Germany could ban secret paternity tests by fathers

[Turley]

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1422595,00.html

Brief article in English describing the move by SPD to illegalize paternity tests by fathers without the mother's consent.

Some background:

*Experts say one in ten German children have a misattributed Father, i.e. the assumed Father is not the biological Father.

*Percent of Germans who cheat at some point in marriage (men/women combined) is roughly 72%.

*80% of polled men support legal testing.

Proponents of the move say the child's welfare is paramount and supercedes the "Father's right to know"

Opponents say that women who have cheated are not likely to agree to allow a test since they are 1) being accused of cheating and 2) Could be held liable under German law which legally prohibits fraudulently attributing paternity to the wrong man.

Opponents claim that it is not the child's welfare which is being protected (one assumes the child also deserves to know the truth) but rather the rights of cheating-hearts wives who are not only given more protection, but are also actually emboldened to carry on affairs and/or get pregnant by "preferred" extra-marital sperm donors. Husbands would be left with no choice but to raise and pay for the kid who looks just like the mailman.

So what say ye DUer's? Should men be able to have peace of mind without having to ask her permission? Or do legal DNA tests pose more of a risk to marriages and children's well-being?

P.S. I'm male. And I'm pro-testing.

[LiberalVoice]

1. Absolutly pro-testing...

You better believe that if I suspect my wife of cheating in a country where "one in ten German children have a misattributed Father" that I expect to know the truth.

[Kellanved]

2. Pardon?

In what state is a marriage, when the man feels the need to do secret tests without the wife and children knowing?
What relation does such a man have to his kids?

It is just a huge parasitic business living on ruined marriages and offering a product of questionable legal and scientific significance.


Sorry, but IMHO secret Gene screenings without the consent of the tested and/or all legal custodians is not only infringing on the basic right for human dignity, but also the status of the family.

And lets not forget: the legal and traditional rule is: once you have accepted a child, it's yours. No matter what.

[forgethell]

4. So you are saying that

if you were fool enough to trust another human being who betrayed you, then if you find out aboaut it later you are stuck?? Screw that!!

[Kellanved]

5. We are talking about secret tests

So you want to betray someone else just to find out whatever or not she betrayed you?

[forgethell]

6. I'm willing to go

with non-secret tests that only require the consent of the father to do. Fair enough??

[Kellanved]

16. there is a proper way to do it

Using a respected institute and consent of the child's custodian(s). If the father has no child custody, then he is by no means allowed to literally steal the gene sample from the (yes, most birth certificates indeed are correct) child.
Without consent, a court has to decide.

The behind-everybody's-back way says more about the character of the man doing the testing, than about the mother's.

[Turley]

18. Yeah right

If she knows (or thinks) the test will prove that 1) she cheated and/or 2) the husband is no longer to be considered a guaranteed source of financial support for 18 years, just how many "guilty" women do you think will voluntarily allow the exam?

Come on, get a clue here.

[Kellanved]

19. Oh please

1) Educated Guess: the man is far more likely to cheat than the woman.
2) a private test has no influence whatsoever on family support payments

I stand to my earlier statement: it is Paranoia, plain and simple. Paranoia used by shady laboratories to make money in a clearly unconstitutional way.

[forgethell]

21. Statistics mean nothing

in an individual case. And what does Germany have to do with the Constitution?

[Kellanved]

27. it happens to have one.

n/t

[forgethell]

28. And what clause

make it "unconstitutional"?

[Kellanved]

30. article one

Human Dignity.

[forgethell]

31. I'd say that is open to interpretation.

There is nothing dignified about shelling out money for a kid that IS NOT YOURS.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Kellanved]

32. I can agree to that

:toast:

[Turley]

53. More than educated guess

Last survey I read in Germany was males 75%, Females 65%. I don't know if that qualifies as "far more likely" in your book but if 65% of married women admit to engaging in infidelity, that's plenty of chances to get preggers with somebody else's kid.

I'd really like to ask you something Kel. Let's say you go off on a four week skiing holiday. During that time your wife back home somehow gets pregnant. Nine months later she gives birth to a child of a different race than whatever you happen to be (Asian, Black, whatever).

So it's pretty obvious but she swears it's yours and expects you to love the little booger and plan your life both personnally and financially around raising this kid.

So what are you gonna do Kel? You gonna shrug your shoulders (like you expect everyone else to) and raise the kid? Love it? Cherish it? Pay for it?

[Turley]

68. Feigling?

You don't answer the tough questions do you Kel? It's all just paranoia and money as far as you're concerned.

If it's unconstitutional for someone to analyze a hair he found in his own house to see if his DNA just happens to be in it, I'd like to see you prove it in court.

Like it or not Kel, people cheat and lie. Women do it just like men do. The SPD can pass their little law if they want but they're just putting another nail in the coffin. They are backing a law which 80 FUCKING PERCENT of every male respondant in Germany opposes. Not really clever if you think about it.

This is just like abortionin reverse. You can illegalize it, but it'll just go underground. It won't be two weeks before all those labs open offshore and all it will take is a hair or cheek swab in an envelope to to the Canary islands and doubting Fathers will get the very same result. And Gerd can go stuff it.

[Kellanved]

70. You really don't see the problem, do you?

Yeah, people cheat. The cheating has nothing to do with it, the problem is doing a test without consent of those tested. And, as a side-effect, seeing dozens of ads and posters in the subway each morning, posted by private labs without the know-how to do such tests properly.

Ask those men whatever or not they support anonymous analysis of any (their) gene material for unstated purposes by private enterprises and/or the police - I don't see that 80% would answer the question that way, if it were asked the right way.

And sorry: I did not start bringing cheating and money up.

[Turley]

84. You apparently don't see a lot of problems

You have a big problem with a minority child being tested without his/her knowledge. Apparently it doesn't occur to you that it might just be a bigger problem for a child to be forced to LIVE A LIE by a mother with few scruples. Indeed, for an entire family to be forced to LIVE A LIE. Apparently it doesn't occur to you that what looks to the father like an obvious kuckuckskind is not going to get the same level of love and support as a child that he knows is his own. That child is going to suffer because of the father's doubt, whether or not that doubt is reasonably founded.

And what about those among the tens of thousands of kuckuckskinder who find out about their Mommy's lie later in life, when perhaps they can look at their own blood type and put two and two together? What about the crushing blow they suffer then? Ah, I suppose it's not that important by the time they're teenagers, eh? By that time they've had the financial support of a legally mandated sugar-daddy. That's the important thing, eh kel?

The truth, which used to be a liberal ideal, is no longer important. What is important is protecting the kiddies from the fact that there may be uncomfortable untruths in their life. We certainly can't let the kids know that things just aren't as they seem now can we?

BTW, feel free to point out to me which lab in Germany is carrying out this work in an unqualified manner. That's the first time I've heard that story.

[GumboYaYa]

69. LMAO

"The man is far more likely to cheat than the woman."

With whom will the man be cheating? It takes two to tango. Do the math.

[ChairOne]

76. An unmarried woman?

Dunno what the relevant stats are tho....

[GumboYaYa]

81. Most research shows that men and women cheat at almost the

rates. Admittedly, the numbers of people who actually would confess their cheating to researchers versus those who do cheat may be drastically different, so the research should be looked at skeptically. Nevertheless, most marriage counselors will also tell you that women and men cheat at about the same rates. There are just not enough single women in the world to handle all those cheating men.

Personally, I think that saying men are more likely to cheat than women is buying into a Victorian view of sexuality that is oppresive to women. It is the whole notion that women don't enjoy sex and aren't sexual beings.

Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. As far as testing a person's DNA, no one should be allowed to do that without the consent of the person being tested. There is too much information in DNA to let secret tests occur. When the person being tested is a child, then the child's guardians or parents should have to consent. Secret DNA tests scare the hell out of me. Not to mention the fact that we have enough children living in poverty now. I'll take the kids' side in this argument, even if a few men have to get put upon to pay child support for someone else's kids. There are worse things in life than making sure a kid has food on the table and a roof over her/his head.

[Turley]

86. Are you really taking the child's side?

If you were a kid, what would you rather have....a guy who paid the bills but didn't pay much attention to you (because he thinks you're not his), or maybe single Mom and a biological Dad who you could at least identify even if he didn't live with you?

You think the choice is so obviously the former? I'm not so sure.

[GumboYaYa]

118. No one is saying the child can't have DNA testing done

if the child wants to do so. You set up a false dichotomy.

[Turley]

120. That's not the point

The point is whether it is really in the child's best interest to have a "paying" father who may or may not show the child appropriate affection because of reasonable doubts of paternity.

Is that really the best situation for the child?

[GumboYaYa]

126. How is tha resolved by letting the father out of any parental

responsibility? Do you think that the natural father will just jump up to love, protect and foster the child?

Again it is a false dichotomy. Just b/c one putative father gets out of responsibility does not mean the real father steps into it. Proving one is not the father does not prove who the father is. In many cases the child will have no "paying" father and no real father in its life.

To me it is as much a privacy issue as anything. How would you feel if it was the federal government taking DNA samples without consent and storing people's biological information? The same privacy rights are implicated regardless of who the taker is. I'm so sick of people not recognizing that children have rights too.

[Turley]

130. Once again

Why do you assume that a Cuckolded husband is going to be the best person to be around the child when that child is the very evidence of his cuckoldry?

