Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,859 posts, read 3,295,032 times
Reputation: 9145
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
The presumption should indeed be that any child born to a married woman is that of her husband. Otherwise, we will be in the situation of requiring married women to undergo DNA testing every time they have a child. Now, that would indeed be complete BS.
Disagree. When you are ordering one party to pay for a child it should be proven that they are indeed the parent. In fact make whoever is wrong pay for the test. Is a cheek swab too intrusive?
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,859 posts, read 3,295,032 times
Reputation: 9145
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
The presumption should indeed be that any child born to a married woman is that of her husband. Otherwise, we will be in the situation of requiring married women to undergo DNA testing every time they have a child. That would be patronizing and insulting to an extreme. Indeed, that would be complete BS.
Also married women do not need to take the test. Its a cheek swab from the baby. Takes one second.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,859 posts, read 3,295,032 times
Reputation: 9145
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
The presumption should indeed be that any child born to a married woman is that of her husband. Otherwise, we will be in the situation of requiring married women to undergo DNA testing every time they have a child. That would be patronizing and insulting to an extreme. Indeed, that would be complete BS.
The testing is performed by collecting buccal cells found on the inside of a person's cheek using a Buccal swab or cheek swab. These swabs have wooden or plastic stick handles with a cotton on synthetic tip. The collector rubs the inside of a person's cheek in order to collect as many Buccal cells as possible. The Buccal cells are then sent to a laboratory for testing. For paternity testing, samples from the alleged father and child would be needed. For maternity testing, samples from the alleged mother and child would be needed.
So to test for paternity the mother is not needed for testing.
Every man should be given the opportunity for DNA testing at birth. If he refuses then then he will be responsible. If found not to be the father than the case will process to Maury Povich.
No, what we have here is a confused poster who doesn't understand the law or even what is going on.
In Iowa, as in most states, a married man is presumed to be the father of the children of his wife. For example, my wife and I have three children. The state simply presumes - correctly - that I am the father of those three children by virtue of our marriage. This makes sense because it would be absurd to make every couple who has a child run out and take tests to establish paternity. So the married man is the default father.
Is that too much for you to understand?
If you'd bothered to read the article that you yourself linked, you'd see the following:
Got that? DHR enforces child support. Not the courts (as you wrongly are claiming) but DHR.
And if you'd read just one paragraph further, you'd have seen this:
Because the legal presumption of his fatherhood is not absolute. Yes, he can challenge it. Yes, even though he was too stupid and/or lazy to get divorce when his relationship with his wife ended, he can still establish that he is not legally the father of said child. But it doesn't happen magically. It's not going to happen if he sits on his married ass whining about how unfair life is.
And how does he do this? Well, it took me about 10 seconds to google up the relevant law in Iowa - you know, something that this clown should have done many years ago.
The law is not the problem. The law works just fine. But it's not magic. And if idiots who are no longer in a relationship stay married for idiotic reasons, complications ensue. There's a solution for that - idiots need to stop being idiots!
And people who don't understand the law need to stop making excuses for the lazy idiots.
Why are some of you wailing about this? A presumption attaches when you are married that any children born is the baby of the couple. Perfectly reasonable, otherwise you have do a DNA test for each birth. But you can easily de-establish paternity by going to court, because here the wife openly admits that the kid's dad was someone else. Yes, it will cost some money, but it's the guy's fault for not finalizing divorce.
Why are you insulting the judge? He's just following the law made by the legislature. I have it on good authority that he is likely way smarter than said posters. I have noticed that people who say, "so and so is sooooo stupid!" are typically the dumbest of the bunch. I am not directing this comment to anyone in particular.
Look at the guy's photo. Clearly, not the sharpest tool in the shed. Look at the wife. The other guy must have been in a stupor.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,859 posts, read 3,295,032 times
Reputation: 9145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000
Why are some of you wailing about this? A presumption attaches when you are married that any children born is the baby of the couple. Perfectly reasonable, otherwise you have do a DNA test for each birth. But you can easily de-establish paternity by going to court, because here the wife openly admits that the kid's dad was someone else. Yes, it will cost some money, but it's the guy's fault for not finalizing divorce.
Why are you insulting the judge? He's just following the law made by the legislature. I have it on good authority that he is likely way smarter than said posters. I have noticed that people who say, "so and so is sooooo stupid!" are typically the dumbest of the bunch. I am not directing this comment to anyone in particular.
Look at the guy's photo. Clearly, not the sharpest tool in the shed. Look at the wife. The other guy must have been in a stupor.
Mick
I agree with most of your statement. However we have no idea of what his economic status is or was. Also we blame the man for not finalizing the divorce what about blaming the woman? She could have filed also. In fact she found it easy enough to file for child support payments. While it is easy to blame him what about the hole in the law? Isnt something as simple as that easily fixed?
Nothing out of the ordinary here. When a child is born the kid is always assigned to the husband in the marriage certificate. That is done automatically by someone that is unaware of the situation--------------nothing but routine paperwork---------A baby born to a married woman is assumed to be the offspring of the husband.
For the guy to get off he simply needs a DNA test to prove he is not the dad.
Oops, sorry, this was already mentioned above.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
