila said:


> Yeah, I'm left scratching my head too. If a man wants a paternity test, then he can just ask for one.





Diana7 said:


> I would be offended if I was asked because there clearly is no trust.


I think this ^^^ is why people want it to be mandatory, at least in part. I suspect there are some guys out there that suspect something, but they are afraid that wanting the test will alienate a potentially faithful partner if they are wrong.

I think another thing, a good thing, the mandatory testing would possibly do is deter women from lying about who the potential father is in the first place. They would know the truth would come to light at some point. 

I would have no problem with my DNA being on file. I think having that information has a benefit that far outweighs the downside. For one, it would benefit a lot of real life issues today. Unsolved crimes that @DownByTheRiver mentioned is an obvious one. However, all the objections seem to be about what someone MIGHT do with the information. So it is fear of the boogeyman that is preventing solutions for real problems. 

It would be interesting to know what portion of the DNA tests that found that the named father wasn't the biological father were from married couples vs unmarried.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I think this ^^^ is why people want it to be mandatory, at least in part. I suspect there are some guys out there that suspect something, but they are afraid that wanting the test will alienate a potentially faithful partner if they are wrong.
> 
> I think another thing, a good thing, the mandatory testing would possibly do is deter women from lying about who the potential father is in the first place. They would know the truth would come to light at some point.
> 
> ...


I think the other big benefit would just be making the baby daddies pay up. In the US the state would make them pay child support whether they came forward or not. There are women who are holding out hope for some of these guys and don't want to make them mad but the are children are suffering for it.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Benbutton said:


> Adultery is a felony in my state.


How many people are convicted annually?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I suspect there are some guys out there that suspect something, but they are afraid that wanting the test will alienate a potentially faithful partner if they are wrong


This speaks to the core issue. If the man suspects the mother of his child of anything, then he should bring up his concerns regardless of alienation. The relationship is toast if there is a lack of trust. 

Science has made it possible so that men who are worried about ensuring their DNA gets passed along can do so. It's not cheap but at least they'll have the mental satisfaction of knowing the kid standing in front of them is theirs.


----------



## Benbutton (Oct 3, 2019)

Ikaika said:


> How many people are convicted annually?


It doesn't matter, it's on the books and just as chargeable as every other law until it is repealed.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Benbutton said:


> It doesn't matter, it's on the books and just as chargeable as every other law until it is repealed.


A lot of laws are still on the books but unlikely to get a conviction. And even if it is a law you would still need the courts to intervene in which to force someone to provide a blood test. It is not like there will ever be a mandatory test that violates constitutional law. 

More than likely this would be one where one contested not wanting to provide child support. The only loser in this situation is the child; a crappy situation.


----------



## Benbutton (Oct 3, 2019)

Ikaika said:


> A lot of laws are still on the books but unlikely to get a conviction. And even if it is a law you would still need the courts to intervene in which to force someone to provide a blood test. It is not like there will ever be a mandatory test that violates constitutional law.
> 
> More than likely this would be one where one contested not wanting to provide child support. The only loser in this situation is the child; a crappy situation.


I'm not arguing that. I was making a statement based on your assumption. Sure it might not get that far into the court system, however, being a felony one can be taken into custody without a warrant with pc.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Benbutton said:


> I'm not arguing that. I was making a statement based on your assumption. Sure it might not get that far into the court system, however, being a felony one can be taken into custody without a warrant with pc.


This thread is about mandatory paternity test.


----------



## Benbutton (Oct 3, 2019)

Ikaika said:


> This thread is about mandatory paternity test.


I know, I couldn't help but correct your misinformation.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

Think about all the schlocky TV shows that would be mooted 🍿


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

DownByTheRiver said:


> I think the other big benefit would just be making the baby daddies pay up. In the US the state would make them pay child support whether they came forward or not. There are women who are holding out hope for some of these guys and don't want to make them mad but the are children are suffering for it.


Mmmhmm and how are you gonna make these "baby daddies" show up to get swabbed for a test? 🤔


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Lila said:


> This speaks to the core issue. If the man suspects the mother of his child of anything, then he should bring up his concerns regardless of alienation. The relationship is toast if there is a lack of trust.
> 
> Science has made it possible so that men who are worried about ensuring their DNA gets passed along can do so. It's not cheap but at least they'll have the mental satisfaction of knowing the kid standing in front of them is theirs.


Right. Any man is free to get his own test if he wants.

Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for everyone to pony up their DNA because of some dudes' scaredy cat timidness in their relationship. Not.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

In 28 states, police can collect DNA samples from suspects who have simply been arrested for a felony (not misdemeanor) offense, even if they are never convicted of the offense.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Livvie said:


> Mmmhmm and how are you gonna make these "baby daddies" show up to get swabbed for a test? 🤔


That's why we're talking about doing it at birth. Because yeah you'll never catch all of them that are already out there.

Although if literally anybody in his family does ancestral DNA you can catch him that way.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

DownByTheRiver said:


> That's why we're talking about doing it at birth. Because yeah you'll never catch all of them that are already out there.
> 
> Although it literally anybody in his family doesn't incestral DNA you can catch him that way.


You are assuming these men are present at birth and are at the hospital. That's a huge and probably incorrect assumption .


----------



## Julie's Husband (Jan 3, 2022)

I see no reason for a paternity test unless the couple are going into divorce where the man would be asked for child support. It should be mandatory that a man does not pay child support it the test shows he is not the father.


----------



## BeyondRepair007 (Nov 4, 2021)

Let’s make the mandatory test optional. Or just not enforce it if we don’t want too. That seems to be the trend nowadays, all the cool kids are doing it.

How in the world can you make giving DNA compulsory when there’s no crime?

As much as I like the idea of defending fidelity, I can’t say this is a good idea.

I didn’t read the thread, maybe that was already discussed.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Livvie said:


> You are assuming these men are present at birth and are at the hospital. That's a huge and probably incorrect assumption .


No, not at all. They have to catch up with them the same way they catch up with them now who aren't paying child support which is basically just put out a type of warrant for them if they get stopped for a traffic ticket or anything. They are certainly not at the hospital probably. And the mother may not even know their real name. But ancestral DNA is going to pull some of that together, much to the chagrin of criminals at all levels.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

DownByTheRiver said:


> No, not at all. They have to catch up with them the same way they catch up with them now who aren't paying child support which is basically just put out a type of warrant for them if they get stopped for a traffic ticket or anything. They are certainly not at the hospital probably. And the mother may not even know their real name. But ancestral DNA is going to pull some of that together, much to the chagrin of criminals at all levels.


This is just so off into outer space I just can't. 

The mother might not even know their real name. ....... .... ...but there should be a WARRANT OUT FOR THEIR ARREST so cops can haul them in and get a swab for this suppsed mandatory DNA testing of baby daddies?

I just.....

Wow.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

They can do all kinds of neat things with DNA. It's a rapidly growing technology and they've already found people based on relatives who have done their ancestry. It's all coming together.


----------



## so_sweet (10 mo ago)

How early into a pregnancy can a pre-birth paternity test be taken? Like, can they be taken in the first few weeks, halfway though the pregnancy?

If it was mandatory to have a pre-birth test, it might change things in an unexpected way?

If the woman wanted to have an abortion or wanted to put the baby up for adoption, and a test like this is mandatory, laws could change where both parents must agree to an abortion and adoption.

I think some men would fight for their parental rights to the unborn child if a test like this took place during pregnancy.

For example, what if the woman's husband got her pregnant against her will and she wants to have an abortion? When she goes to the doctor, without telling her husband, to confirm pregnancy or for a check-up, the mandatory test is done. Then they contact the husband to be tested. Also, so patient-doctor confidentiality laws would change too?

Or a single woman who wants to have the baby and put the baby up for adoption, but the boyfriend objects adoption and he wants to keep the baby. With a mandatory test in place, laws could change and he could be given the right to stop the adoption.

The issue is not simply that the father is the father. It's that a test like this adds an official and legal layer that he is the father even before the baby is born, and that could change laws.

"My body, my choice" might turn into "Might be your body, but it's not your choice".

Just some food for thought.


----------



## gameopoly5 (5 mo ago)

Julie's Husband said:


> I see no reason for a paternity test unless the couple are going into divorce where the man would be asked for child support. It should be mandatory that a man does not pay child support it the test shows he is not the father.


If a man signs a birth certificate and later discovers he is not the biological father, it is unlikely that a court would let him off the hook for support of that child or agree he should be reimbursed for any child support already paid, even if the paternity test proved he is not the biological father.
What this means in layman terms is that only a mother is recognised under the law as a biological parent and a father even if he is a child`s father is under the law a parent in name only and probably why in custody battles a court will mostly favour the mothers in such cases.
There was a guy in America who served 5 years in prison for not paying child support for a child that wasn`t his because he signed his named on the birth certificate.
Another well known case, again in America of a man who discovered he was not the biological father to all his 5 children that he raised and brought up. He tried to sue his wife but unfortunately died of cancer before the case was concluded. In all cases there were no consequences for the mothers of those children.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

I think the man should be free to not sign the birth certificate if he wishes to have a paternity test done beforehand. That seems fair to me. 
He should pay for the test if he wants it done, but it should be an option. I know of men who would kill the woman if he found out she was unfaithful to him and sired somebody else's kid. It serves her as well to have that option of him being able to walk away from responsibility if it isn't his.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

My argument in support of it is about the kids. No one gives a sh-t about the kids.

But really, someone on previous discussions mentioned who is going to be in support of mandatory needles. We saw how that turned out with covid!


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

gameopoly5 said:


> If a man signs a birth certificate and later discovers he is not the biological father, it is unlikely that a court would let him off the hook for support of that child or agree he should be reimbursed for any child support already paid, even if the paternity test proved he is not the biological father.
> What this means in layman terms is that only a mother is recognised under the law as a biological parent and a father even if he is a child`s father is under the law a parent in name only and probably why in custody battles a court will mostly favour the mothers in such cases.
> There was a guy in America who served 5 years in prison for not paying child support for a child that wasn`t his because he signed his named on the birth certificate.
> Another well known case, again in America of a man who discovered he was not the biological father to all his 5 children that he raised and brought up. He tried to sue his wife but unfortunately died of cancer before the case was concluded. In all cases there were no consequences for the mothers of those children.


I don’t ever recall signing my sons birth certificates. Yes, I was listed as the biological father, but I don’t see how this by law puts anyone on the hook. If man is suspicious he is more than welcome to contest child support through the courts. I think in these cases a paternity test would be needed. 

So, rather than make every birth mandatory for paternity test, just let the courts deal with contested situations. 

I still think most contested cases are bad for the children. A sperm donor is not a father, a man who raises those children his or not is real man, the real father.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> I don’t ever recall signing my sons birth certificates. Yes, I was listed as the biological father, but I don’t see how this by law puts anyone on the hook. If man is suspicious he is more than welcome to contest child support through the courts. I think in these cases a paternity test would be needed.
> 
> So, rather than make every birth mandatory for paternity test, just let the courts deal with contested situations.
> 
> I still think most contested cases are bad for the children. A sperm donor is not a father, a man who raises those children his or not is real man, the real father.


In the family courts, the arguement that the child's needs overrides your ability to contest based on false paternity. In most cases, once your name has been listed as the father, you are the father in a court of law and no amount of contesting will change that.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> In the family courts, the arguement that the child's needs overrides your ability to contest based on false paternity. In most cases, once your name has been listed as the father, you are the father in a court of law and no amount of contesting will change that.


I am sure there are situations to then have a court ordered paternity test. You can contest a lot of stuff in courts, it will just cost you attorney fees. 

Again, this whole discussion just means awful things for children in question.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> I am sure there are situations to then have a court ordered paternity test. You can contest a lot of stuff in courts, it will just cost you attorney fees.
> 
> Again, this whole discussion just means awful things for children in question.


It is terrible for children. i agree. 
I can only ultimately speak about Canada law in regards to paternity. In Canada your biological status to the child is irrelevant in the court of law. Once you are listed as the father, you are the father. In liberal states, I think it is pretty much the same because liberals seem to have the same mindset worldwide on this issue. Whomever the woman chooses as the father, he is the father.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

UAArchangel said:


> It is terrible for children. i agree.
> I can only ultimately speak about Canada law in regards to paternity. In Canada your biological status to the child is irrelevant in the court of law. Once you are listed as the father, you are the father. In liberal states, I think it is pretty much the same because liberals seem to have the same mindset worldwide on this issue. Whomever the woman chooses as the father, he is the father.


Even a paternity test is not enough!!!


----------



## gameopoly5 (5 mo ago)

A few years ago there was a well documented case of an American woman.
Her father was Italian and she had her father`s Italian surname.
She always felt she had an Italian identity and she even with her children visited her father`s birth place in Italy to meet uncles, aunts and cousins.
What had always puzzled her is that her 3 siblings 2 sisters and a brother had Italian features, dark hair, short and brown eyes but she was tall with blond hair and blue eyes.
At age 67 she took one of those ancestry DNA tests just for fun. Then she received back catastrophic results, she had no Italian blood at all and then realised why she looked so different from her siblings.
Her whole life had been a lie she said.
At the time both her parents had passed and she believed her father had no knowledge that his wife had cheated on him, but could not question her parents.
Then she told her children and grandchildren we`re not what we think we are.
So not only can this be devastating for husbands and their children, it can also have effects on generations to come.
In my opinion this is just one strong case for making paternity tests mandatory.