Does it not occur to you that sometimes divorce is the very best solution for all involved if it is a dysfunctional marriage?

[GumboYaYa]

135. Fine, I'm not talking about emotional support; I am talking

about financial support. Let the parents get divorced. There are certainly worse things. Hell if anyone knows that I do; both my parents married and divorced multiple times. Just don't let that be an excuse for getting out of the financial obligation to children of the marriage. The child didn't cheat and the child didn't choose to marry a cheater.

I would go so far as to say that even men in a marriage who prove that they are not the biological father should remain finacially liable to children of the marriage unless the real father is proven and made to accept that responsibility. Marriage after all is a choice for the husband, whereas birth is not a choice for the child.

If a man does not have the strength of character to put the innocence of a child above his own broken ego so that he is able to express affection for the child, so be it. (Admittedly that is hard for me to undersatans as all children desrve love and compassion.) We can't always fix bad character. We can at least make sure the child doesn't have to go without food and shelter b/c it was born into a dysfunctional marriage.

[Xithras]

94. A man should NEVER have to pay for kids that aren't his

That's forced servitude, pure and simple, and is really no different than sending someone to prison for a crime they did not commit.

Think about it, how would you feel if you were FORCED, under threat of imprisonment, to work 4 hours a day for twenty years as an unpaid laborer to support some random person simply because some do-gooders decided that the person was "deserving". When you force someone to pay child support...half their income in many cases...to support a child that isn't theirs, you're doing just that.

[GumboYaYa]

119. So you don't pay any taxes?

[JVS]

121. So you're saying that paying taxes is the same as consenting to raise kids

that aren't yours?

[GumboYaYa]

125. No, I'm saying that making payments required by law is not

forced servitude. I think you may be being slightly overdramatic on that point.

[Xithras]

148. That's a completely disingenuous argument

Paying taxes isn't slavery because those tax rates are set by people that we elect and control. If our elected officials slap us with punitive tax rates that we cannot afford to pay, we can throw them out of office and replace them with more reasonable governance. We as a society have decided to share the burden and cost of running our nation with some semblance of equality.

Being forced to work without compensation to support a child that isn't yours IS slavery because you have very little recourse once a judge saddles you with paternity. You are being ordered by one person to give up a large portion of your life to support another human being financially under the penalty of imprisonment, social disgrace (deadbeat dad accusations), job loss, and all kinds of other nasty forms of coercion.

IMO, this is one of the few situations where violence is justified. There is no difference in my book between a southern slave owner and a woman forcing false paternity on a man, and they both deserve the same treatment.

[GumboYaYa]

155. Are we not able to elect officials to change the laws on child

support and obligations to children? Family laws are set by people we elect and control. Virtually all state judges are elected not appointed for life. Moreover, legislatures pass the family laws the judges enforce. Certainly if we can oust legislators b/c we disagree with the tax laws they pass we can also oust them b/c we diasgree with the family laws they pass. Your own argument undermines the hysterical point you are trying to make.

[Xithras]

175. So you're saying that slavery is OK if the voters "approve" it?

Sorry, but there is a difference between sharing the burden of modern society with the rest of society, and arbitrarily having your freedom taken away so that you are placed in forced servitude for another.

Besides, there is this interesting concept called HUMAN RIGHTS, reinforced by the US Constitution, which says that involuntary servitude is wrong and illegal in this country and most others. Any law, approved by the voters or not, which infringes on those rights are by definition unconstitutional and should be unenforceable.

Think about it, what is being advocated here basically boils down to this argument: "The State has decided that Citizen A is more deserving than Citizen B, therefore Citizen B should become the slave of Citizen A". I don't care what pretty picture you paint on it, that situation is NEVER acceptable.

[GumboYaYa]

178. Let's clear one thing up real fast here.

Having part of your pay from a job of your choosing taken to pay an obligation created by law is not slavery. As much as you poor put upon cuckholded men may want it to be; it is not. By calling it slavery you are trying to marginalize any disagreement by hiding behind the supposed moral superiority of being anti-slavery wheras other smust approve slavery. That's nonsense.

Slavery is when someone exercises ownership over a person. That means they tell you where to live, where to work, and control virtually every aspect of your personhood. ONCE AGAIN, paying child support is not slavery.

Of course I don't think that people can vote to create slavery. That's why we have the Thirteenth Amendment. Don't throw anymore of that stupid shit at me b/c it ain't gonna fly. Under your logic, I'm enslaved b/c I pay property taxes to a school district where I have no kids attending.

What this boils down to is a question of the father's rights versus the interests of the child. The father chose to get married. Getting married implicates a myriad of laws, including the laws of child support with respect to children of the marriage. It is not slavey to voluntarily subject yourself to a set of laws and then to have to live with the impact of those laws. If you don't want to be subject to paying support for a child of the marriage; don't get married.

The child did not chose to be born. Given the option of protecting the child's interest versus the putative father, I pick the child, unless there is a biological father who can and will support the child and then the cuckholded husband should be able to deny paternity.

[Xithras]

184. But it IS slavery

Money = Life. If you take $25 from me, you're not simply taking money, you're taking the hour of my life that I spent earning it. That $25 is merely a transferable form of my labor, and by forcibly taking it you are stealing an hour of my life by depriving me of compensation for my work. If you forcibly take half of my income, then you are forcing me to work half time without compensation under threat of punishment or imprisonment...that is the very definition of slavery.

But without even getting into that, your own argument betrays your point. You wrote: "a question of the father's rights versus the interests of the child", but we're NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. I firmly believe that a parent SHOULD have to care for their children because they personally created that expense. In terms that jive with my money argument above, a parent isn't enslaved to their child, they are paying off a "debt" that they willingly took on by choosing to procreate.

But we're talking about people who DID NOT choose to procreate, so the term "fathers rights" is totally inapplicable. We are talking about forcing one citizen to support another citizen without any parent/child relationship existing between the two. If there is no ongoing relationship and no biological link, we aren't talking about defining the terms of responsibility between a parent and child, but instead the right of the state to oppress one individual for the benefit of another. The fact that the law currently permits this doesn't make it acceptable, but instead indicates a need to immediately correct the law.

I don't disagree that children need to be supported, but if there is no parent capable of supporting them the burden of doing so should be shared by all of society rather than be foisted off on one unrelated (and sometimes completely innocent and unknowing) individual.

[GumboYaYa]

185. My point is that the husband took on that obligation when he got

married. That is part of the laws one accepts when he gets married.

I'm sorry, but taking someone's money is not the same as taking their freedom. Equating the payment of child support with slavery is offensive to people who have actually suffered slavery or who are descended from slaves. They simply are not the same. Laws of garnishment only allow a certain percentage of a person's salary to be taken to pay support. Even if you have a support obligation, you can change jobs, quit your job, move to another state, etc. Slaves had none of those freedoms.

Maybe I should have said husband's rights, but that does not undermine my argument. A husband has rights and OBLIGATIONS. He chose to accept those OBLIGATIONS when he gets married. One obligation is to support children of the marriage. The husband willingly took on that obligation when he got married.

I know it must suck for a man to be stuck with supporting a kid that he did not father, but hey he picked the wench to marry...bad choice...he has live with it.

[Xithras]

189. You need to look up child support laws

I have a good friend who is paying 60% of his salary to child support right now because his wife left him for another man and took the kids. He doesn't complain about it because they're his kids, but the point still stands that child support rates can be, and often are, extremely punitive.

As for your right to quit, I hate to tell you this but it doesn't exist. When that same good friend lost his job last year the state took him to court and threatened him with jailtime if he didn't get reemployed again. His pleas about the lousy job market fell on deaf ears.

You see, in many states (including California) the state pays the mother the money out of taxpayer funds and the father is sued for support to compensate the state. When payments aren't made...for any reason...the state aggressively pursues the nonpayers and has no qualms about punishing or even imprisoning them. There is NO freedom to "quit" if you're sued for support in any of these states.

But as I posted in your other thread, I still disagree with your basic point. A man simply cannot be expected to adhere to his contractual obligations when the matrimonial contract was destroyed by the WIFE. He agreed to the obligation of raising the children of the marriage under the terms that he be given exclusive rights to father those children. When she violates the terms of the obligation, it becomes null. Basic contract law.

[GumboYaYa]

196. I agree that imprisonment for nonpayment is not the solution.

It is self-defeating. How can the child be supported when the parent is in prison? This is really a different problem that stems from the number of people who ignore their support obligations. A lot of innocent people have suffered b/c of a draconian reaction to try to stop the true dead beat parents (of which there are quite a large number).

It is a different issue than a policy decision to make husbands responsible for children of the marriage. I'm sorry, but that is not slavery. It is an obligation one chooses when they get married.

[IntravenousDemilo]

201. How is a child fathered by someone else...

a "child OF the marriage"? This is not logical. It's not a "child OF the marriage" unless the child is a product of BOTH halves of the marriage; or unless it's acknowledged that the father is someone other than the husband, but the husband legally adopts the child; or unless the child is just plain adopted and both parents have thus legally accepted responsibility for its upbringing.

[JVS]

204. Exactly, it is a child from outside of the marriage

[JVS]

171. Also inequality of effect

Everyone pays taxes, so it isn't a hardship particular to an individual.

