If our partner gets pregnant are we wrong to ask for a DNA test?

CDfm

It appears to be a recent thing and only in contested cases.

So whats to stop a woman daddy shopping. Anything this adversorial if a guy had doubts and was the dad his expectation of access would be zero in the courts.

As bart simpson might say " damned if you do and damned if you dont"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud

• Liam Magill was initially awarded compensation for damages, not to be confused with the costs of raising the children, against his ex-wife for pain and suffering as a result of the paternity fraud, but lost upon his ex-wife's appeal to the High Court. The sole issue of this case was civil damages for deceit (not reimbursement of child rearing costs or child financial support paid).[2][3]

• Jim Knapp AKA Jim "Jones"[4], was found to not have fathered a child for whom he was paying child support after a 12 year battle in the California court system.

• Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker, a Florida resident, discovered the child he was paying support for was not his via DNA testing. Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him, stating that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year post divorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support a child she had with another man.[5]

yawnstretch

The problem is that once your name is on the cert YOU ARE F'd.

It makes sense to everyone in this thread that if a guy is not the father he should be under no obligation to support whatsoever. Unfortunately, the insane thing is that the courts will F you in the A every bloody time because they don't want kids running around without payment from a father.

Ergo, men of this generation, YOU are now the second class citizen. Women have superior rights overall and we have no recourse of significance. It's all fine in theory, but in fact, it seems that men lose these ridiculous cases EVERY single time.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

It appears to be a recent thing and only in contested cases.

So whats to stop a woman daddy shopping. Anything this adversorial if a guy had doubts and was the dad his expectation of access would be zero in the courts.

As bart simpson might say " damned if you do and damned if you dont"

If he has doubts the court would order a test and then there is no problem with access once the paternity is established.

shellyboo

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont know. But it wouldnt be hard to try. If you have been paying maintenance after being lied to about a child being yours, I have no doubt you could sue to get your money back since it was fraudulantly obtained.

I'm sure you could... but would you?

Say you've been raising a kid for 5 years, paying your maintenance etc - you then find out that the child's not yours. Do you sue for your maintenance back and risk losing access to the child you've been raising as your own for five years? I can't imagine that would be easy for any man.

Louocb

If it is an on/off relationship then he can definitely ask, otherwise that would be a huge no no for me. I don't think I could be with that person again after that.

metrovelvet

shellyboo wrote: »

I'm sure you could... but would you?

Say you've been raising a kid for 5 years, paying your maintenance etc - you then find out that the child's not yours. Do you sue for your maintenance back and risk losing access to the child you've been raising as your own for five years? I can't imagine that would be easy for any man.

No it's not easy. And it is a crappy thing to do to both the child and the man. Only a real **** would do something like that.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

If he has doubts the court would order a test and then there is no problem with access once the paternity is established.

I am still confused - is that the Irish position or the American one?

shellyboo

metrovelvet wrote: »

No it's not easy. And it is a crappy thing to do to both the child and the man. Only a real **** would do something like that.

I totally agree, it would be a crappy thing to do.

BUT. I don't see how a guy can say, this kid is not mine financially, but it is emotionally. Either you consider a child to be yours, or you don't - biological issues aside.

metrovelvet

shellyboo wrote: »

I totally agree, it would be a crappy thing to do.

BUT. I don't see how a guy can say, this kid is not mine financially, but it is emotionally. Either you consider a child to be yours, or you don't - biological issues aside.

Exactly. He couldn't. He would have to make a choice.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

I am still confused - is that the Irish position or the American one?

Im a little confused by your confusion here.

In either country if you go to court for either access or maintenance and either party disputes the paternity, the court will order a dna test.

shellyboo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Exactly. He couldn't. He would have to make a choice.

Oh, sorry, I picked you up wrong... I thought you meant it would be a crappy thing for the mother to do, to revoke his access.

Anyway, that's a bit OT really. Was just making the point that it's not always as simple as a DNA test

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im a little confused by your confusion here.

In either country if you go to court for either access or maintenance and either party disputes the paternity, the court will order a dna test.

if you dispute paternity you wont get access in ireland will you?

The pit and the pendelum springs to mind.

its fine in theory but in practice its a minefield

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im a little confused by your confusion here.

In either country if you go to court for either access or maintenance and either party disputes the paternity, the court will order a dna test.

surely the fairest thing to do would be for mandatory testing in all cases therefore nobody is caught out in a false accusation scenario and everyone is happy.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

if you dispute paternity you wont get access in ireland will you?

The pit and the pendelum springs to mind.

its fine in theory but in practice its a minefield

Why would you want access to a child you dont think is yours?

After the paternity is established, yes you would, if you wanted it.

metrovelvet

shellyboo wrote: »

Oh, sorry, I picked you up wrong... I thought you meant it would be a crappy thing for the mother to do, to revoke his access.

Anyway, that's a bit OT really. Was just making the point that it's not always as simple as a DNA test

I think I picked you up wrong. I was saying it is a pretty crappy thing to do to lie to a child and a father for five years about paternity. But yeah, after five years revoking access would be pretty crappy too.

shellyboo

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think I picked you up wrong. I was saying it is a pretty crappy thing to do to lie to a child and a father for five years about paternity. But yeah, after five years revoking access would be pretty crappy too.