----------



## gaius (Nov 5, 2020)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what rosey alternative you're imagining if her parents had been forced against their will to have a DNA test. Her life growing up with everyone knowing she was the product of infidelity might have destroyed the family all together. She might never have even gone to Italy or been treated like a daughter by that man. Odds are good she would have been worse off.

Also, it's not my responsibility to pay for and force other men to have their partners DNA tested. If they're too cowardly to ask or too foolish to realize their partner has been running around on them, that's their problem. I have enough problems to deal with without breaking up other families when they didn't have to be.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Tiddytok5 said:


> For both potential parents (after birthing) before discharge from the hospital.
> 
> It wouldn't hurt to have one more done outside of the hospital.
> 
> ...


Ok this is about the only reason ii can see that's reasonable. Especially on the part of both parents getting the test. You would just have to make sure that the test is independent of the hospital staff given the potential for them to do the switching.

Otherwise I can see not good reason without violating privacy to make these mandatory. Not to mention you will have those women who have no idea who the father is, because that was one wild party! Or in the case of rape, unless we mandate every person to have their DNA on file, there probably is no way to know, especially in a gang rape.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

so_sweet said:


> How early into a pregnancy can a pre-birth paternity test be taken? Like, can they be taken in the first few weeks, halfway though the pregnancy?
> 
> If it was mandatory to have a pre-birth test, it might change things in an unexpected way?
> 
> ...


This brings up another point. What would prevent the woman from leaving the country to get an abortion? Would she be placed under house arrest until giving birth to the baby? Kind of dystopian, like the Handmaiden's Tale.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

gameopoly5 said:


> If a man signs a birth certificate and later discovers he is not the biological father, it is unlikely that a court would let him off the hook for support of that child or agree he should be reimbursed for any child support already paid, even if the paternity test proved he is not the biological father.
> What this means in layman terms is that only a mother is recognised under the law as a biological parent and a father even if he is a child`s father is under the law a parent in name only and probably why in custody battles a court will mostly favour the mothers in such cases.
> There was a guy in America who served 5 years in prison for not paying child support for a child that wasn`t his because he signed his named on the birth certificate.
> Another well known case, again in America of a man who discovered he was not the biological father to all his 5 children that he raised and brought up. He tried to sue his wife but unfortunately died of cancer before the case was concluded. In all cases there were no consequences for the mothers of those children.


And, for thousands of years females have been used by men as breeding stock, and for thousands of years there have been countless rapes, plus incestuous rapes, and women were forced to give birth to these babies.

The cookie crumbles both ways. Bad deeds are done by both men and women in the reproductive arena.

If in doubt, get your own DNA test.


----------



## kad216 (8 mo ago)

Livvie said:


> You are assuming these men are present at birth and are at the hospital. That's a huge and probably incorrect assumption .


Yes and that’s the natural consequence of reproducing with a loser.


----------



## kad216 (8 mo ago)

Livvie said:


> And, for thousands of years females have been used by men as breeding stock, and for thousands of years there have been countless rapes, plus incestuous rapes, and women were forced to give birth to these babies.
> 
> The cookie crumbles both ways. Bad deeds are done by both men and women in the reproductive arena.
> 
> If in doubt, get your own DNA test.


Oh so because historically women (and men - last time I checked women weren’t fighting wars and men were also raped and abused during war) were mistreated, that means paternity fraud should be condoned? Interesting take, and I strongly disagree.


----------



## ShatteredKat (Mar 23, 2016)

What is the purpose of "DNA test" for paternity? For a case addressing what can happen - see "OldBeachOWL" on SI site - 

A man has lost his life (figuratively) even though he played Dad to the - 

How can a man stay with a wife after what he has been served?

I remember reading about babies getting their feet bottoms "printed" when they are born so as to avoid "baby swapping" while in the hospital. So is DNA testing any different with respect to making sure the baby is really with the mother and father? Wait! That isn't quite the same as dear old dad may be a cuckold. And doesn't know - see the OWL


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Livvie said:


> And, for thousands of years females have been used by men as breeding stock, and for thousands of years there have been countless rapes, plus incestuous rapes, and women were forced to give birth to these babies.
> 
> The cookie crumbles both ways. Bad deeds are done by both men and women in the reproductive arena.
> 
> If in doubt, get your own DNA test.


While I agree that making it mandatory isn't right.

The whole argument that you can just get your own DNA test is very dismissive. Most men didn't ever think their wife would cheat on them until they did otherwise he wouldn't have married her skanky ass.

Paternity fraud is an issue, however the best way to tackle it isn't concrete while preserving our most basic civil liberties. There definitely should be punishment but then you get a circular argument of someone has to take care of the kid.


----------



## Royguy76 (1 mo ago)

Just make it mandatory at birth to check. Only because the parents should have to contribute to support regardless.


----------



## so_sweet (10 mo ago)

Lila said:


> This brings up another point. What would prevent the woman from leaving the country to get an abortion? Would she be placed under house arrest until giving birth to the baby? Kind of dystopian, like the Handmaiden's Tale.


And also perhaps illegal abortions in unregulated and unsafe conditions could become common and also maybe women would try to end the pregnancy themselves in unsafe ways.

Also, mandatory pre-birth paternity testing could open other things for change as well -- The morning-after pill, a form of emergency birth control, could possibly become obsolete, and then what about other forms of birth control?

I think mandatory pre-birth paternity testing could be a can of worms, in other words, implementing such a test to solve one problem could lead to more problems.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

As far as I know, barring some incompatible blood type situation, a DNA test is the only reliable way to positively establish a man's legal relationship to a child.

As far as I'm concerned, a DNA test should be mandatory to establish that relationship. If the test establishes the man is not the father, he may still freely choose to seek a legal adoption. But at least he is doing so with full knowledge, and not being defrauded.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

DownButNotOut said:


> As far as I know, barring some incompatible blood type situation, a DNA test is the only reliable way to positively establish a man's legal relationship to a child.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, a DNA test should be mandatory to establish that relationship. If the test establishes the man is not the father, he may still freely choose to seek a legal adoption. But at least he is doing so with full knowledge, and not being defrauded.


What happens if he refuses the DNA test if its made mandatory?


----------



## snowbum (Dec 14, 2021)

Kput said:


> If it was mandatory to have a paternity test then the matter of trust would be a moot point.
> 
> Far better than being conned into raising a child that is not your own.


How about women being told if their husband has kid outside the marriage. Are you in favor of that also?


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

DownButNotOut said:


> As far as I know, barring some incompatible blood type situation, a DNA test is the only reliable way to positively establish a man's legal relationship to a child.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, a DNA test should be mandatory to establish that relationship. If the test establishes the man is not the father, he may still freely choose to seek a legal adoption. But at least he is doing so with full knowledge, and not being defrauded.


And he is free to pay for and take that test on his own.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

snowbum said:


> How about women being told if their husband has kid outside the marriage. Are you in favor of that also?


Absolutely! I'm all for shining the light of day everywhere we can. It keeps the rats and the roaches away.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> While I agree that making it mandatory isn't right.
> 
> The whole argument that you can just get your own DNA test is very dismissive. Most men didn't ever think their wife would cheat on them until they did otherwise he wouldn't have married her skanky ass.
> 
> Paternity fraud is an issue, however the best way to tackle it isn't concrete while preserving our most basic civil liberties. There definitely should be punishment but then you get a circular argument of someone has to take care of the kid.


It's not dismissive. Take your own test. 

If I want to know if I'm pregnant, I take my own pregnancy test. If i want to know if i have an STD, I take STD tests. If I want to know if I have strep throat, I take a strep test. So in and so forth. If you want to know if a child is yours, take a test.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> What happens if he refuses the DNA test if its made mandatory?


I suppose that depends.

If he doesn't want any legal rights with respect with the child then no test is necessary.

If she doesn't want any legal support from him then no test is necessary.

If either of those is not true ... either he wants to support a child he believes he fathered, or she wants financial support from the father of the child, then a paternity test should be mandatory to establish that fact.

As far as refusing? What normally happens when someone refuses to abide by a court order in a civil case? This situation should be no different.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

Livvie said:


> And he is free to pay for and take that test on his own.


Or she pays ... if she wants any court ordered support.

The point isn't how it is paid for. The point is that it is the only way to be certain of paternity. No paternity, no rights ... in either direction.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

Livvie said:


> It's not dismissive. Take your own test.
> 
> If I want to know if I'm pregnant, I take my own pregnancy test.


Or wait a few weeks. I'm sure you'll figure that one out without a test.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

DownButNotOut said:


> I suppose that depends.
> 
> If he doesn't want any legal rights with respect with the child then no test is necessary.
> 
> ...


You mean if a man trusts that his wife is having his child and doesn't want to give his DNA, we are gonna put him in jail? Ignoring the fact that that would be unconstitutional, why would anyone want to give the government that kind of power? Why would anyone support depriving a child their parent because they don't want to be cataloged by the Federal Govt. That is a slippery slope. The government already tried that with Covid and it was cluster of civil liberties beyond belief.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

DownButNotOut said:


> Or she pays ... if she wants any court ordered support.
> 
> The point isn't how it is paid for. The point is that it is the only way to be certain of paternity. No paternity, no rights ... in either direction.


What the actual F?

We aren't talking about court cases and court ordered support in this thread. There are statutes governing that, already.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)




----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> You mean if a man trusts that his wife is having his child and doesn't want to give his DNA, we are gonna put him in jail? Ignoring the fact that that would be unconstitutional, why would anyone want to give the government that kind of power? Why would anyone support depriving a child their parent because they don't want to be cataloged by the Federal Govt. That is a slippery slope. The government already tried that with Covid and it was cluster of civil liberties beyond belief.


Trust has nothing to do with it.

I'm talking about the legal rights and responsibilities. Maternity is positively identified through the act of childbirth. The only way to positively identify paternity is through a test. I'm saying if there is no positive identification of paternity then the man should have no legal rights in regards to that child. Nor legal responsibilities.

In your scenario of a married couple. If they are fine with the husband having no legal say in the raising of the child, then no test is necessary. But if they want him to have the same rights and responsibilities as the mother, yes do the paternity test. Or proceed with legal adoption.

But 40% of children born today are born to single women. Again, to attach legal rights and responsibilities to a father, paternity should be positively established... aka a paternity test.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

Livvie said:


> What the actual F?
> 
> We aren't talking about court cases and court ordered support in this thread. There are statutes governing that, already.


The entire point of a paternity test is to positively establish the child's father. Any court ordered action should proceed from there, although today that is not the case. Hence the call to make paternity testing mandatory.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> It is terrible for children. i agree.
> I can only ultimately speak about Canada law in regards to paternity. In Canada your biological status to the child is irrelevant in the court of law. Once you are listed as the father, you are the father. In liberal states, I think it is pretty much the same because liberals seem to have the same mindset worldwide on this issue. Whomever the woman chooses as the father, he is the father.


In the US, get the right lawyer (which will cost you) and you can do just about anything.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

DownButNotOut said:


> I suppose that depends.
> 
> If he doesn't want any legal rights with respect with the child then no test is necessary.
> 
> ...


It would mean that mandatory is unnecessary and we just allow folks to deal with this on a case by case situation. And of course allow the courts to intervene when necessary.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

DownButNotOut said:


> The entire point of a paternity test is to positively establish the child's father. Any court ordered action should proceed from there, although today that is not the case. *Hence the call to make paternity testing mandatory*.


I am sure this would be challenged in court and given precedence, this would never happen. Plus, I am seriously doubt you would ever get but a handful of elected officials to pass legislation in any state body let alone congress. 

Mandatory testing is a non-starter and would simply violate search and seizure laws.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

Ikaika said:


> I am sure this would be challenged in court and given precedence, this would never happen. Plus, I am seriously doubt you would ever get but a handful of elected officials to pass legislation in any state body let alone congress.
> 
> Mandatory testing is a non-starter and would simply violate search and seizure laws.


I agree it won't happen.

But the thread topic is should it happen. I believe it should.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

DownButNotOut said:


> I agree it won't happen.
> 
> But the thread topic is should it happen. I believe it should.


And, I don’t agree that it should happen, but then again I like liberty and privacy above all else. I am not so sure why it should happen.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

DownButNotOut said:


> Trust has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I'm talking about the legal rights and responsibilities. Maternity is positively identified through the act of childbirth. The only way to positively identify paternity is through a test. I'm saying if there is no positive identification of paternity then the man should have no legal rights in regards to that child. Nor legal responsibilities.
> 
> ...


So, in your belief men should have to prove fatherhood with a test simply because they can't biologically squeeze a baby out of their groin? I see how this protects on the other side of the coin in the 1% of cases of paternity fraud, but it is a blatant disregard of our right to our personhood and cedes all the power to women that the majority does not want ceded.