Being saddled with an false paternity claim causes a person to be burdened to a much greater degree. To a degree that other people who are not the parent don't have to suffer

[GumboYaYa]

181. Not true.

Not everyone pays taxes and not everyone pays taxes at the same rates. Are you arguing for a flat tax? That is the oly way your point makes any sense.

Even then, every person who chooses to get married has an obligation of support to the children of that mariiage. People know that when they get married. If you choose to get married knowing that obligation exists, then you have assumed that obligation. It's like a contract. If I enter into a contract to buy something I can't get out of it later when the bill comes due.

[JVS]

183. A child of infidelity is not a child belonging to that marriage.

the marriage has been breached

I don't quite understand your view of taxes. Progressive taxation does not change the fact that all are subject to the same rules. Taxation doesn't apply to this issue, neither does slavery. What does apply here is that the court is making you responsible for something over which you had no control. The child was the result of decisions outside of your control. I find the idea of penalzing someone for something that they didn't do to be offensive. To add insult to injury the not only is the person paying for something that they had no hand in creating, but that very likely the creation of this child done by the spouse and another was an act of contempt towards the person.

[GumboYaYa]

193. The decision to get married is in your control.

If you make that decision you accept all that goes along with it. Everyone who gets married (a choice)is also subject to that rule, even though it has a different impact on different people, much like taxes.

[Xithras]

186. But the marriage contract has clauses

Look, I'm about as liberal as they come and have an extremely liberal marriage as a result...wife is bi and has an ongoing relationship with another woman, I have no problem with that. Still, there are certain assumptions that go along with the marriage contract. It is true that I agree to support any children brought into the marriage, but she in turn agreed to NOT HAVE CHILDREN BY ANYBODY ELSE. Even in relationships like mine that do not enforce sexual exclusivity there is an assumption of reproductive exclusivity...it's really one of the main reasons we get married.

If a woman in a relationship, even a marriage, has a child fathered by a man outside of that relationship, then she has violated the basic terms that the relationship is founded on. Surely you aren't saying that the woman is free to violate the contract at will, but that the man must be held to it at any price?

By the way, I don't want you to think that I'm arguing this out of spite or because I'm a dick, I actually have a personal experience with this sort of thing. When I was 16 my 15 year old girlfriend got pregnant. She was sent away to live with her mom and I heard nothing from her for four years. Out of the blue one day I found myself served with child support papers for a kid I'd never even seen, who's mother had never even named me on the birth certificate (her certificate said "Father Unknown"). One look at the kid, however, and I knew she wasn't mine...mom had blonde hair and green eyes, I'm a blue eyed redhead, and the girl had brown hair and brown eyes. Still, my ex insisted that I was the father until a paternity test finally proved my position by indicating otherwise.

I was ONLY spared the fate of the guys in these stories because my ex put Father Unknown on the birth certificate. Had she put my name on there I'd have been SOL under current laws and would probably still be paying child support today.

[GumboYaYa]

191. My understanding is that in most states there is a

presumption of paternity only in the case of children born into a marriage. Otherwise the mother must prove paternity to seek support.

We are not talking about your situation here. We are talking about married couples. People chose to avail themselves of a set of laws when they get married, including the laws of child support and the presumption of paternity. Absent a prenuptial agreement there is no such thing as an actual contract of marrriage. Nowhere is there any agreement not to have children by anyone else other than the committment between the spouses.. The "marriage contract" as people refer to it is actually the set of supplative state laws that define the rights and obligation of married people. It is this set of rights and obligations that gays aspire to access.

When one choses to marry he accept all of those laws except as may be deviated by a prenuptial agreement signed by the couple. I presume that one could agree in a prenup that the husband would not have any support obligations for children of other men. Absent that agreement, one does in fact agree to pay for the children of others born into the marriage.

I acknowledge taht there is some fundamental unfairness here. It is a policy decision that choses the inttereste of the child over the rights of the husband. I agree with that choice b/c the husband chose to get married but the child did not choose to be born.

[Xithras]

200. We're obviously not convincing each other, so I'll leave off with this

Our current situation exists because people existing in an era before paternity testing established a set of laws based on previously existing moral codes. The problem is that these laws were also created in an environment where couples could sue for divorce on the basis of infidelity, and an infidelity based divorce gave the husband the opportunity to argue against his own paternity and a way out if he was cuckolded into fatherhood. When most states changed their divorce laws a few decades ago an eliminated infidelity as valid grounds for divorce, they also unintentionally eliminated the ability of the husband to argue that the child was a product of that infidelity and not his responsibility.

Yes, marriage does currently mean accepting the laws that create this fundamental unfairness, but the fact that something is legal doesn't make it right, and there are many legal things that shouldn't be. This is one of those situations...the current state of the law SHOULD be changed to reflect modern technology.

Any time a "parent" is charged with the support of any child, the option should exist to have paternity scientifically established. If tests indicate that paternity does not exist, then the law should prohibit the state from seeking compensation from the man. The woman at that point would have the responsibility to identify other possible fathers and request paternity testing for them, if needed.

Under no circumstances should any man have to support a child that is not his own. It may be the law now, but it needs to be changed. Let's get this straight...there is NO SUCH THING as a fatherless child. Every child is conceived though the sexual union of a man and woman, and the responsibility of the state should simply be to ensure that the biological father is the one required to pay the child's support.

[GumboYaYa]

202. Again, it is a policy decision with no perfect answer.

We have to just agree to disagree on this.

I said it before and I stand by it; even if DNA testing proves beyond doubt that a husband is not the father of the child, the husband should have to pay support for the child born into his marriage unless there is a biological father who can do the same.

I have said it ten times today, but I feel that way b/c the husband chose to get married but the child did not choose to be born. The husband gets royally screwed in that situation, but it just seems like the lesser of two evils to me.

Don't think I don't recognize what a bad situation it is for the husband. I just focus more on the poor child with no father and a single mother trying to get by. I'm sure the fact that I spent my youth struggling to survive with my single mother colors my view on this. I know what it is like to skip meals and would not wish that on any child.

Peace!

[forgethell]

20. If the father is supporting the child

and has reason to suspect that he is not the father, he should be able to get the test WITHOUT the consent of the cheating-heart who is literally STEALING his money.

I agree a court should make the order, but it should be automatic upon presentation of a petition. Women have been known to lie.

[Kellanved]

23. again ,that is not the way it works

The kid is stealing no money, and the child's protection has legally a higher standing than the father's ego.
At least we men are known to be unable to articulate falsehoods.

[forgethell]

25. The child is not

entitled to support from a man with no relation to him. It's not about ego, it's about a lying cheat who is stealing money from someone. The child IS entitled to support from his biological father only.

What is so hard to understand about the concept??:eyes:

[curse10]

83. technically the child is entitled to support, biological relationship or

not. That's the law in most US states. If a child is born of the marriage then the father is legally obligated (and I would hope morally obligated) to that child. If the child is born out of wedlock then a paternity test may be done.

I clerked with a judge in a family court in Massachusetts. There was a gentleman who had gotten divorced and discovered he wasn't the biological father of his three children. But he didn't whine and snot about money being stolen from him. Instead he won custody of the children and had the record sealed so the children wouldn't discover their mother's deception. Fatherhood is more than biology.

[Turley]

87. Fatherhood is more than biology

Sounds mighty high-minded and all, but don't you think being a Father to the children of some absent fence-jumper is a voluntary decision? Are you saying the Gov't should mandate that men must act as Fathers to children they did not sire? That sounds like a really slippery slope.

[curse10]

89. they already have- and it isn't a slippery slope

most likely the biological father has no clue so labeling him "some absent fence-jumper" is not only unfair, it's likely untrue. And it's not like we are talking about out of wedlock children. They are subject to paternity tests.

And honestly, if some man is such a low-life that he wouldn't pay child support for a child that he has known as his own for its whole life then that man deserves to be inconvenienced for being the slimeball that he is.

Even biological non-custodial parents (father or mother) think they shouldn't have to pay child support. And I was happy to say that I happily wrote out the capiases that sent those slimeballs to jail.

When a child is born of marriage paternity is assumed. If you think your wife is cheating on you then get the hell out of the marriage, don't wait for her to end up pregnant with some other guy's kid.

[JVS]

95. Interesting logic

"And honestly, if some man is such a low-life that he wouldn't pay child support for a child that he has known as his own for its whole life then that man deserves to be inconvenienced for being the slimeball that he is."

If somebody resents a penalty for something not their fault, they are scummy and thus deserve the penalty. :eyes:

[curse10]

101. yes, that's exactly what I said

:eyes:

let's think beyond out self centered world. Let's think about the kid, just for a second, please? This kid grows up thinking this guy is the father. The father thinks this kid is his child. A dna test turns that to shit?

That's fucked up. Not my logic.

[JVS]

104. The father would want the test because he DOESN'T think the kid is his

You think that the test is screwing up some kind of good situation, it isn't. The test is resolving a bad situation, namely one filled with mistrust and doubt.

[formernaderite]

161. Sorry, but I think "I" should have say in whether I choose to support...

... a child that is not mine. I don't think the law should coerce me into it, because I was duped in the first place. Funny how people are pro-choice whenever it comes to womens rights, but not mens.

I would personally "probably" continue to support the child, but I should NEVER be forced to.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

91. More than biology

But if I get pregnant again and claim a man fathered those children when he didn't, then that's fraud.

