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.
What is this "presumptive paternity"? I heard about a case down south where a paternity test proved a child was not this man's, but the judge ordered him to pay child support for 18 years. What is that all about???
to answer the OP, no, I see no need for automatic paternity testing. Only relevant in cases where paternity is in doubt and one or both parents want proof.
No man should be required to pay for a child that is not his if he doesn't want to. Many men, however, for love of the woman, will assume responsibility for her children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloRoller
Unfortunately, that's not how real life works. Determining paternity has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you trust your mate. In many cases the husband does not know that he has reason not to trust the wife, yet she has become impregnated by someone other than her husband. She knows that the child was fathered by someone else, but the husband doesn't. So, if he (the husband) is shown to be the father of the child, he and the wife can foot the cost. If the husband is shown not to be the father, the cost of the paternity test should be borne by the biological father, as should the child support cost, unless the husband and wife work out some other mutually acceptable arrangement.
This is modern, California / New England style feminism. For some of these folks, men are just a resource to be used.
That is the problem. The courts have ruled that the faux father is not entitled to repayment of support because it "harms the child" to deprive them of the money. It is not the kids fault you were illegally tagged as the "daddy".
So if some bimbo says its yours, its not, you already signed the papers (because if it is your you do want rights to the child) you A-OK with being screwed out of potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars? Mom did the crime, mom does the time (or in this case repays). The "harms the child" part is so unacceptable in modern law that its dubious legality should stand about 10 seconds of SCOTUS review before being tossed. A child is NOT entitled to having a sugar daddy.
Making paternity tests mandatory is based on an assumption that most women and men don't trust each other and/or aren't capable of having an honest, monogamous relationship...I really don't think this is the case, in fact I haven't met anyone who got pregnant and was unsure about the child's paternity. I certainly wouldn't have to guess if I got pregnant...why should those of us who are faithful, responsible, and honest have to pay for those who aren't?
Making paternity tests mandatory is based on an assumption that most women and men don't trust each other and/or aren't capable of having an honest, monogamous relationship...I really don't think this is the case, in fact I haven't met anyone who got pregnant and was unsure about the child's paternity. I certainly wouldn't have to guess if I got pregnant...why should those of us who are faithful, responsible, and honest have to pay for those who aren't?
I don't agree with mandatory testing since I have a better solution, but I do understand why advocates of mandatory paternity tests want these laws. It's because it takes away the reality of many non-cheating women becoming insulted and probably leave their husband/boyfriend if he even considers wanting a paternity test in the hospital. He will be vilified by her family (and possibly his) for even suggesting a thing. He may lose his family simply because he wants "peace of mind" due to all the madness of people cheating and pinning children on non-biological fathers out there. What women (and male sympathizers) don't realize is that not every woman is innocent and some will pin another man's child on her husband/boyfriend. In this scenario he might be on the hook later to support that child, even if he's proven not to be the father. There are many real life examples of these judges' rulings.
Women need to look at the reality of the current laws and judges' rulings that keep men on the hook even after proven she cheated and he's not to be father, simply because he was the husband, or because he signed a birth certificate. The way the courts are now, I would automatically test every child I had, even if the child was conceived inside of a loving marriage or relationship. It would be devastating to child and non-biological father if paternity fraud was uncovered sooner than later.
Even though I don't think paternity tests should be mandatory for privacy reasons, and I believe men should be able to have the balls to tell women they meet UPFRONT that he will test all children at the hospital, and it has nothing to do with her. I think that's easier for her to accept this when they're nowhere close to having a child, and she can't complain about the test in the future without seeming suspicious since he warned her at the beginning of the relationship.
The easiest solution that will make both sides happy in this debate is to eliminate men's responsibility for child support immediately after he's proven not to be the father. He should also have the ability to sue/prosecute the mother for paternity fraud and sue both mother and biological father for back payments of any child support he has paid up until that date. If we can make men make back payments for as much as 18 years of child support, we should be able to ask the same of women and the biological father for paternity fraud. The man may have hurt feelings, but his financial situation is remedied without some intrusive government mandate.
I don't agree with mandatory testing since I have a better solution, but I do understand why advocates of mandatory paternity tests want these laws. It's because it takes away the reality of many non-cheating women becoming insulted and probably leave their husband/boyfriend if he even considers wanting a paternity test in the hospital. He will be vilified by her family (and possibly his) for even suggesting a thing. He may lose his family simply because he wants "peace of mind" due to all the madness of people cheating and pinning children on non-biological fathers out there. What women (and male sympathizers) don't realize is that not every woman is innocent and some will pin another man's child on her husband/boyfriend. In this scenario he might be on the hook later to support that child, even if he's proven not to be the father. There are many real life examples of these judges' rulings.
This goes back to being a personal problem. Fear of insulting a spouse you cant trust is no justification for putting a burden of paternity testing on others. Have the test done if in doubt and pay for it yourself.
Quote:
Women need to look at the reality of the current laws and judges' rulings that keep men on the hook even after proven she cheated and he's not to be father, simply because he was the husband, or because he signed a birth certificate. The way the courts are now, I would automatically test every child I had, even if the child was conceived inside of a loving marriage or relationship. It would be devastating to child and non-biological father if paternity fraud was uncovered sooner than later.
Why not just change the laws and rulings.
Quote:
Even though I don't think paternity tests should be mandatory for privacy reasons, and I believe men should be able to have the balls to tell women they meet UPFRONT that he will test all children at the hospital, and it has nothing to do with her. I think that's easier for her to accept this when they're nowhere close to having a child, and she can't complain about the test in the future without seeming suspicious since he warned her at the beginning of the relationship.