I'm not giving the government my DNA unless they have a valid search warrant and no way does that curtail my right to my kids. And that is how it will be in America as long as we have the US Constitution and the 4th amendment.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> So, in your belief men should have to prove fatherhood with a test simply because they can't biologically squeeze a baby out of their groin? I see how this protects on the other side of the coin in the 1% of cases of paternity fraud, but it is a blatant disregard of our right to our personhood and cedes all the power to women that the majority does not want ceded.
> 
> I'm not giving the government my DNA unless they have a valid search warrant and no way does that curtail my right to my kids. And that is how it will be in America as long as we have the US Constitution and the 4th amendment.


Agree. Although I believe the government may already have my DNA.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ikaika said:


> Agree. Although I believe the government may already have my DNA.


Maybe, who knows. Who knows what happens to specimens when you get a physical at the doc.


----------



## Benbutton (Oct 3, 2019)

Eh, all that's required is a dirty diaper left in the trash. No warrant required and the testing can be paid for by Dad and kept quiet. Keep the government out of it and the untrusting souls happy.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Maybe, who knows. Who knows what happens to specimens when you get a physical at the doc.


I was in military and received at least four DoD grants in my career.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Benbutton said:


> Eh, all that's required is a dirty diaper left in the trash. No warrant required and the testing can be paid for by Dad and kept quiet. Keep the government out of it and the untrusting souls happy.


Pretty sure a lab isn't going to run a paternity test on **** from a diaper.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> So, in your belief men should have to prove fatherhood with a test simply because they can't biologically squeeze a baby out of their groin? I see how this protects on the other side of the coin in the 1% of cases of paternity fraud, but it is a blatant disregard of our right to our personhood and cedes all the power to women that the majority does not want ceded.
> 
> I'm not giving the government my DNA unless they have a valid search warrant and no way does that curtail my right to my kids. And that is how it will be in America as long as we have the US Constitution and the 4th amendment.


Women already have all that power.

40% of births are to single mothers. Those men have to prove fatherhood with a test unless the woman names him. If she does, 60 days later (in my state) he can no longer challenge it if she were less than truthful. She is also under no obligation to inform him of the birth, preventing him from exercising his parental rights entirely.

Married men are assumed to be the father by archaic laws. 60 days later (in my state), you lose your right to challenge that presumption.

You say 1%. A 2010 study put that number between 1% and 3.7%. In 2020 there were 3.6 million new births in the US. That means anywhere from 36,000 to 133,000 instances of paternity fraud per year, affecting between 72,000 and 266,000 men. Half victims of fraud, half victims of parental alienation.


----------



## harperlee (May 1, 2018)

DownButNotOut said:


> Women already have all that power.


Power? This thread is leaning on an icy cliff.
Here is a suggestion, simple. Do.not.put.your.condemless.d*ck.into.a.woman.you.do.not.trust.
Men don't get to f*ck and then turn it around and play stupid.
Those days are over.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

harperlee said:


> Power? This thread is leaning on an icy cliff.
> Here is a suggestion, simple. Do.not.put.your.condemless.d*ck.into.a.woman.you.do.not.trust.
> Men don't get to f*ck and then turn it around and play stupid.
> Those days are over.


Men don't even have to have sex with that women in order to be considered the father of the child, if the woman puts down his name and he doesn't get a chance to challenge it within the window. He could be on the moon, by himself all his life, but be considered the father if his name is on the birth certificate and he didn't get a chance to challenge it.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Start with blood type matching, then move forward from there. I never thought I would have to get my kids tested because I made the mistake of "trusting" my ex. Sucks to have to do it.


----------



## snowbum (Dec 14, 2021)

It seems like you’re saying men are so reckless they don’t know how many kids they have. Or you’re saying you think most women are lying hos . Sorry. I wouldnt be with a guy who questioned whether he was the father. Maybe use protection if you’re going to screw nameless women you don’t know. Gross


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> Men don't even have to have sex with that women in order to be considered the father of the child, if the woman puts down his name and he doesn't get a chance to challenge it within the window. He could be on the moon, by himself all his life, but be considered the father if his name is on the birth certificate and he didn't get a chance to challenge it.


*The mother could face charges of fraud if they purposefully mislead a man into thinking he is the father of a child*. In many states, if a man is tricked into believing he's the father, then the mother can be charged with paternity fraud if found guilty.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

snowbum said:


> It seems like you’re saying men are so reckless they don’t know how many kids they have. Or you’re saying you think most women are lying hos . Sorry. I wouldnt be with a guy who questioned whether he was the father. Maybe use protection if you’re going to screw nameless women you don’t know. Gross


don't forget gold digging... lying, gold digging hos


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ikaika said:


> *The mother could face charges of fraud if they purposefully mislead a man into thinking he is the father of a child*. In many states, if a man is tricked into believing he's the father, then the mother can be charged with paternity fraud if found guilty.


I bet that's hard to prove and even harder to convince a judge.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I bet that's hard to prove and even harder to convince a judge.


It hardly ever happens. The government doesn't want to have to give money to a single mother, they will always look for a poor schmuck.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I bet that's hard to prove and even harder to convince a judge.


No, simply requires a DNA test. No mandatory test needed unless he, the potential father, wants to contest it. It will cost him in court fees and attorney fees.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> *The mother could face charges of fraud if they purposefully mislead a man into thinking he is the father of a child*. In many states, if a man is tricked into believing he's the father, then the mother can be charged with paternity fraud if found guilty.


Show me a single case of a woman facing paternity fraud. Anywhere in the States for the last fifty years. Unenforced laws are not laws at all and are meaningless.
All the government cares about is the money being sent from the man on the birth certificate. Unless you have millions of dollars to fight it and can hire as many lawyers as necessary to fight it, you are not going to be able to fight it.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Numb26 said:


> It hardly ever happens. The government doesn't want to have to give money to a single mother, they will always look for a poor schmuck.


It happens if he does not want to be on the hook for child support


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> Show me a single case of a woman facing paternity fraud. Anywhere in the States for the last fifty years. Unenforced laws are not laws at all and are meaningless.


I’m sure there are plenty, but given that these are often settled in family court, those records are rarely part of public record


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ikaika said:


> No, simply requires a DNA test. No mandatory test needed unless he, the potential father, wants to contest it. It will cost him in court fees and attorney fees.


 Yea, but you have to prove she knew. She can just claim ignorance...she thought he was the dad.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> I’m sure there are plenty, but given that these are often settled in family court, those records are rarely part of public record


You should be able to find that single case of a man, who isn't a millionaire and can afford a battalion of lawyers, who got a woman charged with paternity fraud because she put his name down on a birth certificate knowing that he wasn't the father. I can save a lot of time by stating that it is nearly impossible for a man to over turn the results of paternity, even when he has all the evidence. You might find one or two, but that doesn't matter in liberal leaning family courts, where all they claim to care about is the child being cared for. They DGAF about the status of the man and will generally not entertain his claim that he's not the father.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Yea, but you have to prove she knew. She can just claim ignorance...she thought he was the dad.


Well, DNA test will at least get him out of child support. It is up to the DA to decide if it warrants fraud.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Ikaika said:


> It happens if he does not want to be on the hook for child support


You must be living in your own little world....

"Is Paternity Fraud a Crime?
An example of paternity fraud would be a mother claiming a man is the biological father of her child when he is not so that she will receive child support.* In the United States, paternity fraud does not break the law, so it is not a crime or punishable offense*. To date, there are no instances of any criminal consequences for paternity fraud crimes. Still, fraudulently collecting child support is an immoral action even though there is not typically any paternity fraud punishment."








Paternity Fraud Laws, Statistics & Cases | What is Paternity Fraud? | Study.com


Learn about paternity fraud. Identify what paternity fraud is and learn about paternity fraud statistics and laws along with examples of cases in...




study.com


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> You should be able to find that single case of a man, who isn't a millionaire and can afford a battalion of lawyers, who got a woman charged with paternity fraud because she put his name down on a birth certificate knowing that he wasn't the father.


As I said, family court cases are typically not a part of public record.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ikaika said:


> Well, DNA test will at least get him out of child support. It is up to the DA to decide if it warrants fraud.


I'm not sure it does especially if he helped raise the child as his dad for any length of period.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Well, DNA test will at least get him out of child support. It is up to the DA to decide if it warrants fraud.


It doesn't. That's the problem. If the mother listed him as the father, the courts will generally rule that he's the father, regardless of the facts at hand.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> As I said, family court cases are typically not a part of public record.


In other words, it doesn't happen.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I'm not sure it does especially if he helped raise the child as his dad for any length of period.


they got to pin the baby on some poor schmuck so the baby mama's gravy train doesn't dry up...


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Numb26 said:


> You must be living in your own little world....
> 
> "Is Paternity Fraud a Crime?
> An example of paternity fraud would be a mother claiming a man is the biological father of her child when he is not so that she will receive child support.* In the United States, paternity fraud does not break the law, so it is not a crime or punishable offense*. To date, there are no instances of any criminal consequences for paternity fraud crimes. Still, fraudulently collecting child support is an immoral action even though there is not typically any paternity fraud punishment."
> ...


I find it hard to imagine that a man can’t get out from under paying child support with a simple DNA test. As to fraud, that is up to the DA to pursue. It sad that they would not unless it is cheaper to just pay public assistance than pursue a case


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> In other words, it doesn't happen.


I have no idea, I’m not part of any DA office


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ikaika said:


> I find it hard to imagine that a man can’t get out from under paying child support with a simple DNA test. As to fraud, that is up to the DA to pursue. It sad that they would not unless it is cheaper to just pay public assistance than pursue a case


Not in a progressive state. I think Florida passed or trying to pass a law on paternity fraud, but not sure if it has any teeth.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> It doesn't. That's the problem. If the mother listed him as the father, the courts will generally rule that he's the father, regardless of the facts at hand.


Ok, if that is the case then the whole argument for mandatory DNA testing falls apart.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> I find it hard to imagine that a man can’t get out from under paying child support with a simple DNA test. As to fraud, that is up to the DA to pursue. It sad that they would not unless it is cheaper to just pay public assistance than pursue a case


We are telling you, repeatedly, that is the case. The courts will generally weigh on the mother's side, unless the man can afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars and hire a battlion of lawyers and keep the case in the court system for years on end. All it takes is for the mother to put a man's name on the birth certificate and for him to not challenge it in the allowable time frame, even if he doesn't know about it, for it to stick for good.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Ikaika said:


> I find it hard to imagine that a man can’t get out from under paying child support with a simple DNA test. As to fraud, that is up to the DA to pursue. It sad that they would not unless it is cheaper to just pay public assistance than pursue a case


There are plenty of cases where the man has been proven NOT to be the father through DNA yet since 1) His name is on the birth certificate and 2) He has been raising the child. The courts will continue to make him pay support. Why? Because the state doesn't want to support the child when they can get someone else to do it.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> We are telling you, repeatedly, that is the case. The courts will generally weigh on the mother's side, unless the man can afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars and hire a battlion of lawyers and keep the case in the court system for years on end. All it takes is for the mother to put a man's name on the birth certificate and for him to not challenge, even if he doesn't know about it, for it to stick for good.


As I said, then the whole mandatory testing falls apart if the courts ignore DNA evidence in favor of her word.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Numb26 said:


> There are plenty of cases where the man has been proven NOT to be the father through DNA yet since 1) His name is on the birth certificate and 2) He has been raising the child. The courts will continue to make him pay support. Why? Because the state doesn't want to support the child when they can get someone else to do it.


Ok then once again mandatory DNA tests are useless.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Ikaika said:


> As I said, then the whole mandatory testing falls apart if the courts ignore DNA evidence in favor of her word.


I agree. The whole system would need changed in order to make mandatory testing feasible


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> As I said, then the whole mandatory testing falls apart if the courts ignore DNA evidence in favor of her word.


Which is what needs to change.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> Which is what needs to change.


What needs to change?


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Ikaika said:


> What needs to change?


Family courts


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Numb26 said:


> There are plenty of cases where the man has been proven NOT to be the father through DNA yet since 1) His name is on the birth certificate and 2) He has been raising the child. The courts will continue to make him pay support. Why? Because the state doesn't want to support the child when they can get someone else to do it.


I think even if you cared for the baby mama while pregnant, you are on the hook.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Numb26 said:


> I agree. The whole system would need changed in order to make mandatory testing feasible


This is not about feasibility, this is about ignoring DNA evidence over circumstantial evidence.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Numb26 said:


> Family courts


What about family courts needs to change. You are telling me courts are ignoring real evidence over circumstantial evidence. That is not about family court that is something much deeper in the entire legal system


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> What needs to change?


If a man can prove to be of no relation to the child, he should be able to walk away from any responsibility towards the child.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Ikaika said:


> This is not about feasibility, this is about ignoring DNA evidence over circumstantial evidence.


That's one thing that would need to be changed


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> If a man can prove to be of no relation to the child, he should be able to walk away from any responsibility towards the child.


So again you are assuming courts prefer circumstantial evidence over real evidence. I find that hard to believe


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Numb26 said:


> That's one thing that would need to be changed


Be specific, what needs to be changed?


----------



## harperlee (May 1, 2018)

UAArchangel said:


> Men don't even have to have sex with that women in order to be considered the father of the child, if the woman puts down his name and he doesn't get a chance to challenge it within the window. He could be on the moon, by himself all his life, but be considered the father if his name is on the birth certificate and he didn't get a chance to challenge it.


