Mandatory DNA Testing at Birth ?

KaiserMc

10% is the figure being banded around the net for the amount of children being raised by father's that are not genetically related but the experts reckon the figure to be between 4 and 6% http://www.parentdish.com/2007/04/30/close-to-4-percent-of-men-unknowingly-raising-another-mans-chil/
There were tests done in a disadvantaged area of Liverpool and they found that 30% of the children were not related to their fathers, can't remember how many people were involved in the test though.. If I find the link I'll post it

iguana

SugarHigh wrote: »

Every woman is capable of this in the right circumstances because there is just too much incentive to lie.

Of course there is. If you look at any of the threads in PI/RI about cheating it seems that at least half of the posters advocate keeping schtum. If a woman gets pregnant from cheating she may be even more inclined to stay quiet as she might be fearful of losing her relationship and a stable environment for her new child. (That said not every woman will cheat.)

I suspect that there aren't as many men believing they are father to children they aren't related to as is often claimed. However I believe that the consequences to those families who are in this situation are so bloody horrible that everything that can be done to stop this ever happening should be done.

Lets be honest, how many babies are stolen from hospitals? Yet hospitals take security measures to stop that from happening. How many babies are born with Spina Bifida? Yet all women planning to get pregnant are advised to take folic acid. I've never been in a car crash, but I always wear my seat belt. If something is rare but awful you still take steps to prevent it. So I think that now the technology is there it would be an idea to automatically test paternity as early into a pregnancy as possible.

minidazzler

Shocked... wrote: »

Frankly i am pretty suprised at the general response to this topic.
Firstly, on the guy who raised a kid for 15 years and then wnats to cut her off because she not genetically related to him makes me sick! Any adult who raises a child for 15 years should have more to think about than money, i mean come on, he got the benefits of being part of that girls life, of all the intangable benefits to raising a PERSON!!
I have a 4 year old daughter, not with her Mum anymore but i can tell you what, if she wasn't mine, i wouldnt want to know, i watched her come into this world and am her Dad and ALWAYS will be!

I think that this focus on the money aspect of raising children is pathetic, anyone who has kid's would know, paying for them is not what being a parent is about and cutting them off either emotionally or financially after 15 years just because of genetics... come on!

Im not saying it's ok for women to lie about paternity if they know, but once you raise a child, you are the parent, and i really cant imagine any real father cutting off a child they have raised over money, or genes...

That's my 2 cents!

The GUY makes you sick? He was lied to when he was 16! Imagine how different his life could have been, except he had a kid to take care of, because he did the right thing.

The woman knew he probably wasn't the dad, but left him believe it for 15 years.

Sure it's regretable that there is a child in the middle, but the fact is he is NOT the father, he never chose to be the father, he should not be required by any law to pay for someone who he didn't father.

He had no idea she wasn't his until the woman said it to him.

I would be in favour of routine testing. However, I looked into this before, pre-natal testing is apparently dangerous for the feotus, according to the clinic that e-mailed me back.

iptba

Shocked... wrote: »

Im not saying it's ok for women to lie about paternity if they know, but once you raise a child, you are the parent, and i really cant imagine any real father cutting off a child they have raised over money, or genes...

That's kind of the point: if there was testing at birth or even before birth, then there wouldn't be the bonding to break and neither side would necessarily feel too bad.

iptba

"Paternity fraud" appears to be the search term to use.

I don't have much time to look myself but here's one piece:

http://www.mens-rights.net/law/paternityfraud.htm

Statistics

The commonality of paternity fraud is difficult to estimate. There are no known tests in place to determine how many men are victims of paternity fraud.

The following factors are primarily responsible for the lack of data on the subject.

1. Governments from the Western world do not collect data on the subject. This is most likely derived from the fact the Governments of the aforementioned nations do not prohibit their civilians from committing paternity fraud.

2. The difficulty in acknowledging paternity fraud. Until the advent of DNA Testing during the early 1990's, technology wasn't sophisticated enough to identify paternity with absolute certainty.