It IS about biology first of all.

[Yupster]

88. Also, most states have a statute of limitations

for when a paternity test can be ordered.

If you accept paternity for a certain number of years, he's yours whether he is or not.

In that case the cheating wife benefits from keeping the lie.

It's truly a messed up legal system.

The worst I ever saw though was on some tv 60 minutes clone show. It was about a California law that says if the state says you're the dad you have so long to respond or you accept the fact. They were highlighting some Mexican immigrant in California who was ordered to pay child support for a child born of a woman he never met. Apparently his name was the same as the one on the birth certificate and the order was sent to him and he didn't respond to it in a timely manner so he had accepted 18 years of child support payments for a random kid. The DA was on explaining that Mr Sanchez (I think I remember that was his name) was not having his pay docked because he was the father of the child, rather it was because he broke the state law requiring him to respond within so many days.

Never heard any more about it. I'm assuming that got taken care of, but who knows with the laws on child support that we have. Maybe he's still paying.

Kind of an interesting way to do it. If an unmarried woman gives birth, just roll the wheel of eligible men and a random man is assigned to pay 18 years of child support.

[curse10]

90. those are rarities and often clerical errors

most people paying child support are doing so correctly. The problem we have in this country are the amount of dead beat parents NOT paying child support.

[Yupster]

107. Most is not good enough

And the state should never order someone to pay child support for a kid that he thought was his but it isn't. But that happens routinely.

[forgethell]

26. That's why a

paternity test is useful.

[sendero]

85. You act as though....

... the real father cannot be made to support the child.

Talk about dignity - if being forced to support a child you didn't father, the result of being cuckolded, is not stripping someone of their dignity then I don't know what is.

[dansolo]

98. If the father has the legal obligation to care for the child

The the father, as the legal guardian, should have the right to take the test if he suspects that the child may not be his. If the father is that supicious of his wife that he feels that a paternity test would be necessary, then it is probably indicative of a failing marriage, but that shouldn't preclude him from the right to have the test done.

[Turley]

108. Indicative of a failing marriage

Maybe, maybe not. There are a myriad of reasons that a husband might suddenly, or over time, suspect that a child is not his own. Many of those reasons may have absolutely nothing to do with a failing marriage.

People cheat plain and simple. It happens all the time and it happens to the best of us. Could be that a husband finds some old love letters and puts two and two together. Or maybe there is a medical situation which suddenly brings the genetic discrepancy to light.

Maybe the husband knows the affair was long ago and wants to keep the family together, but also wants to know the truth. Why do you believe he should be denied the truth?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

60. That would be the best way IMHO. (nt)

[Megawatt]

116. IMO this will happen-

This movement will eventually end up with mandatory DNA test at birth for ALL births as a matter of law. There are just too many cases of paternity fraud coming up in domestic relation court at a time when real harm is done to the parent-child relationship. Now I can't understand how a man could form a bond through parenting a child for several years and then have his feelings for that child change just because he found out it didn't have his DNA - but there are men who are like that.

Paternity fraud is gaining more MSM exposure and men are pushing for more and more rights in this area. In fact I think California just liberalized the time period that a man has to question paternity.

[Turley]

117. "but there are men who are like that."

Does that mean you're not one of them? If your wife splits for the Tennis instructor and you find out your three-year old is actually his, how would you feel about that child. I'd be interested in your response.

[Megawatt]

149. 3 years old - thats easy- by then I would be her father forever

I'm not claiming to be a saint - you know if I found out a 2 week old wasn't mine, assuming the marriage didn't survive I wouldn't be interested in a relationship or paying child support but by the time they are 3 - I would never ever even be interested in a DNA test no matter what the circumstance.

But we probably agree on this subject. I'm pro choice on this issue With more and more examples of irresponsible mothers - I'm in favor of allowing fathers the option of determining paternity through DNA tests and the subsequent denial of child support to the mother unless it is levied against the DNA father. It's just not a choice I would ever exercise myself.

[Turley]

11. Who's betraying whom?

Is the Mother in this case not betraying her own child by not telling him/her who their actual father is?

[Kellanved]

15. Oh so the mother is guilty for the father's paranoia?

I mean just consider: the tester might really be the father.

[Turley]

17. Paranoia?

You apparently can't accept that there may be legitimate reason for doubt among husbands. Let aside that there are some 50 – 70,000 Kuckuckskinder born in Germany yearly. That statistic alone is staggering

There are, however, quite obviously many other reasons why a husband may have reasonable doubt about the paternity of the child. Obvious physical dissimilarities, unlikely blood type, similarity to known lover, etc.

With so many people, male and female, cheating out there I don't understand why you think a doubting husband must necessarily be "paranoid".

[forgethell]

22. If the tester really

is the father, then what is the mother trying to hide by withholding her consent?, Eh?

[Bunny]

29. As a woman, and a mother, if the father of my kids EVER demanded

that I consent to DNA testing, I would refuse. It would send a hearty Fuck You to him, and THAT would be my motive. And I wouldn't be hiding it, either!

Your answer was just a little too pat, eh?

[forgethell]

35. It was meant to be.

But, if I was a man who suspected my wife, then the marriage might not be worth saving after all. And yes, she might just say "Fuck You" to him. that's why her consent shouldn't be required. After all, it's not HER DNA that's being tested for.

Justioce is not served by the wrong man paying for the child. Not for the man, not for the child.

[Bunny]

38. But what if she didn't cheat?

And he forces the test anyway? Doesn't that risk ruining the entire family unit? His concerns, and yes even paranoia in cases, can ruin an entire family, and the wife can do nothing to stop that danger to herself and, more importantly, her children? Where is the justice in that? How is justice served by kids knowing that their own father questions their paternity, and believes their mother to be a tramp?

If the family breaks up, you can be sure he'll be paying for ALL kids that are determined to be his. It all really boils down to money, doesn't it? Justice in dollars and cents, not in the emotional and mental well-being of children, who have no control over their paternity.

[Turley]

41. Think about it real hard Bunny

That's exactly why Fathers want to be able to do the test secretly. That way, if he's wrong, the family doesn't have to know of his suspicions and the family unit doesn't self-destruct. If he's right, he has decisions to make.

[Bunny]

43. But isn't the wife entitled to know that he doesn't trust her?

I believe I have the right to know that, ESPECIALLY if I have not cheated. Then I would have some decisions to make, too. Think about THAT real hard.

[forgethell]

46. Yes, but

all this is a personal problem. The question is, whether he should have the right to have the test done without her consent, which is both a personal and social policy question.

[Jesus H. Christ]

48. It might be nice of him to tell her.

I don't think there should be a law forcing you to tell somebody if you don't trust them.

[Bunny]

49. But how can DNA testing be done on my minor child without my consent?

They can't have their teeth cleaned or their ears pierced without my consent! Yet my husband can get their blood drawn, or cheek swabbed, because he thinks I'm a tramp, and yet I'm not entitled to know this? There's something about this that just isn't right.

[Jesus H. Christ]

50. It's his kid too.

So how about the private investigator? Do you think a woman should be able to hire a PI to follow her husband around if she thinks she's cheating on him?

[Bunny]

52. Sure. Hire a PI. I don't see the two as comparable.

I don't understand what the connection is between having invasive medical procedures done on my children without my consent, and having a PI chase my husband around with a camera. :shrug:

On edit, I wanted to add that I'm leaving my computer now, and don't have access to one at home. So if you respond to me, and I don't get back to you, it's because I'm computerless until tomorrow. This is an interesting subject in many ways, isn't it?

[Turley]

56. "Invasive medical procedure"

It's a freaking cheek-swab with a toungue-depressor. I think you're grasping at straws with that one.

BTW, can also be done with a hair from the kids comb.

[Jesus H. Christ]

57. DNA testing isn't really a medical procedure.

And I thought the whole point of your argument was about doing something behind a spouse's back.

Frankly, I don't see a difference.

[ChairOne]

78. Unless it isn't - LOL /eom

[JVS]

96. It seems that the kid is until proven otherwise

and the problem with this kind of law is it says "Screw your desire to know the truth, that isn't going to happen"

[Turley]

109. It's worse than that

It tells people that it's all that much easier to screw around (and not use a condom) because Daddio isn't allowed to find out who the sperm-donor is.

There are cases of married women gene-shopping (for better looks or intelligence). I personally know of a case (hence my interest in the issue) of a wife who just HAD to have another child, but with the sperm of her old high-school flame. Due to physical dissimilarities, the husband knew right away, paid his 500 Euros, and got the test done within days. If that test were illegal, he would have had no chance against her schemes.

Plain and Simple: If that test is banned it will make infidelity and misattributed paternity easier, and more probable. I'm still trying to figure out how that is a winner for kids.

[LiberalVoice]

74. what kind of logic is that?

So you're saying that the father has no rights over his own child? Thats bullshit.

[Blue Wally]

110. On the contrary

A father can take his child to the dentist to have their teeth cleaned without the presence of the mother. Only one parent is required to authorize medical care. It doesn't have to be the mother.

[Megawatt]

163. The kid can get an abortion without your consent

whats the big deal about his dad sending a piece of his hair from his comb to a lab?