Okley Dokley, this is just silly, take a breath of fresh air.
There are always two people who make a baby, a human being, a person; who grows up into an adult that needs deodorant, a job and makes more babies.
Two people. Male and female (amiright) Both have equal responsibility. 
If you don't know if this baby is yours; you have to check your picker and whether or not you let lust get the better of you and are whining/worrying later.

Fortunately, I have never been with a man who did not know if he was a baby daddy/or not. Yikes.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ikaika said:


> What about family courts needs to change. You are telling me courts are ignoring real evidence over circumstantial evidence. That is not about family court that is something much deeper in the entire legal system


Listen these courts have one job. Finding a warm body to pin the child on. They don't care what you knew, when you knew it or if you got played. They want a paycheck from someone and if she don't know who the baby daddy is, guess who they will go after. The poor guy that thought he was the dad and played dad for the longest.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Ikaika said:


> So again you are assuming courts prefer circumstantial evidence over real evidence. I find that hard to believe


Believe it, happens all the time.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> So again you are assuming courts prefer circumstantial evidence over real evidence. I find that hard to believe


We have shown you this several times. The courts don't care about who is the father, in reality. Once your name is on the birth certificate and you fail to challenge in the allowable time frame, you are on the hook for however long the law says you are on the hook for. 
It is not a criminal act for the mother to commit paternity fraud and the courts don't care about DNA. To them, all they care about is the money from the man.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Numb26 said:


> Believe it, happens all the time.


Show me case study (from a law book) that shows a court case decided by circumstantial evidence when real evidence has been presented


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> We have shown you this several times. The courts don't care about who is the father, in reality. Once your name is on the birth certificate and you fail to challenge in the allowable time frame, you are on the hook for however long the law says you are on the hook for.
> It is not a criminal act for the mother to commit paternity fraud and the courts don't care about DNA. To them, all they care about is the money from the man.


You have not shown actual cases. You have only presented third party articles. Show me a case study from a law book


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ikaika said:


> You have not shown actual cases. You have only presented third party articles. Show me a case study from a law book











Paternity Fraud: the Tough Realities Men must Face - HomeDNA Paternity


With the availability of easy paternity testing results, the "she said/he said" arguments about who fathered a child are now completely irrelevant in court, right? Not necessarily.




dnatesting.com


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

harperlee said:


> Okley Dokley, this is just silly, take a breath of fresh air.
> There are always two people who make a baby, a human being, a person; who grows up into an adult that needs deodorant, a job and makes more babies.
> Two people. Male and female (amiright) Both have equal responsibility.
> If you don't know if this baby is yours; you have to check your picker and whether or not you let lust get the better of you and are whining/worrying later.
> ...


You're right, it takes two people. However, there is no legal obligation on part of the mother to be truthful as to who the father is.
Unless the law allows a man to walk away, if he can show that he is of no relation to the child, his pecker is irrelevant to the conversation.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

So if you average it out, 15%. Little more then 1 out of every 10 men raising a child that isn't his. Makes you wonder.

*Low estimates of global paternity fraud stand around 1% while high estimates suggests up to 30% paternity fraud globally. Estimates for misattributed paternity are much lower at around 0.02% to 3% from several sources. *





__





Paternity Fraud Statistics – Tips For Efficiency: Worldly Repository of Knowledge







tipsforefficiency.com


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> You have not shown actual cases. You have only presented third party articles. Show me a case study from a law book


We know it happens, because upwards of 10% of children were fathered by other men. That is millions of children.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Paternity Fraud: the Tough Realities Men must Face - HomeDNA Paternity
> 
> 
> With the availability of easy paternity testing results, the "she said/he said" arguments about who fathered a child are now completely irrelevant in court, right? Not necessarily.
> ...


Not a case study. Again, fraud is about what DA wants to pursue. Child support is another matter.

also articles like this destroy any argument for mandatory testing.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> We know it happens, because upwards of 10% of children were fathered by other men. That is millions of children.


Show me a case study where DNA evidence was rejected in place of circumstantial evidence and I will tell I am wrong.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Not a case study. Again, fraud is about what DA wants to pursue. Child support is another matter.
> 
> also articles like this destroy any argument for mandatory testing.


It upholds the need for mandatory testing and for judges to consider it as part of the evidence body in making a decision.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Show me a case study where DNA evidence was rejected in place of circumstantial evidence and I will tell I am wrong.


It isn't hard to find.
Emirati man declared father despite negative result in DNA test | Community – Gulf News


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> It upholds the need for mandatory testing and for judges to consider it as part of the evidence body in making a decision.


How does it uphold DNA mandatory testing if you constantly tell me courts reject this in the face of her word?


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> It isn't hard to find.
> Emirati man declared father despite negative result in DNA test | Community – Gulf News


Unfortunately still not a case study, just a third party article


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ikaika said:


> How does it uphold DNA mandatory testing if you constantly tell me courts reject this in the face of her word?


That's a good point, I think the law would have to change first.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> How does it uphold DNA mandatory testing if you constantly tell me courts reject this in the face of her word?


It upholds it, because the courts won't consider it. They should be legally required to consider it.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> That's a good point, I think the law would have to change first.


Can you quote what law needs to be changed?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Ikaika said:


> Can you quote what law needs to be changed?


There are different ones for each state and each country.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Unfortunately still not a case study, just a third party article


I showed you an actual case. When 10% of babies born are a result of infidelity on part of the woman, more than a few of those are going to be paternity frauds.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> It upholds it, because the courts won't consider it. They should be legally required to consider it.


So you are telling courts reject solid evidence over circumstantial evidence? Can you quote the law for me?


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Can you quote what law needs to be changed?


The part that says that courts don't need to care about DNA.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> There are different ones for each state and each country.


Give me actual law in your state.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> The part that says that courts don't need to care about DNA.


Quote me the law, that is give me the actual statute.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> So you are telling courts reject solid evidence over circumstantial evidence? Can you quote the law for me?


We have already shown you that the courts do that. You either skipped the posts in particular or discounted the post. If you are going to discount posts that support our position over yours, there are no amount of posts that we can show you to change your mind, because it is in your best interest to not have your mind changed.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Quote me the law, that is give me the actual statute.


If the courts discount DNA, it's because they can under the law. Can you show me the law that says that courts must take DNA into consideration to prove us wrong?


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> We have already shown you that the courts do that. You either skipped the posts in particular or discounted the post. If you are going to discount posts that support our position over yours, there are no amount of posts that we can show you to change your mind, because it is in your best interest to not have your mind changed.


In my state, the statute is clear under CSEA, that genetic testing is the final arbiter in parental rights cases.


----------



## harperlee (May 1, 2018)

UAArchangel said:


> You're right, it takes two people. However, there is no legal obligation on part of the mother to be truthful as to who the father is.
> Unless the law allows a man to walk away, if he can show that he is of no relation to the child, his pecker is irrelevant to the conversation.


Yeah, so nope. The court will petition paternity testing for child support if the paternity is in dispute. A person does not have to be wealthy to do so. As a matter of fact, if a woman files for social services, the first thing asked is who is the baby daddy. The court will find out who is the biological father, for free.
Now, I know that the panty twist is about all the married men who are terrified they are raising some other man's child by their adulterous wives. Hmmm.
There's quite a bit there. 
I agree with the poster who bothered to think of the children. No person deserves the decency of truth more than the child. 
Adults will do all kinds of f*ckery, the innocent children have a right to know the truth of their ancestry without having to take tests.
Use.a.condom.


----------



## Benbutton (Oct 3, 2019)

Livvie said:


> Pretty sure a lab isn't going to run a paternity test on **** from a diaper.


Maybe not, but all joking aside they can.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

harperlee said:


> Use.a.condom.


could not have stated it better myself


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> In my state, the statute is clear under CSEA, that genetic testing is the final arbiter in parental rights cases.


Your state may be uniques in that respect. In most other states, it's irrelevant.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> Your state may be uniques in that respect. In most other states, it's irrelevant.


Well feel free to move to a more family friendly state


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

harperlee said:


> Yeah, so nope. The court will petition paternity testing for child support if the paternity is in dispute. A person does not have to be wealthy to do so. As a matter of fact, if a woman files for social services, the first thing asked is who is the baby daddy. The court will find out who is the biological father, for free.
> Now, I know that the panty twist is about all the married men who are terrified they are raising some other man's child by their adulterous wives. Hmmm.
> There's quite a bit there.
> I agree with the poster who bothered to think of the children. No person deserves the decency of truth more than the child.
> ...


Since many men are the victims of paternity fraud, that makes your statement a lie.
I have no sympathy for men who sleep around, but I am 100% on the side of the man who is a victim of a lying **** of a mother.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

UAArchangel said:


> We are telling you, repeatedly, that is the case. The courts will generally weigh on the mother's side, unless the man can afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars and hire a battlion of lawyers and keep the case in the court system for years on end. All it takes is for the mother to put a man's name on the birth certificate and for him to not challenge it in the allowable time frame, even if he doesn't know about it, for it to stick for good.


Show me the link to the statute, please.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Livvie said:


> Show me the link to the statute, please.


Each state is going to have a different statute, so I would have to show fifty statutes on the issue. I only need to show that the court itself says that it does not have to consider DNA, because it would be following the statute of its state,

Arizona court rules policy, not DNA, decides competing paternity claims (fox10phoenix.com)
Parentage (Paternity) - paternity_famlaw_selfhelp (ca.gov)
Paternity | NYCOURTS.GOV


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

UAArchangel said:


> Each state is going to have a different statute, so I would have to show fifty statutes on the issue. I only need to show that the court itself says that it does not have to consider DNA, because it would be following the statute of its state,
> 
> Arizona court rules policy, not DNA, decides competing paternity claims (fox10phoenix.com)
> Parentage (Paternity) - paternity_famlaw_selfhelp (ca.gov)
> Paternity | NYCOURTS.GOV


You said there is a state that gives a father only 60 days to contest paternity once a woman names him (and he might not even know she's named him).

Statute, please. 

Because I don't believe you.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Amazing how many women (and men) want men to be cuckolds. LOL


----------



## harperlee (May 1, 2018)

UAArchangel said:


> Since many men are the victims of paternity fraud, that makes your statement a lie.
> I have no sympathy for men who sleep around, but I am 100% on the side of the man who is a victim of a lying **** of a mother.


I don't lie.
Here's the thing UAArchangel, no matter what, there is great decency in most people. All are hurt to a more or less degree.
I am always sympathetic for peeps who are hurting and want to be mad at something. I used to feel pissed off a lot too.
The truth is, it's just you. When you are done being pissed at yourself, the world and the people in it, with all their flaws aren't awful.
Not brilliant, despite their claims. Not so bad either and neither are you.


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

Yes.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

harperlee said:


> I don't lie.
> Here's the thing UAArchangel, no matter what, there is great decency in most people. All of are hurt to a more or less degree.
> I am always sympathetic for peeps who are hurting and want to be mad at something. I used to feel pissed off a lot too.
> The truth is, it's just you. When you are done being pissed at yourself, the world and the people in it, with all their flaws aren't awful.
> Not brilliant, despite their claims. Not so bad either and neither are you.


I never said you lied. But your statement is a lie, since many men are the victims of paternity fraud. Most of the women, committing the fraud, are not going to tell their husbands the child is not his otherwise she might lose the husband as well.
I'm a keeper of truth. I do not believe in hiding truth to protect people. Truth may break you for a time, but you'll get over that eventually.


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

If you, as a man, talk to some of your female friends and acquaintances, you might be shocked by their responses. Many feel that the man should take care of the child, even if it isn't his.

Try it and report back here...


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

FakeNews001 said:


> If you, as a man, talk to some of your female friends and acquaintances, you might be shocked by their responses. Many feel that the man should take care of the child, even if it isn't his.
> 
> Try it and report back here...


I know how women think about the issue. Men are interchangeable to them, because they are only needed for their wallet. So, one man is as good as the other as far what man raises the child. That's the mythology our society has accepted. That is why DNA is irrelevant in paternity court.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

UAArchangel said:


> It doesn't. That's the problem. If the mother listed him as the father, the courts will generally rule that he's the father, regardless of the facts at hand.


This guy did 5 years jail time for a kid that wasn't his.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> Each state is going to have a different statute, so I would have to show fifty statutes on the issue. I only need to show that the court itself says that it does not have to consider DNA, because it would be following the statute of its state,
> 
> Arizona court rules policy, not DNA, decides competing paternity claims (fox10phoenix.com)
> Parentage (Paternity) - paternity_famlaw_selfhelp (ca.gov)
> Paternity | NYCOURTS.GOV


*Disputing Parentage and Genetic Testing*
_In general, a man who is being told that he is the father of a child has the right, if he is not completely sure he is the father, to request genetic (DNA) testing to find out for sure if he is the father of that child.

DNA is the biological material that determines a person’s physical characteristics. It is found in almost all of the cells in the body, and each person’s DNA is unique.