Problem solved.
Quote:
The easiest solution that will make both sides happy in this debate is to eliminate men's responsibility for child support immediately after he's proven not to be the father. He should also have the ability to sue/prosecute the mother for paternity fraud and sue both mother and biological father for back payments of any child support he has paid up until that date. If we can make men make back payments for as much as 18 years of child support, we should be able to ask the same of women and the biological father for paternity fraud. The man may have hurt feelings, but his financial situation is remedied without some intrusive government mandate
Why don’t we just do away with paternity. Eliminate mens responsibliity completely. Just do away with listing a father on the birth certificate and give children the mothers name. By default the father will not assumed the child’s father, even if you are. If the relationship dosent work you will not be held responsible for the children financially or otherwise but you hold no legal claim to an relationship or parental rights to the child. If the mother cant financially support her children then they can be farmed out like in the Victorian days.
Since you agree with almost everything I said and believe we should change the laws and rulings, I'll just comment on these portions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
This goes back to being a personal problem. Fear of insulting a spouse you cant trust is no justification for putting a burden of paternity testing on others. Have the test done if in doubt and pay for it yourself.
Your point of him having the test done and paid for himself is well taken and I agree with it, along with my suggestion of changing the laws to allow him to sue for paternity fraud against the mother, and back child support against the mother and real biological father, if he trusted his spouse blindly and didn't test early in the child's life.
I didn't say the hypothetical man in this example didn't trust his spouse. The man could want peace of mind due to seeing others in society being fooled by women they trusted completely and not finding out until some genetic testing is needed for disease or for a divorce / custody / support situation later on. If too much time passes and/or he signs a birth certificate, he is on the hook as the father. That's just as unfair as a man divorcing a woman and taking alimony after fooling a woman for years that she was the only one even though he had another woman/family elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Why don’t we just do away with paternity. Eliminate mens responsibliity completely. Just do away with listing a father on the birth certificate and give children the mothers name. By default the father will not assumed the child’s father, even if you are. If the relationship dosent work you will not be held responsible for the children financially or otherwise but you hold no legal claim to an relationship or parental rights to the child. If the mother cant financially support her children then they can be farmed out like in the Victorian days.
I'm not sure why you made this suggestion. Was it as a result of something I said that you disagreed with? I thought my solution was pretty fair to both parties. If a man is fooled, he should have legal recourse later from the mother and the true biological father instead of being on the hook. The child also wins by learning of the existence of his or her real father. How does this fair compromise warrant such a sarcastic response?
Since you agree with almost everything I said and believe we should change the laws and rulings, I'll just comment on these portions.
Your point of him having the test done and paid for himself is well taken and I agree with it, along with my suggestion of changing the laws to allow him to sue for paternity fraud against the mother, and back child support against the mother and real biological father, if he trusted his spouse blindly and didn't test early in the child's life.
In other matters we are not compensated for being fooled.
If the laws are changed there would be no need for suing for paternity fraud or reimbursement for child support. At any time a man feels the need for a paternity test and that test shows he is not the biological father, he should cease to pay or have never paid to begin with. The point at which he seeks the test is on him.
Quote:
I didn't say the hypothetical man in this example didn't trust his spouse. The man could want peace of mind due to seeing others in society being fooled by women they trusted completely and not finding out until some genetic testing is needed for disease or for a divorce / custody / support situation later on. If too much time passes and/or he signs a birth certificate, he is on the hook as the father. That's just as unfair as a man divorcing a woman and taking alimony after fooling a woman for years that she was the only one even though he had another woman/family elsewhere.
That is mistrust. One should have peace of mind that their spouse is faithful. If you do not it is mistrust regardless of what is going on in a random strangers relationship.
Yes it is unfair. Many aspects of relationships are unfair. In the example you gave, should the woman be financially compensated by her ex and his other family for being deceived or should the divorce and alimony laws that she was aware of be upheld.
Change some laws where a man does not have to pay additional support once he is found not to be the biological father and relieve him of any further responsibility or rights to the child as well. But compensation? We are not normally compensated for being fooled by others, by making bad choices or not taking steps to protect ourselves, why should anyone be in this case.
Quote:
I'm not sure why you made this suggestion. Was it as a result of something I said that you disagreed with? I thought my solution was pretty fair to both parties. If a man is fooled, he should have legal recourse later from the mother and the true biological father instead of being on the hook. The child also wins by learning of the existence of his or her real father. How does this fair compromise warrant such a sarcastic response?
It seems that so many men are concerned that thier SO is going to decieve them and they will end up being a father to a child that is not his biologically. Moreso they are worried that they will be out money that will benefit this child. Many men are also taken aback by the thought of paying CS for their biological children. So why not just take this out of the equation. Any children born will be the sole responsibility of the mother. No man will ever have to worry about being a father to a child that does not carry his DNA, no man will ever have to worry about paying for the care of a child that does not carry his DNA because paternity will not be an issue. At the same time this will be cause for women to be more responsible when bringing a child into the world.
Now if a man wants to be a father and agrees to the responsibility that is involved a contract can be drawn up verifying paternity and assigning him financial responsiblity and parental rights.
This seem as much an agreeable solution than searching out the biologcial father, prosecuting him and the mother under criminal fraud, which may likely land one or both in jail, putting the child in foster care. Not to mention possibly destroying another family. If you think a child finding out the father he has known for 10 years is no longer his father but some stranger with another family that will never be anything to him except a small child support check is a positive thing, you might want to let that sink in a minute.
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.