[GumboYaYa]

164. It is a privacy issue. DNA tells all manner of things about a person.

Substitute "federal government" for "Dad" and see how it sounds. No one should have access to such detailed information about a person wthout the person's consent. In the case of minor children the consent should come from informed parents.

[Jesus H. Christ]

168. More nonsense.

DNA fingerprinting of the kind we're discussin here gives no more information of who they are related too.

Furthermore, a father has a right to their childs medical information anyway.

[forgethell]

44. Good point.

I've gotten so emotionally involved in this discussion that I didn't think about it. Thanks.

[MaraJade]

138. The family DOES have an absolute right to know

of his suspicious nature. This speaks to his character.

If I found out that my husband though so very little of me, I'd leave him. I would want to know. If he has so little respect for me and thinks that I am such a no-good person, there is no ffing way I'd want to ever stay with him. No way!

Marriage MUST be built on mutual trust and respect or its foundation is nothing but shifting sand. Period.

[JVS]

199. One question

Would you sue him for support without proving the kid is his?

[forgethell]

42. But what if she DID cheat?

Lot's of things risk ruining the entire family unit. Why was he suspicious, for example. Not all men who think their wife cheated are paranoid.

Look, a man can be forced to submit to DNA testing, so in equity, he should be able to force it.

The man already suspects his wife to be a tramp. The kids will know. DNA testing does not change that.

It all boils down to justice. Money may, or may not, be a part of it. But the best welfare of the kids cannot be achieved without justice between the parents. Oh, and the whole point of this little exercise is that the man thinks that he has no control over the paternity, too.

As they say, honesty is the best policy. Unfortunately, people who have imbibed of the wine of modern feminism don't seem t be able to understand that.

[Bunny]

47. Well, any further discussion of this with you will now cease.

You're last sentence says it all.

And don't kid yourself, money is EVERYTHING here.

[forgethell]

66. OH! Goody!

Can't handle the truth, huh?

And if it's about money for the man, it is equally about money for the scheming, lying woman. It is about justice and honesty.

But best wishes.

[LiberalVoice]

75. You just don't get it.

What does money have to do with wanting to know if the child I am raising is mine? You're ready to throw the blame at the father by saying its about money and it wouldn't be for me...I want to know if that is my son or daughter bottom line...And as a parent providing emotional support to that child I have THE RIGHT TO KNOW.

Your opinions are selfish.

[MaraJade]

128. Agree--

Just imagine how the children would view a father who questioned their
paternity and forced such a test to be performed for nothing. . .

In other words, imagine KNOWING that your father believed your mother to be a whore?

Imagine KNOWING that your father did not believe you
to be who your mother claimed you were, and who was actively seeking
to abandon financial and moral responsibility for you?

Imagine what any kid would think of a father who actually believed these two things only to be proven WRONG by a forced test?

Hear that sound? That high-pitched squeal?

It's the sound of all respect and love for such a man evaporating!

That dude had better remember who will be choosing his nursing home
first, before he decides to force such a rash act on the basis of
mere suspicion.

[Turley]

132. That's exactly why secret tests are advantageous

the child, and the mother do not have to know.

You can pick up a hair from the bedroom floor and compare it's DNA to your own. And no one ever has to know.

If it's your child, the relationship probably gets a lot better since the doubt has evaporated. If it's not, you'll just have to decide what you want to do.

[MaraJade]

136. And that's exactly why secret tests ARE NOT advantageous. . .

Junior is upset, suddenly wondering why mommy and daddy are now fighting, or why daddy is moving out.

Or even more horrifying, junior is wondering why daddy is suddenly so
mean to him, maybe treating him differently than his brother or sister. Mommy and daddy are fighting, and junior blames himself.

Human nature being what it is, you cannot say that the attitude of a man towards the child won't change if he finds out that the child isn't his. Any many men would use something like that as an opportunity to take actions against a child that would be both psychologically and physically damaging.

Nope. Your argument is fulla holes. Sorry.

[Turley]

139. So he should carry on with a crippled relationship?

Because if you think a doubting father doesn't already have a damaged relationship with his child, you're not thinking straight. There might be a few out there who "don't care who's kid it is. But they're few and far between.

[MaraJade]

142. No.

Rather than seeking a way out by hurting an innocent third party
(the child), the husband should do the adult thing and set out to
find out WHY the relationship is crippled. How about an honest,
private discussion with the wife? How about counseling? There a
multitude of alternatives to the taking the potentially devastating
step of testing on mere suspicion.

How about self-examination? Why in the worlds would a man, after
years of marriage, suddenly suspect his own wife?

[Turley]

150. Duh

Because lots of them cheat blatantly, just like many men cheat blatantly? Just a thought.

And why does a secret test have to be devastating? Don't you think it might be "potentially devastating" for the kid to find out on his/her own at a later date? (And don't tell me it doesn't happen).

Don't you think it might be "potentially devastating" to the child to learn they have an hereditary disease at a late stage of development because the doctors didn't know the medical history of its biological parent?

Gee, hope the kid doesn't find out when they're on the table waiting for a bone marrow transplant. THAT would be a bummer, wouldn't it?

If I sat around for a while I guess I could think up a lot more reasons why it could be equally devastating to the child to be FORCED against their will to live a lie, only to discover the crushing truth at a later date when they might just be more vulnerable.

[forgethell]

24. jusst because you're

paranoid, doesn't mean your wife isn't a cheater.

[Megawatt]

162. Then that would fall under the

no harm, no foul protocol.

[Jesus H. Christ]

34. Let's say a woman suspected her husband of cheating.

Should she be allowed to hire a private investigator to check it out?

[forgethell]

36. Yes

why not?

[Jesus H. Christ]

37. Apparently some would consider that

a betrayal.

I haven't got a problem with it.

[forgethell]

39. Neither do I. n/t

[Jesus H. Christ]

40. Well, I was replying to Kellanved.

But thanks for sharing.

[forgethell]

67. Sorry,

but your post was under mine.

I'm always glad to share anything that belongs to me, but especially my opinions.

[Jesus H. Christ]

71. I know my eyes aren't what they used to be...

But if you'll follow that long vertical line I'm pretty sure it goes back up to Kellanved's post.

[forgethell]

72. Yes, but the

line emanating to the left of your reply goes directly to my post entitled, "Yes". Anyway your comment could apply to either, so it really doesn't matter.

Cheers.:toast:

[Kellanved]

45. That's a different matter

Hiring a PI is an option open to man and woman. While no less paranoid in nature, at leasts it's not infringing on the rights of a third person.

[Jesus H. Christ]

58. It's different because it's open to a man and a woman?

So the problem with a father's testing the DNA of a kid is that a woman doesn't have to test in order to know that she's the mother?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

[Kellanved]

62. ridiculous - that sums up this debate nicely

Why do people fail to see that the child has rights as well - secret testing does ignore the child's basic human rights. And in most cases just for one reason : greed driven paranoia.


That is about my only issue.

[Jesus H. Christ]

64. I think that rather succintly sums up your side of the debate anyways.

But I know, I know.

It's hard work. And all that.

[LiberalVoice]

79. Loop holes galore!

Doesn't the child have the right to know who the father is? I mean if the wife is lying to the dad obviously shes lying to the child...And if 65% of women are cheating its quite a bit more then a 50/50 chance that kid could be illegitimate.

[JVS]

63. Mothers can get DNA tests too

We have a TV show based on that here

[Kellanved]

65. so do we

Several actually.

[dansolo]

100. What rights of a third person?

As the legal guardian, the parents have the legal right to make any and all medical decisions for a minor child. A paternity test, which is a non-invasive procedure, should be no different.

[Kellanved]

113. the rights of the tested, of course

You wrote "the parents", that is my point precisely.

These tests can be done by fathers without child custody, strangers, ... they don't ask for credentials.


The existing German Privacy-Protection laws practically demand the proposed law to remain consistent.

[Kellanved]

114. dupe

You wrote "the parents", that is my point precisely.

These tests can be done by fathers without child custody, strangers, ... they don't ask for credentials.


The existing German Privacy-Protection laws practically demand the proposed law to remain consistent.

[Megawatt]

166. Not infringing on the rights of a 3rd person

I would suspect that whoever third party involved in the affair is, would take exception to being photographed, identified etc as being involved with a married lover.

[Turley]

7. Basic right for human dignity indeed

What about the husband's dignity?

Once again, experts say one in ten children are misattributed.

Let's say everyone in my family has jet-black hair. My wife's wealthy boss has flaming red hair. My wife gives birth to a child with flaming red hair and who looks exactly like her wealthy boss and nothing like me.

Are you telling me I don't have the right to check it out? I should just go ahead and pay for the child the rest of my life while the rich lover skates? Should I just spend the rest of my life giving the child some sort of false love even when I have every reason to believe I am not the actual father?


What if I find out she was actually having an affair with him? Why should I pay for his kid?

[HEyHEY]

194. I think if the mother was found to cheat she should be imprisoned

[forgethell]

3. Absolutely.

In my own opinion, the welfare of the child is best served by justice between the parents. which means the biological father should be the child's support.

[Charon]

8. Absolutly

In most states of Union, the legal assumption is that a child born in wedlock is the legal responsiblity of the husband. This even if testing later shows that the child was the biological offspring of another man. A few years ago there was a legal case which made national headlines on this issue. The husband was required by the court to support the child, even though DNA testing proved he was not the father. Unfortunatly, I cannot recall the specifics.

