Should paternity testing be mandatory? 1 in 25 fathers not biological parent

manonboard

Sile Na Gig wrote: »

It feels like there’s a certain cohort of posters that have issues with trusting women.

Just to play a slight bit of devils advocate regards this and the OP.. If 1 in 25 are not the biological parent.. then 4% of women in these particular situations are indeed not to be trusted. That's kinda substantial i feel when it comes to something as large as signing a person who to a life long role without informed consent.
Infidelity must be even higher if i understand the numbers (which i may not, i find this stuff nuanced and tricky).

I'm very very surprised the numbers are that high. I would of thought it was something like 1 in 500 maybe..


Same applies to men of course.

manonboard

My friend recently found her biological father. When she was pre teen, someone said something about looking not like the father. Father took a swab.. and that was that. Gone like the wind. Devastating of course.

My friend just a couple months ago found her father, 2 brothers and a sister They have massive medical issues in theirs so she may have saved some lives too Big shock for everyone, but going really well.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How would you apply it to surrogacy when the birth certificate is solely to provide a record of the individuals birth? The woman who gives birth to the child is recorded on the birth certificate. Where's the problem?

The child is not genetically related to her. That child has a right to know, quite literally, where they came from. It shouldn't actually be legal to deny this knowledge to an individual of any age.

We also issue new birth certificates to adults who do not identify as the sex they were recorded on their birth certificate. The birth certificate itself while it is indeed an official legal document, is literally just a record of the circumstances of one's birth, and if the assumed parents already agree that they are the parents, then there's no need for any extra expense on testing that is likely to confirm the bloody obvious in the vast majority of cases.

Again, the adults are irrelevant. A child has the right to know which two humans they are literally made of, and it should be mandatory that all steps be taken to prove this before telling a child "this is where you came from".

seamus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's not good enough. They should have a right to know from birth. Waiting until they're 18 means that they've spent their lives building up an extreme emotional bond to the bloodline they thought they were part of, finding out at that age that it was all invalid would be devastating.

So, adoptive parents should be obliged to inform their adoptive children of their parentage?

That seems to me to be awfully interfering. Shouldn't it be up to the parents to decide when is the most appropriate time to tell them? Biology doesn't make you someone's parent.

I came from a funeral this morning where an adoptive son as burying his father, and much of the congregation was a bit stunned to hear it. The bond between him and his adoptive father was as strong as any father-son bond I've ever seen. The man is devastated.

My point being that you imply that building a parental bond with someone who's not your biological parent is some kind of waste of time. That "bloodline" has some ethereal property to it. It doesn't. If you died without ever knowing that your bloodline was different, it would make no difference to you.

Bambi wrote: »

You can leave the father's name blank on a birth cert. You can still legally be the father but you might have to be honest with the kid. What a terrible vista. :eek:

How can you legally be the father if your name isn't on the birth cert?

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

So, adoptive parents should be obliged to inform their adoptive children of their parentage?

Absolutely. 100%.

That seems to me to be awfully interfering. Shouldn't it be up to the parents to decide when is the most appropriate time to tell them?

No. Parents shouldn't have the right to deny this knowledge to their children even for a day, let alone many years.

Biology doesn't make you someone's parent.

That's your own opinion. In my opinion, it fundamentally does.

I came from a funeral this morning where an adoptive son as burying his father, and much of the congregation was a bit stunned to hear it. The bond between him and his adoptive father was as strong as any father-son bond I've ever seen. The man is devastated.

That's not the point - the point is that he knows he was adopted. You can still have a bond, it's ridiculous to suggest that you can't - if that was the case, then nobody would ever have a loving relationship with a step-parent, which is clearly untrue. But it would have been fundamentally wrong to deny that knowledge to the kid.

My point being that you imply that building a parental bond with someone who's not your biological parent is some kind of waste of time. That "bloodline" has some ethereal property to it. It doesn't. If you died without ever knowing that your bloodline was different, it would make no difference to you.