Ah, ok. TOTAL crossed wires Need moar coffee.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why would you want access to a child you dont think is yours?

After the paternity is established, yes you would, if you wanted it.

You seem to have a very skewed view of the enforcement of access rights for fathers which is nothing like how it works in practice

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

You seem to have a very skewed view of the enforcement of access rights for fathers which is nothing like how it works in practice

What has asking for a dna test have to do with that?

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

What has asking for a dna test have to do with that?

what it is that if a guy asks for a test in the district court in ireland chances are he would have a tough time getting access.

its an adversorial system and is likely to p*** off the judge

if its almost impossible to enforce access in ireland at the best of times -a request such as this would be inflamattory.

metrovelvet

^Theoretically I dont have much of a problem with the mandetory testing - it removes all the politics of asking for one, the implied accusation, etc etc.

But in reality I have a couple of problems with it.

1. the cost - very expensive - unless it's just included as part of maternity costs?

2. the regulation around dna sampling, storage and selling of the samples.

hobochris

metrovelvet wrote: »

^Theoretically I dont have much of a problem with the mandetory testing - it removes all the politics of asking for one, the implied accusation, etc etc.

But in reality I have a couple of problems with it.

1. the cost - very expensive - unless it's just included as part of maternity costs?

2. the regulation around dna sampling, storage and selling of the samples.

If its common practice then costs would come down. As for the samples they should be destroyed as soon as they are analyzed. It should be done the same as how companies are meant to handle credit card details over the phone, process and destroy.

metrovelvet

hobochris wrote: »

If its common practice then costs would come down. As for the samples they should be destroyed as soon as they are analyzed. It should be done the same as how companies are meant to handle credit card details over the phone, process and destroy.

But as of now I don't think there is any regulation over it.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

^Theoretically I dont have much of a problem with the mandetory testing - it removes all the politics of asking for one, the implied accusation, etc etc.

But in reality I have a couple of problems with it.

1. the cost - very expensive - unless it's just included as part of maternity costs?

2. the regulation around dna sampling, storage and selling of the samples.

Have it done at birth and give the results to the putatative papa!

That would be fun:)

In the USA prices start at $89 http://www.gtldna.com/

full court tests to court standard are more expensive but the cheap test should eliminate doubt

scanlas

People seem to forgetting about the well being of the child. 1 in 25 children on average don't know their real father, also in later life that could cause problems concerning suitable donors for transplants etc....

Often that is how the revelation is revealed.

CDfm

scanlas wrote: »

People seem to forgetting about the well being of the child. 1 in 25 children on average don't know their real father, also in later life that could cause problems concerning suitable donors for transplants etc....

Often that is how the revelation is revealed.

this is exactly what happened an ex neighbour of mine.

except his "daughter" had given birth ...............very sad really.

by her blood type there was no possibility he was the father or for that matter grandfather.

Bottle_of_Smoke

CDfm wrote: »

surely the fairest thing to do would be for mandatory testing in all cases therefore nobody is caught out in a false accusation scenario and everyone is happy.

Yes completely agree with this. It makes me wonder however, why just in mantenance cases? If a man is deceived he's not only providing financial support but also stopped from starting his own family because he thinks he has biological offspring.

I'd happily have a DNA test at every birth. Lots of political issues with that though.

I think if I have kids I'll just do a private test myself without the mother's knowledge. Best way forward as obviously people are so offended by it.

wolfric

I've found usually people put up the "don't you trust me" excuse if they have a reason not to be trusted. If you've nothing to hide then just prove it. It's faster and it brings more trust to the relationship instead of building trust on top of trust without any proof.

. Of course you don't trust someone 100% and you never will. To trust someone 100% would mean that you could walk in on your wife having sex and she could blurt out something like "oh it's a new relaxation system we were just trying out it looks like sex but it's not" and you'd accept it. I think it's healthy we have standards for our partners to keep us accountable. I'd be very unhappy in a relationship where everything was supposed to just be "if you loved me,if you trust me" etc.

Knowing without a shadow of a doubt that the kid is yours would make everything easier in the future anyway. Better then having an inkling of doubt and just snuffing it away until it explodes into something huge in the future and for all you know the kid could be yours anyway.

Bottle_of_Smoke

wolfric wrote: »

I've found usually people put up the "don't you trust me" excuse if they have a reason not to be trusted. If you've nothing to hide then just prove it. It's faster and it brings more trust to the relationship instead of building trust on top of trust without any proof.

One can sympathise all the same. Its easy to understand how upset a faithful girl in a relationship could be by requesting a DNA test as they don't understand just how many fathers are being deceived.

On reflection I guess its not such a big deal. If a father wants one and he's in a happy relationship, its easy to do a private test without her knowledge. If not in a relationship with the mother he doesn't have to worry about losing anything through offending her unless there's an issue about custody. Therefore I would agree it should be standard for every case that paternity is confirmed to stop it creating a bias in court.

metrovelvet

^ It's not actually. You need the mother's permission if the lab is in Ireland and in many other countries.