The result is there isn't enough data on the subject to draw an accurate conclusion about its commonality.

The advent of Paternity Testing kits has led to many men discovering that they were deceived into believing they are biologically related to the children they were and/or still are raising. Around 30% of men who use Paternity Testing kits discover they are not biologically related to the children they are raising. [6]

Therefore, it's safe to conclude that paternity fraud is a societal issue that needs to be rectified.

But I'll still be interested in stats people come across. I certainly don't think it's a non-issue.

Mike 1972

While paternity fraud is something I would be quite concerned about I would be a damn sight more concerned about living in a state where the government had assumed the right to access everyones DNA from birth :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

L31mr0d

I think a lot of us are forgetting the main incentive for mandatory DNA tests at birth...

Maury and his ilk would no longer have any source material for their shows so would be cancelled and taken off the air for good. Win!

Wibbs

In the stats iptba quoted it looks bad; Around 30% of men who use Paternity Testing kits discover they are not biologically related to the children they are raising. But chances are that those men had a strong enough suspicion anyway, so nearly a third were proven right. Still leaves two thirds who werent. Of the men who dont have any suspicion I'd say its less than 10%. We wont really know until widespread testing, though as I say I knew two men in this very position(I suspect a third).

I'm with minidazzler on his take though. The guy in this case had his choice taken from him. The childs choice to know her father was taken from her. Now maybe he can continue on with the daughter, but it'll be hard to look at her without seeing the betrayal. Hopefully he can, but the ex wife? Utter scumbag.

iptba

Mike 1972 wrote: »

While paternity fraud is something I would be quite concerned about I would be a damn sight more concerned about living in a state where the government had assumed the right to access everyones DNA from birth :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

The government doesn't necessarily have right to access your medical records so it could be the same with this.

iguana

iptba wrote: »

The government doesn't necessarily have right to access your medical records so it could be the same with this.

Yup, I doubt there is one person in Europe who hasn't had blood taken from them for a test at some point or another. If the government really wanted to surreptitiously make a DNA database of us all they could anyway. But they don't, our medical records are usually private and our blood samples, etc, are destroyed. This would be no different and it wouldn't be mandatory but routine.

CDfm

It always amazes me how people can explain away paternity fraud thru bonding and social bonding.

You have NCTs for cars, surveyors reports on houses so why not DNA testing on children.

People do have a right to know who there parents are as you have all kinds of physical and mental illnesses that have genetic origans. When you go to the doctor you are asked about your parents medical history or if you are looking for life assurance.

What has happened to truth and honesty???

Wibbs

The simple fact is that(outside of a hospital fcuk up) women always know their child is theirs. Its a given for them. They carry and nurture it and they give birth to it. You dont hear talk of a maternity test too often. A man's position is always based on trust and nothing else.

Human's are different to other great apes in that human females hide their fertility and oestrus. They even hide thier fecundity in other ways. Women have constantly engorged breasts, unlike other great apes. Who only have same when breast feeding. It seems at some time in the past hiding ones fertility was considered a good bet for women. Human males are much more in the dark than our primate cousins and human females are much more in control of their progeny than in our cousins.

In the vast majority of conceptions and births, this doesnt matter, but the doubt at times is understandable. Hence patriarchal societies have lauded women's chastity, virginity and sexual constancy.

If we talk about reproductive equality, things like abortion and contraception that may and have benefited women in their choices(and good thing too), then DNA testing also levels the playing field. For all.

iguana

Wibbs wrote: »

Human males are much more in the dark than our primate cousins and human females are much more in control of their progeny than in our cousins.

You've never heard of emperor tamarin monkeys have you?:D

Apart from when the mother is nursing the father carries the baby. However emperor tamarins normally have twins. I'm not sure whether the twins caused the society or the society caused the twins, but the tamarins have a solution that means "dad" doesn't have to carry two babies. Polyandry.