It's a waste of time for some people, but not to others. To me, it's literally the meaning of life. If I died never knowing that my bloodline was different, I would have died being the victim of an absolutely evil and monstrous lie, and I'm certainly not ok with that possibility.

mrslancaster

seamus wrote: »

...So, adoptive parents should be obliged to inform their adoptive children of their parentage?

An adopted child or a child of surrogacy has as much right to know their origins as any other child.

Adoptive parents make a decision to adopt and raise a child which is usually made for the parents benefit - mostly if they are unable to have their own biological children. That does not negate the child's rights. IMO it is a disgrace that there are tens of thousands of adopted Irish citizens who have no right to access this basic information about themselves. Maybe there should be a change to the law about that.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The child is not genetically related to her. That child has a right to know, quite literally, where they came from. It shouldn't actually be legal to deny this knowledge to an individual of any age.

This is why I asked specifically in relation to surrogacy - you want an accurate reflection of biology on the birth certificate, then the woman who gives birth goes on the birth certificate. Of course the child has a right to know their biological parents, I agree with you, but I would go further and say that determinations like that should be made in the best interests of the child, and in some cases, it isn't in the childs best interests that they are made aware of their biological parents.

Again, the adults are irrelevant. A child has the right to know which two humans they are literally made of, and it should be mandatory that all steps be taken to prove this before telling a child "this is where you came from".

That's going to put a dent in the number of donors who contribute their genetic material on condition of anonymity. Again you're arguing from the traditional family structure of man + woman = children, but we've come a long way in terms of reproductive technology where we don't need to concern ourselves with the biological shenanigans, what appears to be more important in terms of healthy child development is stability.

Dyr

VinLieger wrote: »

I agree except many in this thread have been proposing it for that very purpose, in essence to shame women who are unfaithful but then stated they don't care about men being unfaithful or who the real father might be

Was it not to "shame" women who'll let some poor bastard take the hit for a kid that's not his rather than just being unfaithful?

Either way it's disgraceful, shaming people with the truth :mad:

lawred2

Bria Dry Sideline wrote: »

Depending on the statistics you read, rates of
One in 25 fathers is not biological parent



If these rates are to believed and DNA testing so cheap now(around €100) should mandatory measures be introduced? or should men create a culture that makes paternity testing a social norm

A guardian UK article from 2005

What a joke of an OP.

Anything Irish and from this decade?

lawred2

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Sounds like you have doubts...

I personally think that yes, it should be mandatory. Someone I know recently had a kid with a woman who he knew for barely a few weeks. She had broken up with a boyfriend not too long before they met and slept together at a get together. (I don't know if it was a wedding, a birthday party or work thing-hence my vagueness).

The close proximity of her dumping her ex, and then getting pregnant, makes me think the kid isn't his.

Mandatory?

How would you achieve that exactly?

mrslancaster

One eyed Jack wrote: »

... I would go further and say that determinations like that should be made in the best interests of the child, and in some cases, it isn't in the childs best interests that they are made aware of their biological parents.

....we've come a long way in terms of reproductive technology where we don't need to concern ourselves with the biological shenanigans, what appears to be more important in terms of healthy child development is stability.

Why deny a child the truth - the recent referendum was all about some sectors of society not imposing their views on others

Stability is really important to how a child develops agreed but IMO all the advances in reproductive technologies are for the benefit of the parents who need help to have a child.

What about the child's rights in all of this?

VinLieger

Bambi wrote: »

Was it not to "shame" women who'll let some poor bastard take the hit for a kid that's not his rather than just being unfaithful?

Either way it's disgraceful, shaming people with the truth :mad:

Pointless trying to discuss this with you when you are ignoring the double standard thats its fine to prove that a woman was unfaithful but proving a man was is too difficult

RabbleRouser2k

_Brian wrote: »

So there should be mandatory testing because you have a hunch that some bloke isn’t the father of the kid his missus is carrying.

It would be cheaper and easier if you just minded your own business and let everyone deal with their own lives as they see fit.