Some of a person’s DNA coding is inherited from the mother. Some of the DNA coding is inherited from the father. Therefore, by comparing the DNA coding of a mother, father, and child, their parental relationship can be established.

Because saliva contains DNA (as does the rest of the body), samples of a person’s DNA can be taken by gently rubbing a sterile cotton squab (like a Q-tip) inside his or her mouth.
_

_If the Department of Child Support Services performs the testing, normally there is no charge to either named parent._
_If the court orders the named parents to get genetic testing, there may be fees of several hundreds of dollars to have the testing done._
_The court will NOT accept private genetic testing as evidence in a paternity case unless the test has been ordered by the court._
_If the court orders genetic testing, it will provide the named parents with the information they need to get the tests done._
_The court will not accept genetic tests done at home or in a private medical facility._
It appears that genetic testing is the final arbiter.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> *Disputing Parentage and Genetic Testing*
> _In general, a man who is being told that he is the father of a child has the right, if he is not completely sure he is the father, to request genetic (DNA) testing to find out for sure if he is the father of that child.
> 
> DNA is the biological material that determines a person’s physical characteristics. It is found in almost all of the cells in the body, and each person’s DNA is unique.
> ...


Only if he gets in the window and the courts allow for it. There is no guarantee of it and most men don't have the means to keep a case going and will be waited out by the courts.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

Ikaika said:


> What about family courts needs to change. You are telling me courts are ignoring real evidence over circumstantial evidence. That is not about family court that is something much deeper in the entire legal system


Ok. Again.

There is a statutory timeframe where a man may contest paternity ... IF he knows about it. Once outside that timeframe his options to contest paternity are essentially void, even if he does a DNA test.

Mandatory testing at birth would be well within that timeframe, so would actually provide a better solution to the very problem of the inability to contest at a later date.


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

UAArchangel said:


> I know how women think about the issue. Men are interchangeable to them, because they are only needed for their wallet. So, one man is as good as the other as far what man raises the child. That's the mythology our society has accepted. That is why DNA is irrelevant in paternity court.


Women see men as interchangeable because of evolution. That doesn't necessarily make women "bad." It just makes women women. Men need to understand where they stand with women and act accordingly. The same, of course, goes for women.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> There is no guarantee of it and most men don't have the means to keep a case going and will be waited out by the courts.


Where do you find that in this statute?


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

DownButNotOut said:


> Ok. Again.
> 
> There is a statutory timeframe where a man may contest paternity ... IF he knows about it. Once outside that timeframe his options to contest paternity are essentially void, even if he does a DNA test.
> 
> Mandatory testing at birth would be well within that timeframe, so would actually provide a better solution to the very problem of the inability to contest at a later date.


I don’t know about in your state, but in my state is clearly says the father in question has 60 days to contest from the time he has been notified.

Why would we need mandatory testing except in these cases. 

Anyway, I am being told the on this thread the courts can reject DNA test in place of a woman’s word. So tell me if this is the case why would mandatory testing be any good?


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

FakeNews001 said:


> Women see men as interchangeable because of evolution. That doesn't necessarily make women "bad." It just makes women women. Men need to understand where they stand with women and act accordingly. The same, of course, goes for women.


By that measure, neither is a man bad if he sires 100 children with no intention of raising any of them. His genes made him do it. 
I agree that a man should understand how women operate and red pill sites are very good for that, if you can sift through it for nuggets of gold.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Where do you find that in this statute?


You don't need a statute for every conceivable act. If a court does it, it's allowed to do that. I don't need to quote a statute if a court does an action.
If the courts just sits on the case and doesn't entertain it, it's perfectly legal. In the meantime, the man has to keep retention of a lawyer and keep paying that lawyer until he either gives up or the courts finally gets tired of him petitioning them.

Yes, @Livvie, it's funny when a man who has defrauded of his income from a lying woman is waited out by the courts and has to spend his life making CS payments that he shouldn't have had to in the first place.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

harperlee said:


> Okley Dokley, this is just silly, take a breath of fresh air.
> There are always two people who make a baby, a human being, a person; who grows up into an adult that needs deodorant, a job and makes more babies.
> Two people. Male and female (amiright) Both have equal responsibility.
> If you don't know if this baby is yours; you have to check your picker and whether or not you let lust get the better of you and are whining/worrying later.
> ...


The man never needs to be informed of the birth. A default judgement can name him as the father when he fails to show at the court date he doesn't know about.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> You don't need a statute for every conceivable act. If a court does it, it's allowed to do that. I don't need to quote a statute if a court does an action.
> If the courts just sits on the case and doesn't entertain it, it's perfectly legal. In the meantime, the man has to keep retention of a lawyer and keep paying that lawyer until he either gives up or the courts finally gets tired of him petitioning them.


If such is the case, please give me a case study as precedence.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Anyway, I am being told the on this thread the courts can reject DNA test in place of a woman’s word. So tell me if this is the case why would mandatory testing be any good?


We are saying that needs to change.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

DownButNotOut said:


> The man never needs to be informed of the birth. A default judgement can name him as the father when he fails to show at the court date he doesn't know about.


What state do you live in?


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> We are saying that needs to change.


Well, I am asking for the specific law that you want to see changed. The one law (AZ) you did put up does not suggests that anything needs to be changed.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> If such is the case, please give me a case study as precedence.


Show me the statute that says a court must entertain a case.
Judges can refuse to hear cases, if they so chose to.
Can A Judge Refuse To Hear A Case – JudgeDumas (judgedumas2021.com)


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> Show me the statute that says a court must entertain a case.
> Judges can refuse to hear cases, if they so chose to.
> Can A Judge Refuse To Hear A Case – JudgeDumas (judgedumas2021.com)


Again not a case study. This is an opinion piece that does not even cite a case study.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Well, I am asking for the specific law that you want to see changed. The one law (AZ) you did put up does not suggests that anything needs to be changed.


I've already posted a link of two states and a Fox news story where the judge did just that. I don't need to find statutes, if a judge has ruled in that direction.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Again not a case study. This is an opinion piece that does not even cite a case study.


I don't need to cite cases, if I can show that a judge can choose to not take cases. I've shown you that a judge doesn't have to take cases. A judge doesnt' have to take a case for paternity if it doesn't want to. I don't need to show anything else. You're being deliberately obtuse on this point. I've shown you the law, but you want me to find a case where the judge used the law.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> I've already posted a link of two states and a Fox news story where the judge did just that. I don't need to find statutes, if a judge has ruled in that direction.


You have posted opinions, not actually court case studies. You posted an AZ law which seems to uphold genetic testing as source of evidence.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> You have posted opinions, not actually court case studies. You posted an AZ law which seems to uphold genetic testing as source of evidence.


State law is not opinion and I've already posted from two states that.
The Arizona judge said he didn't have to, so he didn't.

Even if there is only one accused, the judge doesn't have to use DNA. It only has to use state policy.

*Arizona court rules policy, not DNA, decides competing paternity claims*


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> State law is not opinion and I've already posted from two states that.
> The Arizona judge said he didn't have to, so he didn't.
> 
> Even if there is only one accused, the judge doesn't have to use DNA. It only has to use state policy.
> ...


Can you show me where you got the large font bold from? And what is meant by policy? What policy? Please give me the full context of this case.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Can you show me where you got the large font bold from? And what is meant by policy? What policy? Please give me the full context of this case.


That's the title headline of the Fox story that I posted in this thread earlier. The main consideration of the judge, in regards to paternity, is state policy. That outweighs any DNA consideration or timelines as to when the man found out.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> That's the title headline of the Fox story that I posted in this thread earlier. The main consideration of the judge, in regards to paternity, is state policy. That outweighs any DNA consideration or timelines as to when the man found out.


Right a title of an opinion piece that does not cite the case directly. I still want to know what policy. Can you tell me what policy they are referring to?


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Right a title of an opinion piece that does not cite the case directly. I still want to know what policy. Can you tell me what policy they are referring to?


As many of us have explained to you, DNA is only relevant if you can make a challenge within a narrow time-frame of the birth. If you went past that time frame, any knowledge of DNA is useless in the eyes of the court. The courts rely on state law and that is state law in many states. You don't need a case law, if it is a state law.

We've stated the policy several times. You're coming across as trlling at this point, when we have proven our position several times and you are still asking for proof.
Here is a third state, South Dakota, that says DNA does not matter.
SD Supreme Court: DNA not enough for paternity - Mitchell Republic | News, weather, sports from Mitchell South Dakota


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> As many of us have explained to you, DNA is only relevant if you can make a challenge within a narrow time-frame of the birth. If you went past that time frame, any knowledge of DNA is useless in the eyes of the court. The courts rely on state law and that is state law in many states. You don't need a case law, if it is a state law.
> 
> We've stated the policy several times. You're coming across as trlling at this point, when we have proven our position several times and you are still asking for proof.
> Here is a third state, South Dakota, that says DNA does not matter.
> SD Supreme Court: DNA not enough for paternity - Mitchell Republic | News, weather, sports from Mitchell South Dakota


I wish these articles you keep citing would actually cite the court case. State supreme court cases have a docket just like SCOTUS. 

If this article is correct, again mandatory testing is unnecessary given that it appears that SD Supreme court suggest DNA testing can be rejected.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> I wish these articles you keep citing would actually cite the court case. State supreme court cases have a docket just like SCOTUS.
> 
> If this article is correct, again mandatory testing is unnecessary given that it appears that SD Supreme court suggest DNA testing can be rejected.


If a state says it is legal, you don't need case law because the states already established legal precedent by writing the law. Do you need a court case of somebody being convicted of murder, if the state has already passed a law saying murder is illegal? That's the way you are coming across right now. You are disregarding state law in favour of a case that makes use of state law. 
It should be settled on that point, that DNA is not counted by the courts when it is not counted under state law. The only thing that is important to the courts is that there is a man financially supporting the child. That is whom the courts have deemed to be the father of the child. If a man, because he didn't know, is appointed as being the father of the child that's settled.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> If a state says it is legal, you don't need case law because the states already established legal precedent by writing the law. Do you need a court case of somebody being convicted of murder, if the state has already passed a law saying murder is illegal? That's the way you are coming across right now. You are disregarding state law in favour of a case that makes use of state law.
> It should be settled on that point, that DNA is not counted by the courts when it is not counted under state law. The only thing that is important to the courts is that there is a man financially supporting the child. That is whom the courts have deemed to be the father of the child. If a man, because he didn't know, is appointed as being the father of the child that's settled.


You cited a SD Supreme Court ruling, these are always about case laws that come with a docket. Precedence is set by actual case ruling. So pleas provide the docket.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> You cited a SD Supreme Court ruling, these are always about case laws that come with a docket. Precedence is set by actual case ruling. So pleas provide the docket.


I can cite many of the courts. This is the general position of the court, in regards to paternity. The courts don't want the state financially responsible for the child, so guidelines were created to make a man, who qualifies as such, the father and that is regardless of his DNA. That is the general position of the courts across the land. A state Supreme Court is pretty close to being the Supreme Court.


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

Paternity Information by State - FindLaw


State-specific information on the establishment of paternity, an essential step toward collecting child support. Learn about this and more at FindLaw's Family Law Center.




www.findlaw.com


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> I can cite many of the courts.


Then please do so.


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

Each state will be different. However, asking to site specific cases is simply a high school debating technique. Do better.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

FakeNews001 said:


> Paternity Information by State - FindLaw
> 
> 
> State-specific information on the establishment of paternity, an essential step toward collecting child support. Learn about this and more at FindLaw's Family Law Center.
> ...


You should probably read what your posted. The links that work, there is a provision for Genetic testing similar to the AZ law.


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

Various reasoned articles about paternity and paternity fraud will be much more useful to a forum like this.


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

As an example:
*WA*
Challenging Paternity in Washington State | Paternity Lawyers in Seattle
Paternity in Washington


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> Then please do so.


I've done three so far. How many have you done. 
I think you're being just obtuse, purposefully. 
I cited several of the courts and I posted several news articles and you keep asking for proof. That's what trlls do. I could show state laws for all fifty and you would still be asking for some kind of proof.
Everybody here has cited proofs and you keep asking for proof.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> I've done three so far. How many have you done.
> I think you're being just obtuse, purposefully.
> I cited several of the courts and I posted several news articles and you keep asking for proof. That's what trlls do. I could show state laws for all fifty and you would still be asking for some kind of proof.
> Everybody here has cited proofs and you keep asking for proof.


You posted opinions articles not actual cases.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> You posted opinions articles not actual cases.


I cited state law. I don't need to cite case law, when there is state law. State law takes precedence over case law in the courts. Do you need proof of that?
You're not going to find many newspapers reporting stories of how courts have ruled on paternity, because that is a dog-bite-man story. I only need to cite state law on the matter, which I have done so three times so far. I even met your conditions, twice, of case law, but you want more. I'm not going to do more on an internet forum. I'm not writing a dissertation for somebody who is being trlling.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> I cited state law. I don't need to cite case law, when there is state law. State law takes precedence over case law in the courts. Do you need proof of that?


And the law appears to take genetic testing as evidence. So, your proof is that genetic testing is paramount in evidence presented to the court as is suggested by the AZ law you cited. It is pretty much similar to the law in my state.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> And the law appears to take genetic testing as evidence. So, your proof is that genetic testing is paramount in evidence presented to the court as is suggested by the AZ law you cited. It is pretty much similar to the law in my state.


