Should paternity tests be mandatory?

994

Reading this article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_johnson/article5580589.ece
got me thinking - man gets a paternity test and realises his wife's 22-year-old daughter is not his. He sues for all the money he spent on the girl, and of course loses. Is there any real reason why every baby should not get a paternity test? A birth cert. is a legal document, and you should surely have evidence to back up anything you put in a legal document: imagine if you could get a driver's license just by saying "Honestly, I can drive: don't you TRUST me?"

Reasons against:
*"It doesn't matter if he's the biological father, so long as the child feels that he is" - but if paternity is social, not biological, why do fathers with no interest in a child have to pay for them? And if a hospital made a mistake and gave a mother the wrong baby, would you say the same thing?
*"It hardly ever happens" - this page http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/misattributed_paternity.htm
has a lot of studies with widely varying results: between 2 and 10% typically, so 80,000 - 400,000 Irish people have the wrong father.

stovelid

994 wrote: »

man gets a paternity test and realises his wife's 22-year-old daughter is not his. He sues for all the money he spent on the girl, and of course loses.

It's a horrible thing to happen, but I'd like to think he'll still have a relationship with the daughter. It's hardly her fault, though I can see why the guy is mad.

Not in favour of compulsory tests really.

Biggins

If the man walks away after doing what he did, got her knocked up, "Yes".

Its not about if the female tricked him into it or not (by far most cases), its about the care and welfare of the coming/arrived child.
Nothing else.

If you dip your wick, you should pay for the candle!

OldGoat

Only when the slag woman denies being the mother.


Yeah I know, sometimes I confuse myself too.

Holsten

Yes, I'd 100% support this.

Mr. CooL ICE

Is the daughter hot? If yes, then he can now hit on her

Morlar

I think if a husband believes his wife has cheated on him then this should be an option at the time of birth to clear things up rigth from the get go.

If it is his child then no harm no foul.

If its not his child then he has no moral or financial responsibility to support another mans child and the wife in that case should go track down whoever is the father (assuming of course that the husband wants out of the marriage etc).

I think the statistics on this kind of thing (ie the amount of times it happens) are worrying and men should have a right to know if they are being expected to financially support another mans kid for the next 18 + years. Women who cheat on their husbands have no right to expect the husband to pay financially to support the result of their fun and games.

Earthhorse

Ideally, they should be mandatory but then we'd have to pour millions into training women so they could take them too. Bloody equality legislation.

Davidius

Well I suppose but isn't the fact that your child doesn't even look a bit like you sure to tip you off? :pac:

a5y

994 wrote: »

Reading this article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_johnson/article5580589.ece
got me thinking - man gets a paternity test and realises his wife's 22-year-old daughter is not his. He sues for all the money he spent on the girl, and of course loses. Is there any real reason why every baby should not get a paternity test? A birth cert. is a legal document, and you should surely have evidence to back up anything you put in a legal document: imagine if you could get a driver's license just by saying "Honestly, I can drive: don't you TRUST me?"

Reasons against:
*"It doesn't matter if he's the biological father, so long as the child feels that he is" - but if paternity is social, not biological, why do fathers with no interest in a child have to pay for them? And if a hospital made a mistake and gave a mother the wrong baby, would you say the same thing?
*"It hardly ever happens" - this page http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/misattributed_paternity.htm
has a lot of studies with widely varying results: between 2 and 10% typically, so 80,000 - 400,000 Irish people have the wrong father.

What if neither the mother nor the father (supposed or actual) want the patenity test done? Would the letter of the law matter more than the wishes of parents?

A possible example would be where a woman is in a relationship and is trying to conceive. She is raped though, and afterwards it is found out she is pregnant. Should the doctors who want to fulfill their legal obligations insist on a paternity test?

If yes, what matters more to you, the people who've just been through some of the worst experiences that could happen to them or a law that offers questionable benefits?

If no, and if any exceptions begin to be made it opens up all sorts of loopholes and that law becomes impotent.

javaboy

a5y wrote: »

What if neither the mother nor the father (supposed or actual) want the patenity test done? Would the letter of the law matter more than the wishes of parents?

