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.
Plus a 50/50 split in shouldering child care costs. Which means the average child support award will have to be adjusted way up -- way, way up.
Wrong. Child support is about the support of the child, not the income of the parents. If their costs are equal then no money needs to be exchanged. Problem solved. /argument
This could be argued, though. He may not be the biological parent, but in your scenario, if he's loved, cared for, and supported the child, he's definitely the father.
Not if I need to participate. I don't need to address irrelevance. Its up to you to make an argument that identifying parents, something done every day from maternity to preschool, is not common or problematic. If I write on the log to pick up my son, it could track my location. You could argue that is a violation of my civil rights. It would be stupid, but you could. I'll ignore that too.
Whatever. You don't get something to be "irrelevance" simply by calling it that. Writing on the log to pick up your son is not a violation of your civil rights because it represents a narrowly tailored means towards a compelling government objective -- namely, to prevent major crimes, such as kidnapping, child molestation, rape, or human trafficking. On the other hand, if you were required to submit your DNA every time you picked up your son, that would be a violation of your civil rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Another trick. See how you change switching father to switching babies. Its a systematical gimmick. Its about identifying the father. That is the purpose.
Then you and the other posters should quit claiming that the purpose of the DNA test is to prevent the possibility of babies being accidentally switched. Also, if the test is about identifying the father, then again, every male would need to have his DNA on file somewhere so that, you know, we could always identify the father.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Why are you implying I misspelled a word?
I was being facetious, quit being so defensive. When you get defensive about your spelling of "conundrums", it really tempts me to make an observation about someone's burning desire to use that word in a sentence.
Wrong. Child support is about the support of the child, not the income of the parents. If their costs are equal then no money needs to be exchanged. Problem solved. /argument
The cost of the support of the child must be equal between the parents. So, if the child's daycare costs $2000 per month, and his food is another $200 a month, and his clothes are another $50 a month, clearly, it would be unfair to require one parent to pay only $500 per month and the other to shoulder the rest. Which is what is happening now.
Isn't it given that I am the superior being as a man? (No... I'm not serious... lol) But neither did I purport myself to be an 'expert' in the topic with statements that I must be superior because I am a lawyer... I just merely contested the arguments riddled with fallacies and illogical arguments.
As to having been published in a journal... it is far from uncommon for anyone with a professional degree to have written an article or two for a scholarly journal. But I digress... we're getting too far from the issue.
The issue is this:
A man and wife are married. The man trusts his wife completely. She has a child. Years pass. The wife decides to divorce her husband and during the proceedings it is discovered that the child is not biologically related to the man. The man then has to make child support payments, minimally until the child is 18, even though he is not the father.
How do you protect the man? Since the reverse of this simply cannot occur... a man cannot have a child and have the wife think it is hers unknowingly... please don't attempt to reverse it. Ignore non-issues such as cost and DNA database storage.
The husband has no reason to ask for a paternity test at birth, yet is on the hook for child support for a non-biological child if he does not.
There are two possible solutions (paternity testing mandatory in each case):
1. Determine paternity at the time of the divorce, and change the laws to release him completely from having to pay any child support.
2. Determine paternity at the time of the birth.
The end result is basically the same, the non-biological father does not have to pay child support. The difference is how long he potentially has to spend parenting a child that is not his own. Would it not be more fair to the non-biological father to determine paternity at birth?
In terms of what's best for the child, #2 is obviously the better choice. The child will know who the father is from the start, will have the medical knowledge due to genealogy, and likely won't have to suffer a divorce and loss of a father once the **** hits the fan and that husband discovers he was cuckolded. Plus it'll limit the instances of men going postal after years/decades of deception.
But neither did I purport myself to be an 'expert' in the topic with statements that I must be superior because I am a lawyer... I just merely contested the arguments riddled with fallacies and illogical arguments.
I think you, of all people, should not complain about "fallacies" and "illogical arguments". Moreover, as a lawyer, my knowledge of relevant legal issues is indeed superior to that of most lay people. Including yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU
As to having been published in a journal... it is far from uncommon for anyone with a professional degree to have written an article or two for a scholarly journal.