Show me that, outside the window, that a court will take DNA into consideration if a man finds out past the window about the true nature of his relationship to the child.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

FakeNews001 said:


> I don't think it's useful to feed the trolls. If you site a specific case, it will be "show me another." Don't jump down the rabbit hole with this person...


I'm done with him on that. If a state supreme court ruling is not good enough, nothing will be for him. People like him will never believe, unless God himself fills his head with the actual words of state laws and shows every possible case of where it has happened.Anything short of that and the person will not be satisfied with proof.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> Show me that, outside the window, that a court will take DNA into consideration if a man finds out past the window about the true nature of his relationship to the child.


It came from the AZ law you posted. Read it again.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> I'm done with him on that. If a state supreme court ruling is not good enough, nothing will be for him. People like him will never believe, unless God himself fills his head with the actual words of state laws and shows every possible case of where it has happened.Anything short of that and the person will not be satisfied with proof.


If you can show me the docket on this decision, I will believe you, otherwise I am suspicious of this opinion.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Ikaika said:


> It came from the AZ law you posted. Read it again.


Yes, Arizona state law.
Like I said, you can cry for enough proof to satisfy a reasonable person. You however, will not ever be satisfied. I simply have to recognize that the only person who can satisfy you is you. There is no amount of work that I could do to get you to say, "I am satisfied with your proof."

If you are unsatisfied with three state statutes and several news articles and most posters here telling you, there is no satisfying you. And Im not going to make a career trying to satisfy somebody who cannot be satisfied. I am not going to respond to any more in this thread. You are a waste of my time on this topic.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

DownButNotOut said:


> The man never needs to be informed of the birth. A default judgement can name him as the father when he fails to show at the court date he doesn't know about.


I dont believe this.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

UAArchangel said:


> Yes, Arizona state law.
> Like I said, you can cry for enough proof to satisfy a reasonable person. You however, will not ever be satisfied. I simply have to recognize that the only person who can satisfy you is you. There is no amount of work that I could do to get you to say, "I am satisfied with your proof."
> 
> If you are unsatisfied with three state statutes and several news articles and most posters here telling you, there is no satisfying you. And Im not going to make a career trying to satisfy somebody who cannot be satisfied. I am not going to respond to any more in this thread. You are a waste of my time on this topic.


I will be satisfied if you can provide an actual court case study that goes against the AZ law you posted. That is all I am asking for. Or even the SD Supreme court docket (case) that suggests that genetic testing is not useful in paternity cases. I need to see the context of the case.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

I've yet to see someone post a state statute that says a man can be named, and not know it, and not be notified, and still be considered the father of a child.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Livvie said:


> I've yet to see someone post a state statute that says a man can be named, and not know it, and not be notified, and still be considered the father of a child.


This is exactly along with the nullification of genetic testing, I am asking for.


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

So, I was able to find one of these cases with just the tiniest amount of searching (starts with CV-2..., do your own homework  ). Can't we all just take a little time to do some quick searches before replying?


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

FakeNews001 said:


> So, I was able to find one of these cases with just the tiniest amount of searching (starts with CV-2..., do your own homework  ). Can't we all just take a little time to do some quick searches before replying?


Post it please. I don’t mind being wrong.


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

Another interesting one is Michigan Case No. 16-... 

Ikaika, if you were really interested, you'd just go and find them yourself.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

FakeNews001 said:


> Another interesting one is Michigan Case No. 16-...
> 
> Ikaika, if you were really interested, you'd just go and find them yourself.


I am interested in you and/or @UAArchangel making your case. If you have a Michigan Case can you please post the link so I can read it?


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

Note that laws continue to change in this area. In particular, in WA laws were recently updated (within last 10 years) to be a bit less draconian. Overall, at some point, I think we'll see these types of cases no longer being an issue.


----------



## FakeNews001 (2 mo ago)

Oh, and if you are interested in looking for a particular case, try the following:

1) Actually read the article posted.
2) Get the names of the individuals.
3) Search for things like <State> vs <Name>.

It shouldn't take anyone too long. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm guessing most or all published cases in the US will be on-line?


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

FakeNews001 said:


> Oh, and if you are interested in looking for a particular case, try the following:
> 
> 1) Actually read the article posted.
> 2) Get the names of the individuals.
> ...


Well, if you want to make the case against the laws you posted previously, please provide the links. I read the one link you provided. The state law links that did work, I read the paternity section (up to IL) as it relates to genetic testing and I did not see any countervailing arguments that suggest circumstantial evidence trumps genetic testing. And, it appears that in most states there is a 60 day window after the male has been informed. So, act quickly he should. 

Most of it was based on that the courts would not accept home genetic tests. Since this is not unusual for courts to have preferred sources of testing I still don’t get the victim status for males who want to contest paternity. The only issue I can see that is a bummer is that he, will have to put of court cost and possibly testing cost. 

I can’t find any cases that appear to overturn these laws.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

If you read most of the laws pertaining to the topic, you get the idea that someone wrote this law, the legislative body for that state passed it (probably most lawmakers did not even read it) and then it was copied and pasted for each state and their legislative body passed it (again probably without reading it). There are some vague wording in there, but not unusual for most laws. It is what keeps lawyers employed. 

It gets boring reading nearly the same wording over and over.


----------



## gameopoly5 (5 mo ago)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> So, in your belief men should have to prove fatherhood with a test simply because they can't biologically squeeze a baby out of their groin? I see how this protects on the other side of the coin in the 1% of cases of paternity fraud, but it is a blatant disregard of our right to our personhood and cedes all the power to women that the majority does not want ceded.
> 
> I'm not giving the government my DNA unless they have a valid search warrant and no way does that curtail my right to my kids. And that is how it will be in America as long as we have the US Constitution and the 4th amendment.


No, it`s the opposite.
The burden is on the mother to prove that who she claims is the biological father is the biological father.
Paternity fraud can only be perpetrated by women.
Even if a woman does lie about who is the father of her children, that does not in any ways curtail her parental rights to her child or children. 
This is also beneficial to the children later on that can save them the heartbreak of discovering the man they believed to be their biological father and brought up is not their real father. 
FACT.


----------



## Trdd (Jan 11, 2022)

D0nnivain said:


> No they should not become mandatory. If two people have reason to believe that the guy might not be the father the man always has the right to ask. But as a woman, if I was pregnant & the father asked for a paternity test, the level of paranoia & distrust shown there would cause me to end the relationship as soon as the request was made. Yikes.


Wholly agree. I am skeptical of a lot of the 'data' reported on the internet but if the OP's data source is accurate, 1/3 of paternity tests show no paternity. However, the only people getting these tests are those with a suspicion of a problem. Most parents get no paternity test because there is no need to. If we did paternity testing on all babies the number of problem results would likely drop from 1/3 to 1/1500 or something even lower.


----------



## ArthurGPym (Jun 28, 2021)

*Should birth paternity tests be mandatory?*

Yes.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

snowbum said:


> It seems like you’re saying men are so reckless they don’t know how many kids they have. Or you’re saying you think most women are lying hos . Sorry. I wouldnt be with a guy who questioned whether he was the father. Maybe use protection if you’re going to screw nameless women you don’t know. Gross


You also aren't the type of person that would get pregnant while sleeping around then lie about who the possible father was. There is no shortage of men and women that are totally reckless when it comes to sex.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Ikaika said:


> So again you are assuming courts prefer circumstantial evidence over real evidence. I find that hard to believe


It isn't that they are putting circumstantial evidence over "real" evidence. One the man's name is on the birth certificate it is real, hard evidence that he is the legal father. Courts won't automatically stop the obligation for child support even with a DNA test that proves the man isn't the bio father. They will always do what they believe is in the best interest of the child. If a man has been raising and financially supporting a child for some period of time and DNA proves he isn't the father, they will not allow the child to go without financial support and he will have to continue paying. It is easy to find news articles where this happens.

ETA: New Jersey Law








I Found Out My Child Is Not Biologically Mine. Am I Still Required To Pay Child Support?


If you have a significant relationship with the child, meaning that the child is emotionally and financially dependent upon you, you could be required to continue to support him or her.




ericbhannumlaw.com




.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Livvie said:


> You said there is a state that gives a father only 60 days to contest paternity once a woman names him (and he might not even know she's named him).
> 
> Statute, please.
> 
> Because I don't believe you.


It is the case in NY


If you have signed an Acknowledgement of Paternity and believe it was a mistake, you must file a petition within 60 days of the date it was signed to ask the Court to vacate the Acknowledgement. 
If you file the petition to vacate the Acknowledgement after 60 days, you will have to show that there was a fraud, or a material (major) mistake of fact, or that you were under duress when you signed.


If the mother was married to someone else when the child was conceived or born, or someone else is named as the child’s father, the court could refuse to order testing, based upon a legal rule called *“equitable estoppel”. That means the court has decided it is not in the child’s best interest to let the existing parental relationship be disrupted, even if it is not biologically true. *










Paternity in New York


Para ver este artículo en español por favor visite aquí. (To view this article in Spanish, visit here.) What is paternity? Paternity means legal fatherhood of a child.




www.lawny.org


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Livvie said:


> I've yet to see someone post a state statute that says a man can be named, and not know it, and not be notified, and still be considered the father of a child.


Yeah, that isn't true. The only way a man can be added without his specific acknowledgment of paternity is if the woman is married. A woman can list her husband on a BC even if he isn't present, for whatever reason. Otherwise there needs to be a signed joint declaration of paternity.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

BigDaddyNY said:


> It is the case in NY
> 
> 
> If you have signed an Acknowledgement of Paternity and believe it was a mistake, you must file a petition within 60 days of the date it was signed to ask the Court to vacate the Acknowledgement.
> ...


It _isn't_ the case. If you sign an acknowledgment, YOU HAVE NOTICE OF THE BIRTH AND THE CHILD.

The discussion was, someone was saying a man had 60 days and it could be without any notice of the birth 🤣🤣🤣🤣. And that simply isn't true.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

gameopoly5 said:


> No, it`s the opposite.
> The burden is on the mother to prove that who she claims is the biological father is the biological father.
> *Paternity fraud can only be perpetrated by women.*
> Even if a woman does lie about who is the father of her children, that does not in any ways curtail her parental rights to her child or children.
> ...


I'm splitting hairs here, but this isn't true. A man can claim to be the father even though he knows he is not. He is also committing paternity fraud.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Why should this paternity testing be mandatory?

No one has given any kind of valid reason. Any man can perfrom the test of he wants to know. 

Do it yourself, Batman.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Livvie said:


> It _isn't_ the case. If you sign an acknowledgment, YOU HAVE NOTICE OF THE BIRTH AND THE CHILD.
> 
> The discussion was, someone was saying a man had 60 days and it could be without any notice of the birth 🤣🤣🤣🤣. And that simply isn't true.


You are correct, unless it is the woman's husband. Then it is assumed and you don't have to be present or sign acknowledgement.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

BigDaddyNY said:


> It isn't that they are putting circumstantial evidence over "real" evidence. One the man's name is on the birth certificate it is real, hard evidence that he is the legal father. Courts won't automatically stop the obligation for child support even with a DNA test that proves the man isn't the bio father. They will always do what they believe is in the best interest of the child. If a man has been raising and financially supporting a child for some period of time and DNA proves he isn't the father, they will not allow the child to go without financial support and he will have to continue paying. It is easy to find news articles where this happens.
> 
> ETA: New Jersey Law
> 
> ...


This seems like a reasonable approach to the law, and would not disagree with the courts on this particular situation. This article in fact seems reasonable and not part of some victim situation but looking out for the best welfare of the child. I can see and agree with courts taking such a stance.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

BigDaddyNY said:


> You are correct, unless it is the woman's husband. Then it is assumed and you don't have to be present or sign acknowledgement.


Generally there are 3 ways that paternity is established.

Presumed Paternity -- a husband is presumed to be the father, or a man who was the husband at any time within 300 days prior to birth.

Acknowledgement of Paternity (AOP) -- a man may sign a statement that he acknowledges he is the father

By Court Order -- A mother may petition the court to establish paternity. A Court then accepts that alleged father as the true father.

In the first two cases, a man has 60 days to challenge or rescind any claim of paternity. In the third case, once the court has decided, it is extremely difficult to challenge that decision. If the man is not present in the courtroom, general practice is to accept the woman's claims without challenge and issue a default judgement.

A woman is under no legal obligation to inform the father of her pregnancy or the birth. If she seeks a court order of paternity then she is obligated to make a good faith effort to contact the man. However, that is no guarantee that he will receive proper notice of the court date, nor that he has the means and time to seek proper legal counsel. 

As @BigDaddyNY said above, once paternity has been decided by one of the above 3 methods, and the time window to challenge has passed, a court will generally not reverse a prior court's support decrees due to a DNA test proving the man is not the father.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

DownButNotOut said:


> Generally there are 3 ways that paternity is established.
> 
> Presumed Paternity -- a husband is presumed to be the father, or a man who was the husband at any time within 300 days prior to birth.
> 
> ...