I get what you're saying but doesn't that leave open the possibility that another man (in this case the genuine father) might never know he has a child? Does he not have a right to know someone else is raising his kid?

a5y

javaboy wrote: »

I get what you're saying but doesn't that leave open the possibility that another man (in this case the genuine father) might never know he has a child?

We firstly, paternity tests aren't flawless, as shocking as that sounds. There's a documented overconfidence that the lay person has in forensic testing, the reality is that it is not 100% accurate (The CSI effect I believe I've heard it called). So even if the law was enforced, it would almost certainly mean there were men who have children that they will never know about. Admitably a lot less than there are currently forensic tests aren't wildly hit-and-miss either.

Which brings up the second point: considering the results may in cases be inconclusive, is the amount spent on paying for the paternity tests justified? If they are inconclusive, doesn't it just create doubt instead f certainty, which surely was the point of passing the law in the first place?

Plus there's the cost. Inevitably some couples won't be able to afford it, and giving birth isn't cheap. Doctors time isn't free, lab equipment isn't free. Its going to go on medical cards and health insurace, and it will raise the average cost of health insurance up. Is there enough justification to spend this money on paternity tests instead of on say breast cancer screening?

Does he not have a right to know someone else is raising his kid?

I'm not sure if there is a crime being commited there. If a law is being broken I don't know which one; so its hard to justify if a man does have a right to know someone else is raising his kid.

If he did, wouldn't a man be able to knock on every door on a street and demand women of all ages prove their children aren't his? A ridiculous situation you have to admit?

Earthhorse

a5y wrote: »

I'm not sure if there is a crime being commited there. If a law is being broken I don't know which one; so its hard to justify if a man does have a right to know someone else is raising his kid.

A crime doesn't have to be commited for something to be wrong. It's not hard to justify whether a man has a right to know if someone else is raising his kid if you believe people should be made by child support for example.

a5y wrote: »

If he did, wouldn't a man be able to knock on every door on a street and demand women of all ages prove their children aren't his? A ridiculous situation you have to admit?

That's a pretty ridiculous situation alright. What on earth made you come up with it?

javaboy

a5y wrote: »

We firstly, paternity tests aren't flawless, as shocking as that sounds. There's a documented overconfidence that the lay person has in forensic testing, the reality is that it is not 100% accurate (The CSI effect I believe I've heard it called). So even if the law was enforced, it would almost certainly mean there were men who have children that they will never know about. Admitably a lot less than there are currently forensic tests aren't wildly hit-and-miss either.

Ugh for a start I hate the CSI effect and I know exactly what you're talking about. Still they are reasonably successful and if they were being taken on this kind of scale, they would almost certainly improve. If a tender is put out to perform national paternity testing, you can bet that companies would strive to improve their moethods.

Which brings up the second point: considering the results may in cases be inconclusive, is the amount spent on paying for the paternity tests justified? If they are inconclusive, doesn't it just create doubt instead f certainty, which surely was the point of passing the law in the first place?

Fair point but I think you might be overestimating the number of inconclusive tests. Anyway the whole point of the idea is that you're not covering up possible doubts by not taking paternity tests. Doubt ftw!

Plus there's the cost. Inevitably some couples won't be able to afford it, and giving birth isn't cheap. Doctors time isn't free, lab equipment isn't free. Its going to go on medical cards and health insurace, and it will raise the average cost of health insurance up. Is there enough justification to spend this money on paternity tests instead of on say breast cancer screening?

Justification of this as against cancer screening? Of course not. But still the costs would reduce significantly if it was a compulsory program.

I'm not sure if there is a crime being commited there. If a law is being broken I don't know which one; so its hard to justify if a man does have a right to know someone else is raising his kid.

Why doesn't he have a right to know? A child has a right to know who his biological parents are right? So why doesn't a father have the right to know who his biological children are?

That's another thing. The child probably won't know the circumstances surrounding his conception and will grow up assuming that his "parents" are his real parents. He will never have cause to become suspicious and could spend his entire life not knowing. If compulsory paternity tests were brought in, he could find out a lot easier.