...says the guy who was not minding his own business, then comes onto a random board to denounce people for his aforementioned folly.

When I 'had a hunch' it was based on his own wording. He sounded unsure, so I observed-seems I struck a nerve with you.
So maybe stop projecting?

One eyed Jack

mrslancaster wrote: »

Why deny a child the truth - the recent referendum was all about some sectors of society not imposing their views on others

Stability is really important to how a child develops agreed but IMO all the advances in reproductive technologies are for the benefit of the parents who need help to have a child.

What about the child's rights in all of this?

I can think of at least one very good reason:


Child custody rights for rapists? Most states have them

Wibbs

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't see this taking off. What if I admit to having a fling and name someone other than my husband as the father? Will we test every single man named? Seems this idea is more about shaming people, namely women, for extra curricular sex.

Eh so cheating on your partner, having someone else's kid and passing it off as your partners isn't something to be ashamed of? It damn well is. Oh and lest the sexism brigade get an attack of the vapours, yes it's equally shameful for a man to cheat on his partner, it's just the addition of passing off a child as their partners compounds it hugely. If men could have kids and any man did that I'd consider him a right scummy bastard to put that on his partner and his child.

RabbleRouser2k

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can think of at least one very good reason:


Child custody rights for rapists? Most states have them

That's sadly what happened when one night stands sought out the father for child support--the law doesn't cater for anomalies. And women choosing to carry the child of their rapist is an anomaly.

The law then caters for the rapist to meet their child, even if the mother disagrees. This can also go for instances of statutory rape where a young boy impregnates an older woman, be it via coercion or physical restraint done to him.

The law often doesn't separate instances-it sees black and white.

Podge_irl

VinLieger wrote: »

Pointless trying to discuss this with you when you are ignoring the double standard thats its fine to prove that a woman was unfaithful but proving a man was is too difficult

They're not the same situation though. There is the obvious practical implications in that one is indeed phenomenally more difficult but more to the point, in only one scenario is the result of the infidelity raising another's child - which is a significantly worse situation. It is a false equivalence because the mother is not at risk of raising another's child.

Anyway, I can see why such a scheme would appeal to people from the perspective of knowing they are the real father. I don't have strong feelings on the matter from that perspective but I think there is certainly an argument for it in terms of benefit to the child in question. A person's genetic history is fairly important and knowing whether diseases etc. run through your family is key. Providing children with this information is an obvious benefit to such a scheme.

Dyr

VinLieger wrote: »

Pointless trying to discuss this with you when you are ignoring the double standard thats its fine to prove that a woman was unfaithful but proving a man was is too difficult

Nah it's pointless trying arguing because you don't understand that misleading someone about the parentage of a kid is an entirely different thing to being unfaithful. Once you get your head around that you'll be up to spped

Captain Obvious

I think it should be standard because it's about a lot more than parental rights. It's important to know a persons actual family medical background when treating them. Even for yourself, knowing your true parentage is important so you know what conditions you may have to look out for and deal with.

One eyed Jack

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I think it should be standard because it's about a lot more than parental rights. It's important to know a persons actual family medical background when treating them. Even for yourself, knowing your true parentage is important so you know what conditions you may have to look out for and deal with.

There's all sorts of screening done now before birth, when the child is born, and throughout a persons lifetime that can determine their risk factors for any potential illnesses without prior knowledge of their genetic history. Sure, it helps, but more a more informative predictor is actually their lifestyle.

RabbleRouser2k

lawred2 wrote: »

Mandatory?

How would you achieve that exactly?

Very easily-they do a blood test on babies days or hours after birth to check the baby's alright. Just use that test to check who's the daddy.

lawred2

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Very easily-they do a blood test on babies days or hours after birth to check the baby's alright. Just use that test to check who's the daddy.

So you want a database of all male dna in Ireland?

What if the mother doesn't submit to such a test?