There was one story I read about, a few years ago, a women took a newspaper ad out, as required by law, in some podunk town in her state to meet the state regulations of informing the father. Of course, since he's not going to read a newspaper in Podunk. She was able to get the court to rule that he was the father because he didn't know to show up in court. I couldnt' find the story itself, so I don't know what the ultimate conclusion was.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

UAArchangel said:


> There was one story I read about, a few years ago, a women took a newspaper ad out, as required by law, in some podunk town in her state to meet the state regulations of informing the father. Of course, since he's not going to read a newspaper in Podunk. She was able to get the court to rule that he was the father because he didn't know to show up in court. I couldnt' find the story itself, so I don't know what the ultimate conclusion was.


That story stinks of BS to me for so many reasons.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

BigDaddyNY said:


> That story stinks of BS to me for so many reasons.


I only remember that one detail. I wish I could remember other details of the story so I could find it.


----------



## Tiddytok5 (8 mo ago)

Tiddytok5 said:


> Of course it should be mandatory.
> It should be mandatory to have it done twice.
> 
> Once, sometime during pregnancy (it can be determined before birth)
> ...



Plus, it would revoke the ability for mothers who are filling out the birth certificate by themselves to put any name for the father down.


Where I'm from the mother has the legal right to fill in a name for the father... without prior knowledge or consent of the man.



Once that certificate becomes officially legalized, that man can have his wages automatically deducted and/or thrown in jail if she has a child support order for him and there's a "refusal" or non payment.


It would definitely be a help to all those unsuspecting men who have recently been informed of these things...

There's such a lengthy expensive legal process to have the name removed, their money reimbursed (if they request it)...then they have to either convince the woman to agree to a paternity test, or have the court make her..



Plus...it would make things simpler because if the child ever needs a donor, or something..


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Tiddytok5 said:


> Plus, it would revoke the ability for mothers who are filling out the birth certificate by themselves to put any name for the father down.
> 
> 
> Where I'm from the mother has the legal right to fill in a name for the father... without prior knowledge or consent of the man.
> ...


It should be illegal to put a name on the birth certificate without the fathers consent. If the father is absent you should get a court order to get the father a paternity test. If he refuses then he is on the hook until he complies. The catch is the woman gets one chance, if he's not the father, too bad!


----------



## gameopoly5 (5 mo ago)




----------



## Canadiana (1 mo ago)

No. This a terrible idea and would serve to needlessly demean and disrespect women even further.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Canadiana said:


> No. This a terrible idea and would serve to needlessly demean and disrespect women even further.


What about the men that are lied to and spend 20-odd years paying for a child that isnot theirs?
Is that not demeaning to them?
Are men so worthless in your mind that they can be demeaned and taken advantage of at will by women, with no penalty for the woman?

I propose that any woman, who can be shown to have lied to the man about the children's patronage should face prison of 6 months for each year the man unknowingly thought the children were his and supported them. This penalty would apply to each child she lied about. That seems reasonable to me.

It is not their children, in the case of paternity fraud. If he raised them without knowing, it is her children.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

People are forgetting that any man can get a DNA test if he's unsure.

There is no need to make it mandatory, it's available to any man who wants it. 

That's what the thread is about. Mandatory.

Get your own test if you want it!


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Yeah, that isn't true. The only way a man can be added without his specific acknowledgment of paternity is if the woman is married. A woman can list her husband on a BC even if he isn't present, for whatever reason. Otherwise there needs to be a signed joint declaration of paternity.


In some states, the legal husband is the one put on the BC even if the mother/wife, the husband and the biological father all state what the biological reality is.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

.... so get a DNA test if you are unsure.

Boom, problem solved.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Livvie said:


> The threads about this make me roll my eyes.
> 
> Any man is free to pay for a paternity test. No need to make it mandatory.
> 
> If we're gonna make it "mandatory" then we also need to make STD/I testing mandatory before people have sex with each other.


Before wife and I got married 26 yrs ago, we had to submit to blood testing by State of Okla for STDs. Would be no different than child being DNA tested before man's name was placed on BCert. Same way you have to have insurance before you drive a vehicle or many other things required before you get a license for dang near anything.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Ikaika said:


> And that is your option to do so, but to make it mandatory violates unlawful search and seizure (amended in constitution and upheld by SCOTUS).
> 
> This would never fly, making paternity test mandatory.


But is ok by the govt to seize a chunk of a man's income, before verifying the paternity of the child in question. 

In Oklahoma you have to prove child is man's before garnishing wages, in Texas a woman can say it is, and he has to fight to get it stopped, mean while they are taking his income.

If they would pass law that a woman would face criminal prosecution for paternity fraud if she has an Affair child and does not notify spouse.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> 4th Amendment. US Constitution


A man is just not afforded the same right to not have his pay seized to support a child that is not his.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Ikaika said:


> How many people are convicted annually?


Not enough unfortunately.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> I wouldn't agree to one and if forced I wouldn't read the results because I don't need to.


A woman except for extreme circumstances, does not need to, she carried the child. No risk of one not being hers unless IVF mixup. 

I bet if more women had IVF and a Dr. Office had issue mixing up eggs, those women would want test.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Livvie said:


> Mmmhmm and how are you gonna make these "baby daddies" show up to get swabbed for a test? 🤔


If they don't show up then it is given, they also believe child is theirs, so go forward with taking their pay.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Julie's Husband said:


> I see no reason for a paternity test unless the couple are going into divorce where the man would be asked for child support. It should be mandatory that a man does not pay child support it the test shows he is not the father.


It is about a man not being a victim of paternity fraud. Not having to pay to raise another man's child with a 304 wife.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

so_sweet said:


> Or a single woman who wants to have the baby and put the baby up for adoption, but the boyfriend objects adoption and he wants to keep the baby. With a mandatory test in place, laws could change and he could be given the right to stop the adoption


It damned well should stop the adoption. She is interfering with parental rights. Would be no different than a dad taking the child and leaving and driving states away and leaving child at fire station. 

If the dad wants to raise the child, and a mother does not want child, then the woman gives up rights to child. A child should not be placed for adoption if dad wants child. That is tantamount to kidnapping.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Ikaika said:


> I am sure there are situations to then have a court ordered paternity test. You can contest a lot of stuff in courts, it will just cost you attorney fees.
> 
> Again, this whole discussion just means awful things for children in question.


If it is found that you are not the father, the mother should be liable for the cost. 

I say figure out what the guy would be charged in child support yearly and the mom be made to pay restitution back to husband that amount for how ever many years the man was dumped into supporting the child. Only be fair.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> While I agree that making it mandatory isn't right.
> 
> The whole argument that you can just get your own DNA test is very dismissive. Most men didn't ever think their wife would cheat on them until they did otherwise he wouldn't have married her skanky ass.
> 
> Paternity fraud is an issue, however the best way to tackle it isn't concrete while preserving our most basic civil liberties. There definitely should be punishment but then you get a circular argument of someone has to take care of the kid.


That is the responsibility of the mother at that point, and because of her poor choices of being an adulteress, it is her fault the child has no dad and it will inevitably drag the Dept of Human Services in to help support the child.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> There definitely should be punishment but then you get a circular argument of someone has to take care of the kid.


The same if she robbed a store, they don't argue "But who will care for the child?!" It will be family while she is doing time or it will be the State Foster system. Again, that is all on the mom for her decisions.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Divinely Favored said:


> A woman except for extreme circumstances, does not need to, she carried the child. No risk of one not being hers unless IVF mixup.
> 
> I bet if more women had IVF and a Dr. Office had issue mixing up eggs, those women would want test.


There is the point of the baby mix up in the hospital that was brought up earlier. Where are you on that?


----------



## so_sweet (10 mo ago)

Divinely Favored said:


> It damned well should stop the adoption. She is interfering with parental rights. Would be no different than a dad taking the child and leaving and driving states away and leaving child at fire station.
> 
> If the dad wants to raise the child, and a mother does not want child, then the woman gives up rights to child. A child should not be placed for adoption if dad wants child. That is tantamount to kidnapping.


I posted that post just as food for thought and thanks for your opinion! Just for discussion purposes, meaning, I'm not saying what you said is right or wrong, I want to ask you:

It damned well should -- in every situation?
You might be applying the situation to yourself, putting yourself in the shoes of all men facing that situation, and I assume you are a good man and a good father, but, remember, not all men are like you.

With a mandatory pre-birth test, child abusers, woman abusers, drug addicts, criminals, rapists, murderers...etc., could all have rights to the unborn child equal to that of the mother.

So, for example, the rapist is caught and is determined to be the father through the pre-birth test. He now has the right to stop the woman he raped and got pregnant from having an abortion or giving up the baby for adoption. Should he "damn well" have that right?

As for my personal opinion, I'm not sure what to think of a pre-birth mandatory test. I know that personally I would have no problem taking such a test. But generally speaking:

If it would mean women losing rights over their body, then it doesn't sound so great. For example, I don't believe in abortion for myself but I wouldn't want that right taken away from women.

But then what about where it's unfair to men, if they're tricked into paying child support or good men having no rights to an unborn child who is just as much theirs as it is the woman's.

I don't know what to think!
Perhaps it should depend on each individual case?


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

harperlee said:


> Power? This thread is leaning on an icy cliff.
> Here is a suggestion, simple. Do.not.put.your.condemless.d*ck.into.a.woman.you.do.not.trust.
> Men don't get to f*ck and then turn it around and play stupid.
> Those days are over.


Or we pass laws that a woman that commits paternity fraud face jail time, the severity depends on how long the fraud has been perpetrated. Just like extortion, longer the more money. Guy find out 10 yrs after birth, woman does 5 yrs penitentiary and pays restitution to the husband.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

maquiscat said:


> There is the point of the baby mix up in the hospital that was brought up earlier. Where are you on that?


The hospital gets sued. Not as relevant now, I think most hospitals strap child before leaving delivery.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

UAArchangel said:


> It doesn't. That's the problem. If the mother listed him as the father, the courts will generally rule that he's the father, regardless of the facts at hand.


They just had a guy released after years for refusing to pay child support and being convicted of criminal non support. DNA test just proved it was not his child and he was released. The mother should be thrown in prison day for day and pay the man restitution.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Ikaika said:


> So you are telling courts reject solid evidence over circumstantial evidence? Can you quote the law for me?


There is nothing circumstantial about a court saying you have been in the role of child's dad last 5 yrs and you are required to maintain the support because that is what the child knows. Happened in Lamar County, Texas several years ago. Made the paper, guy was charged child support though he had DNA that he was not. 

There were 304s chiming in stating it is basically poetic justice that he has to keep paying support because of all the other dead beat dad's that shirk support.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Ikaika said:


> Where do you find that in this statute?


Bad thing is, in Texas it may take over a year to contest and have courts require DNA. In the mean time, they are garnishing 40-50% of your pay till then.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

DownButNotOut said:


> The man never needs to be informed of the birth. A default judgement can name him as the father when he fails to show at the court date he doesn't know about.


Have seen it happen to parolees under my supervision. Get out of prison owing child support and take a year and half to get back in court to protest and have judge order DNA. Mean time Tx AGs office is garnishing income. When they find out kid is not his, they say too bad so sad. You can't get your money back, even though it was wrongfully taken from you.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Ikaika said:


> What state do you live in?


Texas does it.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Livvie said:


> I dont believe this.


I don't believe the IRS has a right to tax my income either...but guess what? 

Happened to several of my parolees back in the day. Get out of prison(TDCJ) owing child support, even when they were incarcerated during time when ole girl was impregnated. Because she named them as daddy to get assistance from state. 
They still had to pay support and back support until they could get a lawyer to file to get it brought back before the judge. Then their record of incarceration was not sufficient and a DNA was ordered. They were still having their pay garnished for months, until it can be back before the judge to change ruling.

I had one guy that worked 50 hrs. a week and brought home $50-$60 a week, child support got the rest.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Divinely Favored said:


> Or we pass laws that a woman that commits paternity fraud face jail time, the severity depends on how long the fraud has been perpetrated. Just like extortion, longer the more money. Guy find out 10 yrs after birth, woman does 5 yrs penitentiary and pays restitution to the husband.


How wonderful for the innocent children to be deprived of their mother for many years. Come on now, this is crazy. Or maybe we can lock up husbands who cheat as well. How about 5 years for every month of the affair? 
I am with the poster who says not to have sex with a woman you don't trust.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> How wonderful for the innocent children to be deprived of their mother for many years. Come on now, this is crazy. Or maybe we can lock up husbands who cheat as well. How about 5 years for every month of the affair?
> I am with the poster who says not to have sex with a woman you don't trust.


It would be the woman's decision to deprive herself of her children and the children of their mother. The obvious alternative is that the man just cannot expect any level of justice in his situation.
The idea, that you don't have sex with a person you don't trust sounds nice, but there are thousands of threads on this site that shows how bad that advice is because you did you best in picking a trustworthy person and it didn't work out.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

so_sweet said:


> I posted that post just as food for thought and thanks for your opinion! Just for discussion purposes, meaning, I'm not saying what you said is right or wrong, I want to ask you:
> 
> It damned well should -- in every situation?
> You might be applying the situation to yourself, putting yourself in the shoes of all men facing that situation, and I assume you are a good man and a good father, but, remember, not all men are like you.
> ...