If he did, wouldn't a man be able to knock on every door on a street and demand women of all ages prove their children aren't his? A ridiculous situation you have to admit?

Yes of course. But if a man suspects he is the father of a particular child, he could go to the relevant department and give a sample and ask for it to be checked against a particular paternity test record.

blinding

If a man wants a paternity test then he should be entitled to have one.

Why would anyone object if they did not have anything to hide. Why should a man be taken for a fool and expected to pay for somebody elses child.

robinph

a5y wrote: »

I'm not sure if there is a crime being commited there. If a law is being broken I don't know which one; so its hard to justify if a man does have a right to know someone else is raising his kid.

Does a man not have the right to know if he is raising someone else's kid though?

Quazzie

I've just become a father, and the feeling alone of that is enough for me. I really wouldn't need a test as long as there are no claims to the different.

It does help that my lad is the spit of me so there is no denying it.

a5y

Earthhorse wrote: »

A crime doesn't have to be commited for something to be wrong. It's not hard to justify whether a man has a right to know if someone else is raising his kid if you believe people should be made by child support for example.

Some of the worst attrocities throughout history have occured when the law turned towards supporting subjective morality over objective justice. Think segregation, ethnic cleansing, and the imprisonment of gays for crimes against nature as a starting point.

(In before "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!")

The law isn't there to pursue morality, it is there to pursue justice. Morality should be pursued by spiritual leaders, not political and legal ones. After all, different religions, different morals, different infidels.

That's a pretty ridiculous situation alright. What on earth made you come up with it?

I think of the most absurd situation that a law could create knowing that in all probability someone somewhere would probably do something even more farfetched, and have the nerve to proclaim it "seeing it all the way to its logical conclusion."

Earthhorse

a5y wrote: »

The law isn't there to pursue morality, it is there to pursue justice. Morality should be pursued by spiritual leaders, not political and legal ones. After all, different religions, different morals, different infidels.

So then why should anyone have to pay child support? What's it got to do with justice?

a5y wrote: »

I think of the most absurd situation that a law could create knowing that in all probability someone somewhere would probably do something even more farfetched, and have the nerve to proclaim it "seeing it all the way to its logical conclusion."

No, what's absurd is believing that he would be able to see it through to its logical conclusion in the manner described in your initial post.

a5y

javaboy wrote: »

Ugh for a start I hate the CSI effect and I know exactly what you're talking about. Still they are reasonably successful and if they were being taken on this kind of scale, they would almost certainly improve. If a tender is put out to perform national paternity testing, you can bet that companies would strive to improve their moethods.

I'm not so sure. Irelands' population is small, and the profit from the maternity tests annually might not justify the research expenditure to improve the tests substantially. Research doesn't alway provide results; analysts and college graduates may look down on companies who cut their research budgets when economic hard times arrive but its very hard for the management / beancounters (delete as you please) to continue to justify wha they feel is pouring in good money after bad.

Its a big economic assumption to rest an argument upon.

Fair point but I think you might be overestimating the number of inconclusive tests. Anyway the whole point of the idea is that you're not covering up possible doubts by not taking paternity tests. Doubt ftw!

That may be the goal of the law, but it may not be the result of the law. Consider: a couple completely trust each other and are going to have a baby. Since the law is manditory, they have the test. It comes back inconclusive "but probably positive, these things have some grey areas". The mother reassures that she'd never even so much as had an impure thought, and for the sake of this example we'll say she is telling the truth.

Like any couple they have their arguments. But there will always be this seed of doubt there now.

Justification of this as against cancer screening? Of course not. But still the costs would reduce significantly if it was a compulsory program.

I've already outlined my reasons for skepticism above.

Why doesn't he have a right to know? A child has a right to know who his biological parents are right? So why doesn't a father have the right to know who his biological children are?

A child has the right to pursue an investigation. They don't have the right for the government to dirvert tax revenue for other healthcare projects to create a measure effecting the whole of society, for the benefit of only a minority.

That's another thing. The child probably won't know the circumstances surrounding his conception and will grow up assuming that his "parents" are his real parents. He will never have cause to become suspicious and could spend his entire life not knowing. If compulsory paternity tests were brought in, he could find out a lot easier.