Oh? Do you have a professional degree? Have you ever actually published an article or two in a scholarly journal? No? Then quit talking about things you know nothing about. Much obliged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU
A man and wife are married. The man trusts his wife completely. She has a child. Years pass. The wife decides to divorce her husband and during the proceedings it is discovered that the child is not biologically related to the man. The man then has to make child support payments, minimally until the child is 18, even though he is not the father.
How do you protect the man? Since the reverse of this simply cannot occur... a man cannot have a child and have the wife think it is hers unknowingly... please don't attempt to reverse it. Ignore non-issues such as cost and DNA database storage.
Again -- none of this justifies mandatory testing of everyone, even against the subjects' will. How do you protect people who don't want to be tested? How do you guard against innumerable situations in which additional facts would change your scenario completely? How do you protect the men who did father those children? How do you protect the children that those men fathered with their wives? How do you protect those men's wives? How do you protect the men who may have fathered those children but didn't, but not will become embroiled in a child support proceeding? The problem is, that you fail to see the forest for the trees -- and what you are proposing would create many more problems that it would solve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU
The husband has no reason to ask for a paternity test at birth, yet is on the hook for child support for a non-biological child if he does not.
There are two possible solutions (paternity testing mandatory in each case):
1. Determine paternity at the time of the divorce, and change the laws to release him completely from having to pay any child support.
2. Determine paternity at the time of the birth.
The end result is basically the same, the non-biological father does not have to pay child support. The difference is how long he potentially has to spend parenting a child that is not his own. Would it not be more fair to the non-biological father to determine paternity at birth?
The non-biological father is, presumably, a grown human being who can make his own decisions, without the government stepping in and forcing him to do something to which he is opposed, or requiring him to consent to something he wouldn't otherwise do.
I was being facetious, quit being so defensive. When you get defensive about your spelling of "conundrums", it really tempts me to make an observation about someone's burning desire to use that word in a sentence.
You can be facetitious if you like. Its refreshing.
Again -- none of this justifies mandatory testing of everyone, even against the subjects' will. How do you protect people who don't want to be tested? How do you guard against innumerable situations in which additional facts would change your scenario completely? How do you protect the men who did father those children? How do you protect the children that those men fathered with their wives? How do you protect those men's wives? How do you protect the men who may have fathered those children but didn't, but not will become embroiled in a child support proceeding? The problem is, that you fail to see the forest for the trees -- and what you are proposing would create many more problems that it would solve.
The non-biological father is, presumably, a grown human being who can make his own decisions, without the government stepping in and forcing him to do something to which he is opposed, or requiring him to consent to something he wouldn't otherwise do.
When it really comes down to it... those other potential issues don't have any bearing on the situation. Just because you determine that the presumed father is not the biological father does not mean those issues should not be raised. In fact they should be!
Here's the thing... you wouldn't be forcing men to get the test done. In general... men couldn't care less about what goes on at the hospital as long as there's no physical pain involved. "Stick a q-tip in my cheek? Whatever... takes 2 seconds." All you are doing is taking the woman and the relationship out of the equation and getting to the nitty gritty. Having someone examine their situation in what is really a multi-million dollar expenditure (kid's aren't cheap, consider if you had invested the money instead) is not unreasonable.
When it really comes down to it... those other potential issues don't have any bearing on the situation.
Yes they do. When you make a radical change in the law, you should consider all of its implications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU
Here's the thing... you wouldn't be forcing men to get the test done.
Uhm, yes you would. You can't test paternity without the man's participation. Mandatory testing means people who don't want to be tested will be forced to. And though you are a man, I don't think you are in a position to speak for all of them. My husband certainly would balk at submitting a tissue sample for a non-medical reason.
Okay. Diane had an affair with a coworker but refuses to say who for whatever reason. Who's going to pay the child support? Not Jack, he's angry. The state wants to know where to send the bill. Better get in line to submit your DNA, so they know you're not Johnny's dad.
Unnecessary, since Diane knows who the father is. But, she can't be forced to name him Jack will pay. To bad for him I guess, he bought into the misguided lack of trust argument and did not seek a test at birth and is now on the hook. That is the situation today.
i think in general people do not want to be held accountable for their actions if they can get away with it (notice I said people). However, the law will demand men pay child support for their children after DNA has established the facts (a good thing). The law however will punish a man for not asking for a paternity test at birth (trusting your wife can have consequences). So I guess too bad such men.
I am curious though, what would you say to Diane if she was your friend?
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.