The statement was in terms of woman putting child up for adoption w/o father's approval. If the dad wants to raise the child after birth, he should be given custody, since the mother, for what ever reason does not want the child. If possible father is known, DNA child and him to see and if so, he can take custody and she can pay child support. 

It is wrong to deny parental rights of father. But many women don't care, they have been killing a men's children for over 50 yrs in the states anyway with approval from the govt. 

As far as rape, they should be in prison or dad/brother already delt with him. Unless unknown to victim, then it's a moot point.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> How wonderful for the innocent children to be deprived of their mother for many years. Come on now, this is crazy. Or maybe we can lock up husbands who cheat as well. How about 5 years for every month of the affair?
> I am with the poster who says not to have sex with a woman you don't trust.


Children are deprived of a parent all the time for crimes against others. That is on the perpetrator of the offense. 

Just cheating did not defraud the spouse of income. Better correlation against a man would be a IVF Dr. Implanting a husband's APs fertilized egg in his wife and her carrying and unknowingly raising husbands affair child.

You could not even use, Dr using his own sperm for IVF because the child would still be the woman's child. But what a woman does with paternity fraud, is the same as the Dr. using his own sperm to fertilize her egg. I do believe there is jail time associated with that.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Livvie said:


> People are forgetting that any man can get a DNA test if he's unsure.
> 
> There is no need to make it mandatory, it's available to any man who wants it.
> 
> ...


Still, a man can trust a woman and find out 10 yrs later it is not his. "Well he can get a DNA test" does not provide justice to the man that has been defrauded by that kind of a woman.


----------



## so_sweet (10 mo ago)

Divinely Favored said:


> The statement was in terms of woman putting child up for adoption w/o father's approval. If the dad wants to raise the child after birth, he should be given custody, since the mother, for what ever reason does not want the child. If possible father is known, DNA child and him to see and if so, he can take custody and she can pay child support.
> 
> It is wrong to deny parental rights of father. But many women don't care, they have been killing a men's children for over 50 yrs in the states anyway with approval from the govt.
> 
> As far as rape, they should be in prison or dad/brother already delt with him. Unless unknown to victim, then it's a moot point.


I appreciate your thoughts, thanks! What I'm wondering is if people lose parental rights when they go to prison? If they don't, then a rapist could probably still stop an adoption or abortion (if a pre-birth test was mandatory and it gave him parental rights). Anyway, I don't mean to go on about it! Have a good morning!


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

Livvie said:


> .... so get a DNA test if you are unsure.
> 
> Boom, problem solved.


Livvie I usually agree one hundred percent with your posts but not in this case because:

Option one, 

Ask for test following birth with mother's knowledge and the child is yours damage done to relationship 

Option two 

A clandestine test is done without mother's knowledge, the child is yours and she finds out, damage done to relationship.

Option three 

Testing is mandatory and then there is no issues about trust and a bonus is any genetic issues relating to possible inheritable diseases my be discovered.


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> How wonderful for the innocent children to be deprived of their mother for many years. Come on now, this is crazy. Or maybe we can lock up husbands who cheat as well. How about 5 years for every month of the affair?
> I am with the poster who says not to have sex with a woman you don't trust.


Not crazy at all, plenty of mothers serving time with husband or grandparents looking after the children.

Or maybe you consider being a mother is a get out of jail free card.

Knowingly passing a child off as her husband's should be a crime with possible custodial sentences and definite return of monies spent on the child should the deceived spouse require it.

We cannot just wring our hands crying "won't someone think of the children," when what should be a crime has been commited.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Kput said:


> Livvie I usually agree one hundred percent with your posts but not in this case because:
> 
> Option one,
> 
> ...


Disagree. 

The state shouldn't have to pay, and every single person born shouldn't have to be subjected to giving their DNA because some people are afraid to ask for or conduct a DNA test on the child of the woman they are involved with.

Help, I'm scared to address genetic parentage in my intimate relationship so let's make ALL children born pony up their DNA. Because I'm scared to address it in my own relationship. 

Not.


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

Ok, if you were a man with suspicion how would you go about alleviating your suspicion. Option one or two.

If you was the new mother what would be your reaction to your partner asking to test the child.


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

Ps if the data was destroyed after the test would that stop the "government" issue.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Kput said:


> Ok, if you were a man with suspicion how would you go about alleviating your suspicion. Option one or two.
> 
> If you was the new mother what would be your reaction to your partner asking to test the child.


If I had chosen to impregnate a woman I didn't trust enough to know the child was mine, I'd deal with the consequences of my choice by being upfront about a home DNA test. 

As to being the mother...well. In my own marriage, we were expressly trying to conceive both of our children. And he knew I was _excited_ about a child that had our genetic material intertwined. And he knew my character and my morals. If he had asked for a DNA test I'm sure he would have had a heart to heart with me about why he wanted it until things were okay between us about it. 

I realize that men impregnate women under less than ideal circumstances and that many women have less than ideal personalities. 

That's unfortunate, but doesn't mean EVERYONE BORN should have to be subjected to DNA collection _because some men are scared to ask for a paternity test inside their own relationship_.


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

Ok Livvie, I don't think we will come to agreement on this but that's fine and I respect your opinion, always happy to debate with you🙂


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

UAArchangel said:


> It would be the woman's decision to deprive herself of her children and the children of their mother. The obvious alternative is that the man just cannot expect any level of justice in his situation.
> The idea, that you don't have sex with a person you don't trust sounds nice, but there are thousands of threads on this site that shows how bad that advice is because you did you best in picking a trustworthy person and it didn't work out.


Thats why we all need to be extra careful.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Kput said:


> Not crazy at all, plenty of mothers serving time with husband or grandparents looking after the children.
> 
> Or maybe you consider being a mother is a get out of jail free card.
> 
> ...


I think that going to jail for cheating should apply to both sexes in that case. 50% of the whole population would then be in jail at some point.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

Diana7 said:


> I think that going to jail for cheating should apply to both sexes in that case. 50% of the whole population would then be in jail at some point.


Jail time wasn't for cheating, it was for committing paternity fraud.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> Thats why we all need to be extra careful.


You can't read somebody's mind and heart so well that you know what they will do a year from now. They may even believe what they tell you in the moment, but they could be lying to themselves.
There is no excuse for paternity fraud and it really should be punished by law once discovered and can be proven. We don't protect mother's relationship with their children when they commit other crimes, so there is no reason to protect the relationship when they commit paternity fraud either.


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> I think that going to jail for cheating should apply to both sexes in that case. 50% of the whole population would then be in jail at some point.


Just a thought but how can a man pretend a child is the offspring of his wife after his mistress gives birth.

She should be punished for paternity fraud not for adultery.

In nearly every other field passing off something as genuine when it is a fake is illegal. Not saying a child can be ,"fake" but the deceived husband is being presented with a child that is not his own.

Tbh I don't know anyone who has been through this however well over ten years ago I was aware of a guy whose g/f was pregnant he thought he was the father until the child came out as mixed race much as I understand it to his relief. No doubt if the kid had been white he would have been on the hook for it.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Jail time wasn't for cheating, it was for committing paternity fraud.


It's still lying and deception.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

BigDaddyNY said:


> Jail time wasn't for cheating, it was for committing paternity fraud.


It's still lying and deception.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

I am not saying it's right although in many cases she may think the baby is her husband's if she had sex with both of them. There are plenty of men who get other women pregnant while married so maybe we can throw them in jail too.


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> It's still lying and deception.


Indeed they both are but one is far more henious than the other. The deception involves the interwining of two lives that should not be.


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> I am not saying it's right although in many cases she may think the baby is her husband's if she had sex with both of them.
> 
> So because the child "might" be his it is ok not to mention to him there is a good chance it might not be.
> 
> Seriously! You think that is acceptable.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Never said that of course but you can't prove deception if she really thought the baby was the husbands.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Never said that of course but you can't prove deception if she really thought the baby was the husbands.


Trying real hard to justify it, aren't you? 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Kput (3 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> Never said that of course but you can't prove deception if she really thought the baby was the husbands.


If she was having sex outside the marriage she would be well aware that the child was possibly the AP's the fact that she was not certain does not excuse the possible deception if it comes to light that it's the AP's child.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

Diana7 said:


> Never said that of course but you can't prove deception if she really thought the baby was the husbands.


No. She really _hoped_ the baby was the husband's. If two men are involved there is only one way to make sure. Testing.

Of course then she'd have to come clean about an affair, and be transparent to both men to resolve the situation.

Not stay silent and potentially betraying both men. The man tricked into raising a child that isn't his, and the man deprived of raising a child that is his.


----------



## DownButNotOut (Apr 9, 2009)

Livvie said:


> If I had chosen to impregnate a woman I didn't trust enough to know the child was mine, I'd deal with the consequences of my choice by being upfront about a home DNA test.


I mean, the point of paternity fraud is that you didn't impregnate anyone. You're just deceived by someone you do into believing you did.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

so_sweet said:


> I appreciate your thoughts, thanks! What I'm wondering is if people lose parental rights when they go to prison? If they don't, then a rapist could probably still stop an adoption or abortion (if a pre-birth test was mandatory and it gave him parental rights). Anyway, I don't mean to go on about it! Have a good morning!


In the instance of rape, she says she does not know father. Rapist in prison will never know. Best to get morning after and no issues with that.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Livvie said:


> If I had chosen to impregnate a woman I didn't trust enough to know the child was mine, I'd deal with the consequences of my choice by being upfront about a home DNA test.
> 
> As to being the mother...well. In my own marriage, we were expressly trying to conceive both of our children. And he knew I was _excited_ about a child that had our genetic material intertwined. And he knew my character and my morals. If he had asked for a DNA test I'm sure he would have had a heart to heart with me about why he wanted it until things were okay between us about it.
> 
> ...


I hear stories all the time where couple is trying to conceive and she is banging boss or co-worker also. Heard one today the kids were planned and neither is his. Found out he was sterile all along. Many guys, and women, believe their spouses are trust worthy...till they aren't.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

DownButNotOut said:


> No. She really _hoped_ the baby was the husband's. If two men are involved there is only one way to make sure. Testing.
> 
> Of course then she'd have to come clean about an affair, and be transparent to both men to resolve the situation.
> 
> Not stay silent and potentially betraying both men. The man tricked into raising a child that isn't his, and the man deprived of raising a child that is his.


I believe that would be considered "Willful Negligence" and not a defense to the fraud she perpetrated on both men.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> I think that going to jail for cheating should apply to both sexes in that case. 50% of the whole population would then be in jail at some point.


Maybe they should be! 

The issue is the extortion of income perpetrated on the man by the woman passing off her APs child as the husband's. 

If I make up a fictitious child to claim on taxes or get services from the government and they find out, you better believe my but would be going to court and getting the book thrown at me. But a woman does the same type of thing and the father who was defrauded is just told, too bad so sad. Now spend thousands more to get divorced and try to not get screwed over with child support on the APs child.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

DownButNotOut said:


> I mean, the point of paternity fraud is that you didn't impregnate anyone. You're just deceived by someone you do into believing you did.


He must have ****ed her though, right?


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Livvie said:


> He must have ****ed her though, right?


That doesn't mean he got her pregnant. It's quite often that the wayward mother will deliberately have sex with the husband around the time of conception to hide her unfaithfulness.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Numb26 said:


> Trying real hard to justify it, aren't you? 🤣🤣🤣


Of course not. I just think it's stupid sending someone to jail for cheating. Some cheat and don't get pregnant and some chest and do.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

UAArchangel said:


> That doesn't mean he got her pregnant. It's quite often that the wayward mother will deliberately have sex with the husband around the time of conception to hide her unfaithfulness.


Or she was also having sex with her husband as well.


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> Of course not. I just think it's stupid sending someone to jail for cheating. Some cheat and don't get pregnant and some chest and do.


Nobody is demanding that anybody go to jail for cheating, but for financial fraud because of paternity fraud. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars here. 
If somebody stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from you, wouldn't you want the person to go to jail?


----------



## UAArchangel (2 mo ago)

Diana7 said:


> Or she was also having sex with her husband as well.


If it's paternity fraud, the fact that she was having sex with her husband is not really relevant. If the baby is not his, it doesn't matter the ratio of sex with husband or AP.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Divinely Favored said:


> Maybe they should be!
> 
> The issue is the extortion of income perpetrated on the man by the woman passing off her APs child as the husband's.


Do keep in mind that in some states, the husband is automatically made the legal father, even if the mother, the genetic father, and the husband all say that the baby is the genetic father's. As long as you are not lumping them into the fraud category, I'm behind you on your overall position.


----------



## Divinely Favored (Apr 1, 2014)

maquiscat said:


> Do keep in mind that in some states, the husband is automatically made the legal father, even if the mother, the genetic father, and the husband all say that the baby is the genetic father's. As long as you are not lumping them into the fraud category, I'm behind you on your overall position.


If they all know, then there is no fraud, only extortion perpetrated by the state.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Divinely Favored said:


> If they all know, then there is no fraud, only extortion perpetrated by the state.


Fair enough


----------