That almost sounds like a law that is beneficial for the paranoid and than anyone else.

Yes of course. But if a man suspects he is the father of a particular child, he could go to the relevant department and give a sample and ask for it to be checked against a particular paternity test record.

Does the child have the right to refuse the test? And if even if they have the right, how difficult do you think it is to browbeat, manipulate or bully child into acquisence "for their own good"?

Action without evidence (other than suspicion, which is just really hearsay or conjecture) sounds more like harrashment to me than anything else.

K-9

I'm aware of one case now, were the "father" doesn't know he isn't the real father and is raising the baby.

I think there have been statistics of about 10% of married men in England are not the Biological Dad.

Still, to make paternity testing automatic is a bit extreme and tarring majority with the minority brush.

I'd prefer a system were the mother would face financial penalties for fraud.

Sam Vimes

LordChessington wrote: »

Is the daughter hot? If yes, then he can now hit on her

Maybe that's why he's really pissed off. For years he's been having all these confusing urges but has restrained himself because she was his daughter. Now he's thinking about all the missed opportunities......

javaboy

a5y wrote: »

Does the child have the right to refuse the test? And if even if they have the right, how difficult do you think it is to browbeat, manipulate or bully child into acquisence "for their own good"?

Action without evidence (other than suspicion, which is just really hearsay or conjecture) sounds more like harrashment to me than anything else.

I think you might be taking me up wrong on that one. I was assuming the test would be done at birth. And if down the line some other guy reckons he might be the father, he deals with the relevant department, not with the child. His DNA is checked against the paternity test results.

If the technology doesn't support paternity testing on DNA that may be 20 years old then fine. But I wasn't suggesting for a minute that people could be forced to give DNA because someone thinks they might be their father.

a5y

blinding wrote: »

If a man wants a paternity test then he should be entitled to have one.

Sure he's entitled to it. But he's not entitled to justify shaking a family's trust by claiming "because its the law."

Why would anyone object if they did not have anything to hide.

People always have a right to object. Without the right to object we do not live in a democracy.

Why should a man be taken for a fool and expected to pay for somebody elses child.

Surely a man can get what he wants without running off to his lawyer? If you want a paternity test, ask. When refused, dig your heels in. That's what a man would do, as opposed to an overgrown boy.

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

It's a horrible thing to happen, but I'd like to think he'll still have a relationship with the daughter. It's hardly her fault, though I can see why the guy is mad.

Not in favour of compulsory tests really.

Well in this case the article says he disowned her and is refusing all contact with her from now on

Lu Tze

a5y wrote: »

Action without evidence (other than suspicion, which is just really hearsay or conjecture) sounds more like harrashment to me than anything else.

Like Random breath testing?

a5y

robinph wrote: »

Does a man not have the right to know if he is raising someone else's kid though?

Certainly. Accepting the consequences for asking, be they good, or bad, expected or otherwise, or grossy insensitive. But its not enought to justify moving the whole of Irish society toward a surveilance state because of some mistrust that exists in a minority of cases.

a5y

Lu Tze wrote: »

Like Random breath testing?

Random breath testing is hardly random, there is some method to its madness. It doesn't test people walking down the street or in their own homes!

But in all seriousness, do you want me to explain why I can believe a measure designed to reduce the number of road deaths by creating a deterent for anyone thinking of chancing their arm is a good thing and yet I can still believe that a law that effects everyone who is a father, mother or born in Ireland at considerable expense is a bad thing?

Are they really so similar that its confusing to believe in the first without the second?

Lu Tze

a5y wrote: »

do you want to explain why ...

I could try, i would probably guess incorrectly though:rolleyes:

Local-womanizer

Absoultly no.

What about the Jeremy Kyle show?!?!

No more fat chav girls with their knack bf fighting in front of a packed studio.What would I have to watch in the afternoons then?

Phototoxin

Does a man not have the right to know if he is raising someone else's kid though?

This is Ireland. all your rights are belong to us. you have none as a male/father.

Huzzah for Feminazism!