[barb162]

10. I remember the basics as you do but not much more. I don't

really agree with the decision

[Yupster]

12. One of these cases happened near me

in Big Spring Texas.

Faher of three, his wife divorced and moved out to live with her lover. The wife told him the kids weren't his anyway, but were the lover's. The husband had testing and found out two of the three kids were the lover's, not his.

The court ordered him to pay child support for all three kids. He refused.

When I last saw the story in the local paper a few years ago, he was having his pay docked and sent to his wife each month who was living with the real dad and the kids.

One of the grossest stories I had seen, but the judges ruling was that the kids' welfare was the most important, so it was in the kids' best interest that this poor schmuck sent money every month to the woman who cheated on him and the lover she cheated with so he can pay them to raise two kids that weren't his.

[barb162]

13. I sure don't agree with the decision. The biological parents

should be paying for their "breeding"

I can't imagine paying for raising someone else's kid, especially when the two biological parents are still alive and well.

[SemperEadem]

106. well, perhaps mending this could be part of the Marriage Amendment

Ya know... it doesn't have to only be about banning gay marriages ;)

I think adding something like this to the laws would be an extremely interesting seasoning to put into this stew.

[Blue_Tires]

51. i think either parent should be able to get a test themselves

without the other's consent (from a reputable place, of course)...
and about your story in Tejas, I'll do you one better:

about 10 years ago in Virginia there was an interesting paternity case and judgement... Mother was a 19-y/o hood rat (with min. wage job) who fucked EVERYBODY...So much that when the child came out, she actually had to narrow down the list of potential fathers to FOUR(!!!), and took them all to court...The profile of the first three candidates were pretty similar: aged 18-23, spotty employment and criminal records...The fourth candidate was a 34 y/o single male with a pretty decent middle class job (i think he worked for the phone company or something), so guess who the judge ordered to pay for the baby the next 18 years, even though DNA evidence proved him NOT TO BE THE FATHER??? As you can guess, he and his attorney were speechless at the decision.

one of the many reasons I remain childfree

[Kellanved]

54. Explain to me: why would a mother ever do that?

:shrug:

[Turley]

59. She just explained it

I guess you didn't bother to read the post.

Or, Wifey might not know who Daddy is and might have to get a hair sample from Hubby and Loverboy to sort it out.

[Blue_Tires]

99. oh, and I'm a 'he' lol

[Blue_Tires]

61. to find out who the biological father is??

sometimes the true identity is in doubt (as illustrated by my little anecdote)

[Megawatt]

167. I remember that case also

The cuckolded father still loved the kids and wanted to visit them and provide emotional support. He just felt the DNA father who was identified should pay the financial support.

He totally shot down the argument anti-testers have that it's about the emotional support and whats best for the child versus money.

It's always about the money. The courts had a case where the father that raised them wanted an emotional relationship and the father that bred them was available to pay support - and still the court refused to stop screwing over the man.

[ChairOne]

80. I mostly agree with you, but for one thing....

... there is such a status in other areas of law called something like a "de facto situation".

Suppose a case where the kid is not in fact the husband's, and is instead the result of a cheating wife. Suppose the kid is 12 years old when the dad finds out. Up to that time, the kid was raised and paid for and such things in the normal-family way.

This sort of situation, it seems to me, creates a de facto relationship (sorta like a common law marriage, in a way) between the husband and the child. In the presence of such a de facto situation, I would NOT support the father having the right to withdraw from financially supporting the child - regardless of the future status of the married couple's relationship.

On the other hand, if the kid is 12 DAYS old when the husband finds out, I'm more comfortable with letting the dad out financial support (if he so chooses).

As it were, I can imagine a logistic increase in the dad's financial responsibility as being appropriate.

But yah - anyone should be allowed to test for fraud/breach-of-contract type situations. That's a duh. Whether secret or not doesn't seem like a huge deal to me - just so long as the fact can be ascertained in *some* manner.

[JVS]

97. Mandatory paternity testing to establish accurate birth records may be...

the way to go on this then. Then the truth is known from the start. Making it mandatory would prevent the "he doesn't trust me" problem for the family, and it would make it easier for the biological father to be tracked down because there would not be such a long period of time to erode the mother's memory of who the possible candidates are

[HEyHEY]

195. As well as possible circumstances of incest

[JVS]

198. Good point.

[barb162]

9. Facts, facts, facts...I support testing and children should know

and be supported by their biological parents. Why should a person not have the facts about something as important as supporting and raising a child

[Bunny]

14. This is an interesting topic.

There are so many different things going on here.

First, the wife may have been unfaithful, maybe not. If she was, and she knows or strongly believes that a child is not her husband's, how likely is it that she would agree to testing? Not very, if she wants to keep her family together. However, if she did not cheat, and the husband requested testing (for whatever his reasons are), she is quite likely to be greatly offended, and refuse the testing. This may feed into his suspicions that she was cheating after all, but it still doesn't answer the question, does it? Unless he's clinically paranoid, this could put a serious rift in their marriage. Which would endanger all the children in the family unit. Who loses? The kids.

Or, if she didn't cheat, she may be so pissed that she dumps him over it. Or, if she doesn't dump him, it could certainly lead to a serious breach in their marriage. (I know it would with me!) Which would endanger all the children in the family unit. Who loses? The kids.

I am all for making the biological parents pay for their own children. NO person should be compelled to financially support a child that they did not biologically produce. No doubt about that.

But what if the wife made one mistake, sincerely regrets it, and doesn't repeat it. Should the entire family be broken up over it? Any other children who may belong to the husband would also be affected by it, after all.

I guess it all boils down to trust. If the relationship between a husband and wife is such that he feels he has to question his childrens' paternity, then it probably was a relationship in big trouble anyway.

So, I guess I don't have a strong opinion about it either way.

[AngryAmish]

33. In Illinois, test by only 1 parent is illegal

[Xithras]

93. In most of the US, those laws aren't applicable to married couples.

In California, I'd be in deep doodoo if I divorced my wife and then did a DNA test without either her permission because the laws governing shared physical and legal custody pretty uniformly prevent any covered parent from having any medical procedure completed without the other parents permission...whether it's a DNA test or a wart removal.

Unless a judge intervenes, those laws don't apply to married couples. I could take my daughter to get a DNA test or Lasik surgery tomorrow without my wifes permission, and my wife would have no legal recourse. The law makes many assumptions about parents rights in a marriage, and just as a child born in wedlock is legally considered to be the child of the husband, the married parents of that child are both assumed to have full legal rights to make any medical decision for the child.

[Solly Mack]

55. Father and child have a right to know but no secret test. Test openly

Mother should not be charged. Because the charge amounts to nothing more than a "gotcha" for adultery. It's just cloaked.

Do they charge the biological father as well? No one can fully say the actual father didn't know. So isn't he guilty as well?

What about the "legal" father? What's the rule for catching him having sex outside his marriage? He doesn't exactly give birth, so?
Do we just test all the kids in the neighborhood to see where his pecker has been?

I don't agree that a woman should lie about paternity. It's wrong. But I don't agree with charging her either. I think the testing should be done openly.

It's not "what's best for the family" to build it on a lie.

[dummy-du1]

73. They shouldn't be outlawed

These tests are quite useful for fathers, that suspect they're paying alimony for a child, they didn't conceive. The mother isn't charged for anything, it's perfectly legal to cheat your husband in Germany. But if you happen to become pregnant, it's fraudulent to let your regular husband pay for the child - at least without his consent. Of course the woman has the right to get alimony from the biological father instead, if she is willing to name him.

Open tests are always possible, in professional labs for example, but I guess not many fathers will do it openly, because if their suspicions were wrong, their relationship is in danger because of this. It's like a woman hiring a private investigator, if they suspect that their husbands are cheating them. It's true, that relationships have real problems anyway, if those measures seem to be necessary, but I don't think this will change in the near future.

BTW: This new law is a typical German law, that is, it doesn't have any connection to the real life. Of course fathers will still buy tests via the Internet and secretly test their children, if they feel the urge to do that. Some people in Berlin are just feeling like wasting tax money, so don't take them too serious.

[Solly Mack]

77. I didn't say outlaw them..I said make then done openly

their relationship is in danger to begin with if they even harbor those kinds of suspicions. there's absolutely no trust in a relationship where a man is doubting his kids are his kids.

I just gotta vote for openness and honesty. I don't think it fair for men to be lied to about paternity. But I don't think it beneficial to nurse suspicions and then sneak behind someones back...afterall, it's what is driving the men to get the secret test. Someone pulled a fast one them.

[Blue Wally]

112. So...

openess would require a wife to infomr her husband that she is hiring a PI to follow him???

[Solly Mack]

197. Not the same thing

lying about paternity is unfair and just plain wrong

for that matter, hiring a PI to tail your husband because you are too chickenshit to confront him is also wrong..hell, tail him yourself if you want him tailed.

however, tailing your husband isn't in the same league as lying to someone about whether or not it's your child.

[Cleita]

82. So, does this mean that the outted

natural father will be compelled to provide child support? This seems one of these situations where the status quo should be left alone lest a Pandora's box of woes are let loose.

Maybe the mother could leave a letter to her child, only to be opened after her death or another party's death who could be affected, like the natural father or the duped father, explaining who the child really is.