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is why I asked specifically in relation to surrogacy - you want an accurate reflection of biology on the birth certificate, then the woman who gives birth goes on the birth certificate.

It should be the woman whose DNA contributed to one half of the child. Who actually gave birth is less relevant from a biological standpoint. Surrogacy is essentially "pre birth adoption".

Of course the child has a right to know their biological parents, I agree with you, but I would go further and say that determinations like that should be made in the best interests of the child, and in some cases, it isn't in the childs best interests that they are made aware of their biological parents.

I don't agree with this, it is never morally justified to withhold the truth from a person, best interests or not. On a fundamental level, most humans despise being misled or lied to, end of story.

That's going to put a dent in the number of donors who contribute their genetic material on condition of anonymity.

Good! The less people there are who have to live without knowledge of their heritage, the better.

Again you're arguing from the traditional family structure of man + woman = children,

No, I'm arguing from the fact that half a genetic sequence plus half a genetic sequence = eventual person, and that each person should have the absolute right, by law, to not be misled about which persons their genetic sequence was created from.

but we've come a long way in terms of reproductive technology where we don't need to concern ourselves with the biological shenanigans, what appears to be more important in terms of healthy child development is stability.

That's fine if you have a nihilistic outlook on the meaning of life, but most people just don't. Stability isn't worth it if it necessitates lying to someone about something as fundamental as who they are.

RabbleRouser2k

lawred2 wrote: »

So you want a database of all male dna in Ireland?

What if the mother doesn't submit to such a test?

A database? What? No.

If you have a database of all the male dna, then why not have a database of all female dna? It's pretty much impossible to collect all dna.

Many women would have nothing to hide, so no issues there.

GarIT

lawred2 wrote: »

What if the mother doesn't submit to such a test?

Then you can't put the father's name on the birth cert.


Personally I'd be in support of it, I'd like to have evidence to know my kids are mine rather than assume. I wouldn't dare to ask though in case I ended up single.

irishproduce

seamus wrote: »

I recall about twenty years ago a statistic being thrown around the US that one in four women were unfaithful in their marriage, and lots of people started going mad about it.

It turned out that the statistic came from a detective agency. That is, one in four women suspected of being unfaithful, were.

Which is a good statistic really; even if you are so sure that your wife is cheating that you'll hire someone to spy on her, the chances are 3:1 that she's not.

Likewise, this is a pretty good statistic; if you have some doubt over whether you're the father of your child, it's very unlikely that you're correct.

Overall I don't see much benefit in mandatory paternity testing. What's to be gained for society? A few extra ruined families? A few extra male suicides every year?

I have no issue with testing on request; any man being able to insist on a test in order to amend a child's birth cert. But mandatory testing is a draconian, authoritarian step IMHO.

Why do you think men would kill themselves? Thats some jump.
I'd be of the opinion they'd be relieved at the point of birth and knowing the child isn't theirs. Saves a whole life wasted resources.

Also with time, it would happen less as women would be very stupid to lead a man along knowing the test will come after birth. So just having the test there would improve trust and truthfulness.
Who knows.

One eyed Jack

irishproduce wrote: »

Also with time, it would happen less as women would be very stupid to lead a man along knowing the test will come after birth. So just having the test there would improve trust and truthfulness.
Who knows.

Women would want to be stupid to agree to the idea in the first place because it implies that they are inherently devious, so I don't see how you could argue that it would actually improve trust when the idea of introducing mandatory DNA testing implies that women aren't to be trusted in the first place.

EdgeCase

Who cares? At the end of the day it's more about whether or not you accept the kid as yours. I mean if you think back on it, it was probably a very very high % I'm the olden days!

Jeff2

Not mandatory but I'd advise it to my kids.

I know of two that have birth certificate in the wrong name as who Is the father.

Jeff2

EdgeCase wrote: »

Who cares? At the end of the day it's more about whether or not you accept the kid as yours. I mean if you think back on it, it was probably a very very high % I'm the olden days!

If you were told in a week rather 6 years what do you think the reaction would be..