It should only be done if there is a split/paying child support etc.
A father is not necessarily a genetic thing.

a5y

Ah, right. Typo there.

Mrmoe

A solution to this is to make it compulsary for the biological father to be noted on the birth certificate. I do not know if this is already the case at the moment. If a parent (mother or father) declares that they are the parent when in fact they are not then they are committing fraud. IMO that the child should know who their real biological parents are above any other concerns for the right of either parent to suppress the truth for their own benefit.

taram

There's the issue of having your genetic fingerprint in a database somewhere, which I imagine people would freak over, that'd have to be covered under law too. I do think if there is a question of paternity (and tbh, very few women would be confused at who they slept with in the previous 9-10 months prior ot the birth, might be 2 guys at most), the mother should be brought up for fraud. Harsh, but saw a friend's life wrecked over a girl he slept with once pointing the finger at him for being her baby daddy.

ronnie3585

Should paternity tests be mandatory?

Ask this man;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wbLdYeZvoc

John Mason

abso-fe.cking-lutely

K-9

Mrmoe wrote: »

A solution to this is to make it compulsary for the biological father to be noted on the birth certificate.

Nope. Basically until a maintenance, Guardianship or access order is issued by the courts, paternity has not been accepted by the Dad or Mum.

Many Dads don't realise they have no rights even with the name on the Cert and many Mums think the name on the Cert means the SW will go against them.

Edit: I selectively quoted there. Yes, signing the Cert would be an admittance of Paternity by both Mum and Dad as the Mum has to give permission.

rubadub

blinding wrote: »

Why would anyone object if they did not have anything to hide. Why should a man be taken for a fool and expected to pay for somebody elses child.

They would object at being mistrusted. I knew a guy was seeing a girl, both in around 20 at the time. She got pregnant and was told it was his, he stuck by her all the way, she was not some tramp and he had no doubt, baby was born. But then some ex-mate of hers told him she went off with some lad on holidays. He asked for the test and there was uproar, her brothers & father going mental at him, and her. But she had the test and sure enough it wasn't his. He probably would be married to her now if it wasn't for the ex-mate.

Earthhorse wrote: »

So then why should anyone have to pay child support? What's it got to do with justice?

K-9 wrote: »

I'd prefer a system were the mother would face financial penalties for fraud.

Yep, it should come into law as money is in play and people can be swindled, conmen/conwomen, and blackmailers get done this is sort of the same category.

Mrmoe wrote: »

A solution to this is to make it compulsary for the biological father to be noted on the birth certificate. I do not know if this is already the case at the moment. If a parent (mother or father) declares that they are the parent when in fact they are not then they are committing fraud.

The father might not know if he is or not, so could sign it unknowing. Should be some legal thing e.g. "if you are in any doubt as to who the father is you must now say", so the onus is on the woman to go "well, there was this one guy on holidays..."

K-9

rubadub wrote: »

Yep, it should come into law as money is in play and people can be swindled, conmen/conwomen, and blackmailers get done this is sort of the same category.


The father might not know if he is or not, so could sign it unknowing. Should be some legal thing e.g. "if you are in any doubt as to who the father is you must now say", so the onus is on the woman to go "well, there was this one guy on holidays..."

Yep, I think that's it. All of this unfortunately is dependant on the Dad having doubts. In the case I'm aware of, he doesn't. Sad.

Sharpshooter

In all fairness, this is where men lose out.
If a woman has slept with only one man, then she knows full well who the father is.

If a man sleeps with a woman , who unknowns to him sleeps with other men, how does he ever know the child is his.

So it comes down to trust in most cases, right?

Yes , from a female point of view, I would agree with a mandatory test for paternity for that reason.



Females have a lot to answer to when it comes to trapping a man into marriage through pregnancy.

A mandatory test would prevent a lot of trouble and if the woman in question had not been with anyone else, then what would be the problem?

It's only when there is something to hide ,that you find people resisting something like this.

EDIT:
Why is there not a Yes or No in the Poll?

994

Biggins wrote: »

If the man walks away after doing what he did, got her knocked up, "Yes".