A female tamarin usually mates with two males. Neither male knows which is the father of the twins so both follow the mother around and when she sticks her tongue in and out (which is how she communicates that she is finished nursing) each male takes one baby and looks after it until the mother comes back to resume nursing. The males are both rivals and teamates. They must work together to raise the babies despite not knowing which the father is, or even if they each are, in the case of heteropaternal superfecundation, which baby is which, or if either baby is his at all.

CDfm

Iguana - we are not monkeys and tamarin monkeys do not pay maintenence.

When you have polygamy you also have shared responsibility. So are you saying DNA testing and pursue the absent father as I agree with that.

Wibbs

iguana wrote: »

You've never heard of emperor tamarin monkeys have you?:D

Yea I have, but they're monkeys not great apes. Handy one for the female in that case( a few of the tamarin species do that too IIRC?). Its not as clear cut though again AFAIR. That kind of group reproductive behaviour is seen in animlas like wolves where it smore extreme though. One male mates, but others malesof the extended group help raise the kids.

What I meant about being in the dark is women dont show obvious signs of ovulation compared to other great apes. They're pretty much fertile all the time. They have much more opportunity to play the field as the male unlike in other apes can't protect his genetic "investment". This is reflected in our physiology too. Male gorillas who have harems and less chance of other males coming in(though it still goes on) have tiny testicles. Male chimps where the females are open to play the field and do so, have huge testicles to compensate. Human males are in the middle size wise, so its seems we evolved them to take that into account.

Women today have much more say than men over the reproductive process if they so chose. They can hide a guy on the side and become pregnant by him. If the main guy finds out 10 years on he's not the father he's expected(in this case anyway) to keep providing for the child that results.

In the more normal cases of when a woman becomes pregnant she can also chose to keep or stop the pregnancy with no input from the man. Even if he doesnt want the child. He has no input in this until the child comes along and then he has to maintain the child.

So I'd still argue in the human model the woman has the upper hand. The more equal society becomes(which is good) the more of an upper hand she will have. Now in the past biology limited women quite a bit in the equality stakes. Technology, such as safe contraception (and abortion) and laws that protect her have evened up the score and thats a good thing. So why cant the same technology not even up the score for men in areas we previously could only guess at? Such as mandatory DNA testing(male pill would be great too). Whats good for the goose.....

CDfm

I think objections to it on the basis it harms kids are just silly. The real reasons it gets objected to is that women get caught out and it hurts them financially.Thats the real reason for resistance.

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

I think objections to it on the basis it harms kids are just silly. The real reasons it gets objected to is that women get caught out and it hurts them financially.Thats the real reason for resistance.

It can't harm the kids if the tests are done 14-16 weeks into the pregnancy. The foetus can hear the inner workings of the mothers body, but it can't distingush the voice of the "father" let alone have any bond or care if it never gets to meet that man once it's born. It would also be a lot less of a loss to the man as he isn't going to have bonded as much as he would have with a child her held in his arms.

minidazzler

Mike 1972 wrote: »

While paternity fraud is something I would be quite concerned about I would be a damn sight more concerned about living in a state where the government had assumed the right to access everyones DNA from birth :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Noone suggested it be mandatory. It should be standard, but with an opt out policy.

iguana

minidazzler wrote: »

Noone suggested it be mandatory. It should be standard, but with an opt out policy.

Tbf, the title of the thread suggests mandatory testing.:p

CDfm

iguana wrote: »

Tbf, the title of the thread suggests mandatory testing.:p

There should be a convention on it.someone who rquests it risks being called a bad parent or trying to avoid their responsibilities.

It should be a normal thing with no negative inference from wanting to know.

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

There should be a convention on it.someone who rquests it risks being called a bad parent or trying to avoid their responsibilities.

It should be a normal thing with no negative inference from wanting to know.