I dunno. I suppose the lie shouldn't be told to begin with, but sometimes exposing the truth after the lies can be even more devastating.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

92. Of course the natural father should pay

Otherwise it's unfair to everyone.

[WillieWoohah]

102. As a counterpoint...

Consider the flipside:

If a man believes that a child being raised by a couple is his (for example, if a woman he was in a relationship broke of a relationship with him and started one with another guy at around the time she became pregnant), do you think that he has a right to demand a test to determine the paternity of a child that he believes to be his?

[Deja Q]

103. I wonder if there's a German show tantamount to 'Maury Povich'?

:shrug:

Not for much longer, methinks...

I am pro-test.

Though I am anti-Maury in terms of his preferred content that does nothing to resolve any of society's problems but makes him richer. (He's a repuke too, I gathered. No shock from me.)

[SemperEadem]

105. wow

I kinda see why the woman went looking for affection from another man... with attitudes like what's been expressed here...

Who'd want to be raised by a man who could turn off his feelings for an innocent child just like flipping a light switch? If I was the child, I'd be better off if I was far away from someone who could turn on me and bite like that.

The child deserves to be where he/she's wanted--and that's away from someone who would kill his/her spirit just to make a point.

[Turley]

115. Quick to blame the man, aren't you

Who'd want to be raised by a man who could turn off his feelings for an innocent child just like flipping a light switch? If I was the child, I'd be better off if I was far away from someone who could turn on me and bite like that.

Who says a man just turns off his feelings? Know anything about basic psychology? Know anything about Depression? You think everyone can just "turn their feelings on and off", just like that? Can you do it?

Ever consider that men can also suffer crushing, debilitating depression due to life-altering events? You ever consider that for just one second?

Oh, I forgot. We're talking about MEN here. "Tough it out old boy. Feelings are for wussies. So the red-haired kid came from the tennis instrutor, so what? How dare you not feel the same about that child as you do about the rest of them. You Cad! You Bastard!"

[MaraJade]

131. Fact is that

any man who would do something like this DOES want to kill the spirit of the child. How can it be anything except "despiriting" to be told
that your mother is a tramp? Something like that is a direct slur and
tarbrush to the child.

Not to mention the possible motivations that would make a man want to
do something like this; namely, wanting to shrug off responsibilities and $$$.

[Jesus H. Christ]

151. I think kids have a right to know who their father is.

And the reason for the secrecy is so that it doesn't have to kill the spirit of the child.

As for calling the mother a tramp, that seems like pretty sexist language to me. Looks like somebody's just fine with the sexist double standard.

[SemperEadem]

180. hey, I'm going by what's been posted in this thread

I really don't care if you don't like what I've said, ya know?

The points you bring up in your post are non sequitur to what I was responding to.

[American Tragedy]

111. Yes, absolutely.

For all of the reasons that others have cited above. If a man has reasonable doubt, compounded by statistics that appear to indicate that most men and women cheat, he should be able to find out the truth.

There should probably be a statute of limitations, however.

[txaslftist]

122. I'm a man, and I'm against.

My peace of mind doesn't trump that kids right to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or that he's not a bastard.

His peace of mind comes first.

[Turley]

123. What if the kid doesn't know who you are?

If he's two months old you're just a blurry figure who smells faintly like cheesburgers.

What if you're sitting at home, giving pseudo-Junior the bottle, and your wife's out at 2 am running around with the real Father? What then?

[txaslftist]

124. Are you saying none of that's on me?

That my wife is running around?

I think it is, first of all. I decided to marry her and bear some responsibility for that decision.

Secondly, the presumption that children born of a married woman are the children of the husband has been in the law for centuries, specifically because there was such a stigma attached to illegitimacy(admittedly the lack of reliable paternity testing methods is also part of the reason for the presumption).

Courts have always recognized that parents aren't perfect and that spouses cheat. They have also recognized that adulterers can't be relied upon for support in the same manner that husbands/presumed fathers can. Even a defective marriage (based on a lie I heard some poster whine above, as if ANY marriage is perfect), will do a better job of raising the child than a divorcee and her erstwhile lover.

Thirdly, no matter how you try to dice it up or talk about the husbands 'right to know' or his 'right to justice', it's the child who suffers when the marriage breaks up. I come from a broken home, and I can tell you its no friggin' picnic.

The child will inevitably blame him/herself for a situation that will make no one happy (except perhaps the husband who is off the hook for support payments). You want the kid to grow up not 'living a lie'?

Tell him when he's old enough to handle the truth.

[Turley]

127. Let's do this again

Using an obviously hypothetical situation.

You have a two month old who looks exactly like the Tennis Pro at the Club and not you. Your wife is sleeping with the Tennis Pro and may or may not be sticking around to live with you. She refuses to entertain the possibility that the child is his. You're home nursing the red-haired kid and she's off sleeping with the other guy.

Are you seriously telling me you're gonna sit around a play Daddy to the kid while she decides who she really wants to be with?

Let's throw a curveball in. Let's suppose she's the sadistic type and really rubs your nose in the fact that she prefers his company to yours. Let's suppose that he's rich and you're just an average Joe with barely enough Dough to get by. She's having fun with the playboy while you're stuck at home doing the dirtywork. And as long as the LAW backs her up, she's gonna keep getting away with it.

You get to thinking you want out of a dysfunctional marriage but the LAW says you have to support HIS kid. If you divorce and find yourself a better mate you're going to have a tough time supporting a new family because the LAW says you still have to pay for the Tennis Pro's kid? What about the rights of your REAL children? How do their rights fit into this? They are completely genetically unrelated to some kid across town but he's getting a big chunk of their college money. What about their rights?

[txaslftist]

129. Then momma and I are gonna split...

but all the kids born during the marriage are MY kids. And, if she's that much of a bitch, I'll likely get full custody.

A privilege.

[MaraJade]

133. Kudos to you. . .

what wonderful, truly MANLY responses. It takes far more to be a father than a sperm donation and putting the child first is what a REAL FATHER would do. REAL FATHERS are REAL MEN.

[Turley]

137. What if the REAL Dad wants custody

You cleaned diapers for two months. Why should YOU have his kid?

OR: what if she marries him a month later and sticks YOU with the bills for 18 years. She's drinking champagne in his condo, driving his Mercedes while YOU are struggling to support maybe a new family and HIS kid is getting YOUR kids' college money.

See, it starts gettin' real tricky when you consider all the possibilities. Real tricky.

So tell me something, while you're driving the Yugo and your kids can barely afford the local community college, are you really sure those tests are so unfair? Especially when HIS kid gets to go to an Ivy League school on the money they invested from your monthly payments?

[MaraJade]

140. Most state laws are

that any child born within the marriage belongs to the parties of the
marriage. The so-called "Real" dad sperm donor has no rights that
any court is bound to respect. And the no-good floosy who abandoned
her family could easily be proven to be an unfit mother (she did abandon the home and leave hubby to care for the child alone, after all, while she catted about town at 2 in the am).

In your hypothetical situation, chances are that the REAL FATHER
would get custody and the tramp would have to pay child support to him. Just what she would deserve!

[txaslftist]

144. You just jumped ahead of the post, Turley.

First of all its about should I be permitted to demand testing. Now its about the REAL FATHER seeking custody. In the original hypothetical you said the mom and the tennis pro were trying to stick me with paternity, now you're saying they want to take the kid away.

Completely different. If they want to try to take the kid away, I would fight them in court, but under the current Biology is destiny theory, I'd probably lose. That would be my loss, but has nothing to do with DNA. Should I lose? I really don't think so. If I've been faithful and raised the kids I have right and if I've been the one changing the diapers, I really think I should have a shot at raising the new child, regardless of his DNA profile.

My earlier rant was not against fathers accepting responsibility. Quite the opposite. A real father takes the children that have been given to him, puts them first, above his own interest in DNA or sperm donation.

The first emphasis should be on providing the child with the best tools to move forward in life, with stability, choices, opportunity and education. Any peripheral concerns about 'whose kid is it?' are exactly that, peripheral.

Exactly why I oppose testing without consent. Because the results don't matter. If life throws you a kid, you raise it. Be a friggin' man and raise it, without ducking it and without question.

[Turley]

154. Be a friggin Man, *chuckle*

or perhaps be a gullible chump and an easy mark?

If the law mandates that men can't protect themselves, and if your "Manly Man" model is happy to always clean up the mess afterwards "without question", then quite logically unscrupulous wives will continue their behavior because they face no negative consequences. You might call it being a "friggin man", I'd call it being a doormat.


The result of fathers having no recourse to prove or disprove paternity will be more behavior which leads to yet more mis-attributed kids in the world.

I suppose you might think it is preferable to have MORE kids who are not biologically related to their mother's husbands, and only half related to their own siblings, but you're gonna have a hard time selling it to me.

[txaslftist]

157. Not a tough sell here...

Beats the crap out of a bunch of kids in broken homes or kids with absent fathers.

Maybe not abandoning a child because he's not mine biologically makes me a 'chump'.

Ok. Head of the chumps here.

[JVS]

177. "Be a friggin' man and raise it"

No. You don't get to define what a man does. You have no right to tell him that it's his place to shut up and pay for a kid that isn't his

[Jacobin]

134. On a visceral level, the biological imperative to

perpetuate one's genes, is a very strong motivating factor in the life of all living creatures, including human beings. Jealousy is not a learned or environmental trait. It was developed over the eons to insure that one's genes were passed on instead of another's. It is a raw emotion and in extreme cases leads to violence when its not controlled through socialization.