Its not about if the female tricked him into it or not (by far most cases), its about the care and welfare of the coming/arrived child.
Nothing else.

If you dip your wick, you should pay for the candle!

Thing is, a woman is not obliged to pay for her "candle", she can just kill the foetus or leave it up for adoption. Moreover, she can abort the child against the father's express wishes or leave it for adoption without first offering it to the father.

If he did, wouldn't a man be able to knock on every door on a street and demand women of all ages prove their children aren't his? A ridiculous situation you have to admit?

But a woman could knock on every door and ask a man to prove her child isn't his...

K-9 wrote: »

I'm aware of one case now, were the "father" doesn't know he isn't the real father and is raising the baby.

I think there have been statistics of about 10% of married men in England are not the Biological Dad.

Still, to make paternity testing automatic is a bit extreme and tarring majority with the minority brush.

I'd prefer a system were the mother would face financial penalties for fraud.

I'm astonished that someone with a personal connection to something like this would care so little. Asking for evidence is "tarring majority with the minority brush"? No it isn't. Only maybe 0.01% of teachers has a record of paedophilia; yet all teachers have to produce a garda report that they haven't been convicted. No-one complains because they know that it prevents a guilty person slipping through the net. Do you honestly think making a fool of 10% of "dads", causing them to slave away their whole life for another's child, is preferable to slightly annoying 90% of mothers?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Shouldn't be done unless ordered by the courts. It's against your human rights... I surely won't be getting it done. Also, I will be having children with a woman, not a slut

blinding

Thaddeus Dry Gauze wrote: »

Shouldn't be done unless ordered by the courts. It's against your human rights... I surely won't be getting it done. Also, I will be having children with a woman, not a slut

If she is a slut then she may make sure you are the last to know!!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

blinding wrote: »

If she is a slut then she may make sure you are the last to know!!

I don't get myself into situations like that. Sluts are for losers.

blinding

Thaddeus Dry Gauze wrote: »

I don't get myself into situations like that. Sluts are for losers.

Live and learn young man just be aware that everything is not always what it seems.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

blinding wrote: »

Live and learn young man just be aware that everything is not always what it seems.

Fcuking chinese philosophors... Just because you get a thrill out of banging sluts, doesn't mean everyone does. I don't like sluts (sexually) Not attracted to skank bags that throw their kebab at everything with a digit between it's legs. I don't wanna catch anything, I will keep to my ladies than you very much.

K-9

994 wrote: »

I'm astonished that someone with a personal connection to something like this would care so little. Asking for evidence is "tarring majority with the minority brush"? No it isn't. Only maybe 0.01% of teachers has a record of paedophilia; yet all teachers have to produce a garda report that they haven't been convicted. No-one complains because they know that it prevents a guilty person slipping through the net. Do you honestly think making a fool of 10% of "dads", causing them to slave away their whole life for another's child, is preferable to slightly annoying 90% of mothers?

Eh, convicted, does not mean you aren't a paedophile. When would the test be done?

pablomakaveli

Thaddeus Dry Gauze wrote: »

Fcuking chinese philosophors... Just because you get a thrill out of banging sluts, doesn't mean everyone does. I don't like sluts (sexually) Not attracted to skank bags that throw their kebab at everything with a digit between it's legs. I don't wanna catch anything, I will keep to my ladies than you very much.

Even ladies might cheat or sleep around sometimes. Don't judge a book by it's cover. (Another well worn proverb;))

neilled

LordChessington wrote: »

Is the daughter hot? If yes, then he can now hit on her

The Daily Mails verdict :

Bottle_of_Smoke

I agree a woman should be charged with fraud if there's any doubt over the paternity. If there's any doubt she herself should get a paternity test. If she doesn't and its later shown the wrong man provided for the other man's child, the mother should face severe consequences.

I think the compulsory testing is a step too far. The threat of fraud hanging over would be enough to make most come clean.

rubadub

Thaddeus Dry Gauze wrote: »

Shouldn't be done unless ordered by the courts. It's against your human rights... I surely won't be getting it done.

But the whole point is that if it is mandatory then it would be ordered by the courts....