Other people may the facts better but, as far as I know, in Ireland, labs won't do it without the mother's permission - technically it can be considered assault if one took a sample I believe. So the presumed father (especially if he was her husband) could give consent for the child to have an operation but for this one minor test is not allowed request it. And of course if there was permission for the presumed father to request the test, he wouldn't have to take the sample himself, a professional or two could do it in a way that couldn't be described as assault. (Minor point: But if there is any doubt in a hospital with regard to the maternity, tests can get done quite quickly).

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

There should be a convention on it.someone who rquests it risks being called a bad parent or trying to avoid their responsibilities.

It should be a normal thing with no negative inference from wanting to know.

It should be a routine test that's just done as a matter of fact. The mother can ask that it is not done, as it's her blood that is tested. But if the test was routine the father would want to know why she would specifically ask for it not to be done.

minidazzler

iguana wrote: »

Tbf, the title of the thread suggests mandatory testing.:p

Ah, so it does! That what I get for not paying attention.

CDfm

iguana wrote: »

It should be a routine test that's just done as a matter of fact. The mother can ask that it is not done, as it's her blood that is tested. But if the test was routine the father would want to know why she would specifically ask for it not to be done.

Any father should automatically have the right for it to be done without the mothers consent.

Its that simple -there is no reason why a woman should have the right to object and it should be made illegal to refuse to cooperate with it.

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

Any father should automatically have the right for it to be done without the mothers consent.

Its that simple -there is no reason why a woman should have the right to object and it should be made illegal to refuse to cooperate with it.

There is when it is prenatal because it is her blood that is being tested. Once the baby is born and the sample can be taken from the child the morality changes. And if the mother has refused to allow her blood to be tested that will most likely be enough for the father to ask for the test once the child is born.

CDfm

A guy on criminal charges would have access to DNA testing so why should this be any different. Non payment of maintenence is a civil matter with criminal penalties. So you should have access to best evidence to establish the facts.

It should be automatic and there for the asking as a right for men who are paying maintenence. No ifs or buts -its a basic right.

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

A guy on criminal charges would have access to DNA testing so why should this be any different.

He won't have access to somebody else's body samples. You can not make a woman submit her own blood for tests that she doesn't wish to have performed. Birth certs aren't written before birth and I don't think maintenence has to be paid before a child is born, so there is no reason good enough to insist a woman submits to medical tests that she really doesn't wish to be have done on her.

The thing is that if a woman refuses to have a routine DNA test done it will alert any potential father to possible paternity issues. Then once the baby is born and the birth cert must be written the tests can be done.

G-Money

When you think about it though, when all the paperwork etc is being completed and before maintenance can be paid by the father, wouldn't it make sense from a legal perspective at least to be sure the guy paying the maintenance is the father. Having a certificate proving the guy is the father could be made a legal requirement.

I don't know a lot about DNA testing but I think after the child is born, all they need to do is take a swab of the childs mouth and it's saliva. I could be wrong though...

iguana

grandmaster wrote: »

I don't know a lot about DNA testing but I think after the child is born, all they need to do is take a swab of the childs mouth and it's saliva. I could be wrong though...

Before that the foetal DNA is present and detectable in the mothers blood from about 14 weeks (and it gets earlier and earlier as detection abilities improve).

In my opinion the test should be introduced as one of the routine tests performed during pregnancy. Anyone who really objects can opt out, as can the man obviously. But if it's just something done by everyone most people will just do it. If they opt out the potential father is sure to question why and if he wants can request that the baby is tested after birth, before he is put on the birth cert.

That's the system I'd like to see. You can't force adults to have tests they don't want done, but automatic assumption of paternity based on the mother's say so isn't fair on the child or the father. I do believe that in the vast, vast majority of cases the mother is absolutely telling the truth. But when a mother does lie the consequences are devastating or dangerous so now that the tech exists to prevent these tragedies (and that what they can be) we should use it.

CDfm

I googled the pricing and basic testing starts at around 220 euro

https://payments.homednadirect.net/products/index.php?location_id=7

however where more extensive testing is required for court the prices vary between the 450 to 700 euro range.

they are considerably cheaper in the uk at around half the price.