On that level, it is disheartening in a very basic way for society to suggest to the half of the union that does not control the egg, that the male must use his life's resources to perpetuate the genes of an interloper. This gives unrestricted license to the female to choose the partner she perpetuates her genes with, while in effect enslaving the male who has to use his life's resources to pay for the perpetuation of the genes of the interloper.

I think it is a bad policy decision, couched, familiarly in "what is best for the children". No one is considering that the children will one day grow up driven to perpetuate their own genes and the male children will be faced with having no way to allocate their life's resources to the perpetuation of their own genes, a strong biological imperative that shouldn't be denied them, IMHO

[Turley]

141. Bravo!!!!

Standing Ovation!!!

Be prepared to hear that you just "don't get it" you chauvinist cad.

[MaraJade]

143. Hogwash!

Unless this is still a civilization of stone-age hunter-gatherers, or something.

You guys need to just admit it. It's all about the money for you.
Period. Any old excuse to abandon responsibility and committment.

Just be honest about that. Be sure to let any woman you partner with or attempt to partner with KNOW UP FRONT that you are suspicious and
will use any excuse you can find to abandon her and any offspring that may appear once you find a "better" use for your "life's resources."

Please, do the world a favor. If you haven't done so already, please
don't reproduce. Get vasectomies. Please.

[Jacobin]

145. I will maintain a civil tone while asking you a question

Why do you denounce the role of nature in making men "suspicious" (clearly not a paranoid delusion given the percentages mentioned in the article) when it is simply what nature has given males to assist them in increasing the odds that their genes will survive and that their lifetime of work will be used for that purpose? Why would you want to give the interloper a free pass on perpetuating his genes?

By the way, I already have four sons, three of which are mine, and all of which I support.

Do you have any other responses than spewing venom, or have you a guilty conscience? (sorry, that was three questions)

[txaslftist]

147. Thanks for speaking up, Brensgrrl!

[Jesus H. Christ]

152. Sounds like it's more about money for the cheating mother.

The testing is about determining the truth.

Seems there's a lot of people out there who are more interested in the money that a father brings in, regardless of whether or not he's the real father. In fact, the only reason that I could think of that a woman would stay with a man that she cheated on and who wasn't the real father, is for the money.

[txaslftist]

160. Wrong again. The money is for the child.

Gotta put the child first. I'm stickin' to that theme.

[Turley]

170. I ask yet again

I have two kids who are mine, and the old lady gets a thrid from some other Dude, and then dumps ME for HIM, why should I have to pay for his kid? I want to spend my money on the best interests of MY kids. Every penny I'm forced to give HIS kid is money stolen from MY kids.

[JVS]

173. Yeah

Seems like it is all about the money when someone doesn't want to pay for kids who aren't theirs, but it's all about the children when someone wants the victim of infidelity to pay for kids that are not his.

[cattleman22]

172. About responisbility.

How does any man have any responsibility at all for a child that is not his own?

[JVS]

174. He doesn't

Beyond the normal duties of taxpaying and not commiting crimes. In short, he is their fellow citizen.

[txaslftist]

146. What 'visceral level' are you talking about?

Are we so primitive that we have to cowtow to 'biological imperatives?" If that was the case, I could justify killing the child because 'he's not mine and I don't want to expend the resources raising him because it will take away from my DNA strand's continuance'.

Are you saying that adoptive parents don't love their children? Or maybe just not as much?

Are you saying that children raised in broken homes with a biological parent are going to fare better in the world than children raised in two parent homes by non-relatives?

By your rationale, is it then, legitimate to ban gay marriage because at least one of the parents will not be a natural parent?

Again we get back to Biology is Destiny, and again, it is horse-puckey. You take the children you are given, whether by fate or by birth or by luck, you raise them up with love and opportunity, and you put them first.

Yes. You put them first. They will be here longer than you will, they haven't had a chance to screw up, and regardless of your feelings on original sin, they are blameless.

[Jesus H. Christ]

153. Homosexuality is natural as well.

And so is adoption.

But then again, so is tricking a male into raising offspring that biologically isn't his.

I'll say again, I think kids have a right to know who their father is.

[txaslftist]

158. You must have run into some TOUGH women, jesus.

Women that will not only cuckold their husbands, but do it deliberately so as to foist upon them the spawn of the tennis pro.

All I can say to that is perhaps a little more discernment when selecting a mate might prove the antidote.

And once again, we are moving away from the original post, which as I understood it, was about 'secret testing'. If you think Mrs. Jesus has deceived you in such an abominable fashion, petition a court for a paternity test.

But before you do that, decide if you want Mr. Tennis to raise Jesus Jr. for you.

[Jacobin]

156. I find it interesting to hear people

pretend that homo sapiens are ascendant over other animals and that they live on a transcendant plane, nevermindful of their biology, claiming to be righteous without regard to their bio-chemical make-up, birds a twittering in the trees, and lions laying down with lambs.

Then I look around and read the newspaper and shake my head.

Lots of lovely gobbledygook there, and doubtless much of what you say is admirable and often true.

Nonetheless, it will be difficult to convince me that there is anything noble in the state requiring a man to support a child that was fathered other than by his significant other, against his will and wishes, and to allow the interloper who provided the seed to escape any responsibility for the offspring.

But, that's just me.

[txaslftist]

159. It's not the nobility of the State...

...but the State's interest. Much better for the state if paternity is established early and definitively, both in the area of welfare benefits as well as legal rights of parents. Also better for the state in terms of lines of property distribution. Also better for the state because the state doesn't want to support a bunch of homeless children tossed out because the father only wanted kids of his bloodline, despite the fact that he was dumb enough to pick a cheating wife to marry.

Does the child have a right to know he's a bastard? What good does the knowledge do him when he's still a child, and adults are making all decisions for him? What better choices will he make, as a child, due to knowing he's a bastard? Does he have a right to know his mother is/was a cheating wife? Again, in what way does the knowledge serve him?

Does the husband have the right to disown the child because he's not of his blood?

I say no. But that's me, king of the chumps.

[JVS]

176. Adoptive parents both volunteer to raise a child.

And yes, if one half of a gay couple does not wish to adopt a child, then they shouldn't

"You take the children you are given, whether by fate or by birth or by luck, you raise them up with love and opportunity, and you put them first."

Isn't that what anti-choice people say too?

[txaslftist]

179. but if one spouse in a gay marriage gets pregnant...

Then they're both parents of the child. IMO.

Re: the choice issue, that's a different deal altogether IMO, but once the child is born I'll stick by what I said.

Kids come first.

[JVS]

182. So you don't think that one of the members of a gay couple is justified...

in choosing to break up with the other if they have obvious (because a gay couple having kids is impossible) evidence of infidelity? You think that one member is not justified in saying that she will not continue the relationship and will not support the child which is not hers?

[txaslftist]

187. Sheesh, tough one.

I guess so long as she splits as soon as she finds out her wife is pregnant and gives her wife a chance to find someone else prior to the birth of the child.

And of course her wife has to sue the bio. father for support.

Not a nice situation for anyone, agreed.

[JVS]

188. Why should a man not get a chance to get out when he realizes a child...

isn't his?

Shouldn't he also be allowed to test the child and leave if he suspects there is foul play?

edit: typo

[txaslftist]

190. Once the child is born...

it's a whole different kettle of fish. Then you've got another set of rights being asserted, a set of rights that is IMHO more pressing, because that child is helpless.

It's tough all around, but the State has a right to make these judgments, since it is the state that enforces paternity and spousal obligations. I think when the state does the balancing, the rights of the kid have to come first. Including the right to be legitimate.

[txaslftist]

192. and with that note...

I gotta split. MY kids are waiting for their father.

[JaneDoughnut]

165. Split decision

Would it be reasonable to require that a woman take the test if requested, and that the husband be relieved from duties of fatherhood if she refused the test? I mean, your marriage is probably pretty screwed up in the first place if this situation applies at all, but in a country with those statistics, some sort of protection needs to be made available to the alleged father.

On edit: I am a woman, BTW. But I can imagine myself in a man's shoes.

[txaslftist]

169. Don't know doughnut....

I'm stuck a bit on the 'relieved from the duties of fatherhood' part of your post. I'm so blessed and happy for the kids I have and one on the way that I can't imagine being the kind of person who would be relieved. On the other hand, I recognize that there are some who feel that way, and for them, some legal protection needs to be afforded. As you can probably tell from my posts above, though, that protection simply CANNOT come at the expense of the child's well-being.

[SoCalDem]

203. Paternity has always been an "issue" for males.

Females have NO way of denying maternity.. There's a person growing INSIDE them, but for males it's a "possibility" that the child could be someone else's. In the cruelest of animal societies, a "new male leader" kills the offspring that precedes him to insure that "none of his protective resources" go towards the young of a different sire, thus insuring that HIS genes will carry on instead of a different male's. The irony for lions (where this is common procedure)...females do most if not ALL of the hunting and protecting of the young :shrug:

Humans have "evolved" (or have we?) to define nurture as more important than nature, but if a guy marries a woman whom he cannot trust, why be married at all??