My son's swab was sent of to a lab in Australia where they do not need the mother's permisson.

I do no know what happened to it after that, if it is stored, sold, or destroyed.

CDfm

Most relationships dont survive infidelity.

But how accurate are statistics on parenting fraud. Does anyone have accurate stats?

I did a google search on infidelity and Carlow is the best place in Ireland for infidelity.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

Most relationships dont survive infidelity.

But how accurate are statistics on parenting fraud. Does anyone have accurate stats?

I did a google search on infidelity and Carlow is the best place in Ireland for infidelity.

I dont know cdfm. I dont think its all that common. TBH my guess would be its more common in married women who let their husbands think the child is his, as they have more to lose.

I personally know of two married women who had affairs and got pregnant, unsure of who the father was decided to have abortions. The husbands never knew and the marriages are still intact.

That is why I dont believe the "long term relationship" warrants less suspicion.

The Corinthian

FTW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHW88wdEyFM

CDfm

Ah Maury Povich that brave champion of mens rights:D

Then you have Jerry Springer the relationship guru

It could be you.

Its probably closer to real life than people admit.

metrovelvet

I find that offensive.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

I find that offensive.

Its probably not any more offensive than break up situations and the Family Law Courts except its behind closed doors.

It is very black humour though.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

Its probably not any more offensive than break up situations and the Family Law Courts except its behind closed doors.

It is very black humour though.

I didnt think it was funny. I didnt like the language, bitch ho skank, etc and that this is ok way to refer to women and to the mother of your child. Pretty sick.

The creators can make fun of white trash but they themselves come off no better than white trash with that kind of talk.

CDfm

But thats just semantics and I imagine it is just part of a whole raft of thoughts and feelings and expressions people use when the find themselves in the situation IRL.

TBH metro you are personalising this a bit.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

But thats just semantics and I imagine it is just part of a whole raft of thoughts and feelings and expressions people use when the find themselves in the situation IRL.

TBH metro you are personalising this a bit.

No I am not.

Dr Galen

I wouldn't say that anything you see on Jerry Springer could be compared to what happens nearly anywhere else. It's car crash TV at it's worst.

Let's leave it at that though, and keep any further discussion on the topic at hand.

Thanks

MM

Boston

metrovelvet wrote: »

I didnt think it was funny. I didnt like the language, bitch ho skank, etc and that this is ok way to refer to women and to the mother of your child. Pretty sick

I think the whole point is that it's not the mother of the child. What type of language should one use when describing a partner that has cheated?

metrovelvet

Boston wrote: »

I think the whole point is that it's not the mother of the child. What type of language should one use when describing a partner that has cheated?

But in the video didnt it turn out she wasnt lying? And she still get called all those mysoginistic names?

Maybe I didnt see it properly.

Boston

Nah, you took it up wrong.

CDfm

As MM said its Jerry Springer.

Its entertainment. Redneck central.

I posted it in a tongue in cheek way. BTW Reverend Schnorr is not a real reverend and the weddings are not real.

metrovelvet

Boston wrote: »

Nah, you took it up wrong.

Yeah I know that now. I still find it offensive though, skank ho, etc .

I think it was the last line "because sometimes the bitch does play you like that" as if all women are "the bitch" whether they are playing you or not.

ANd other times, gentlemen "the bitch" does not play you like that.

Jesus christ. I despair over humanity.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

As MM said its Jerry Springer.

Its entertainment. Redneck central.

I posted it in a tongue in cheek way. BTW Reverend Schnorr is not a real reverend and the weddings are not real.

I was talking about the maury povich snip - the other white trash tv central - I didnt even bother with the Jerry Springer one.

I see enough road kill as it is.

CDfm

Metro -its a spoof advert on the maury show. Watch the show and you will get the joke.

Some articles give paternity fraud figures as high as 30%

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48871

The case was real

[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]The New Hampshire commission took note of the case of Geoffrey Fisher. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman eight years ago and when she got pregnant and told him he was the father, he believed her. He began paying child support but eventually fell behind. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]In the summer of 2001, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services took him to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up, and the state had his license suspended under the "deadbeat dad" law. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn't the father. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could no longer see the girl because he wasn't the father, while another said he owed $10,000 and couldn't have a driver's license because he was the father. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]Fisher thought the matter resolved when a judge ruled he no longer had to pay child support in January 2002. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]But then last spring, the Maine attorney general's office claimed Fisher still owed support payments for the time from the child's birth until she reached 3 years old, when tests proved Fisher was not the father. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]"Paternity fraud is a growing problem for both men, who should have a higher level of confidence on the paternity of their children, and for the children who need a reliable history of both parents for the maintenance of their physical and emotional health," concluded the New Hampshire commission. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]Carnell Smith, a paternity fraud expert, says that 30 percent of the cases he sampled proved negative. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]Like New Hampshire, California has also established a commission to explore the problem, based on reports that 14 percent are being misnamed as fathers. A report is expected later this year. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he's not the father. Like most states, Florida currently requires that child support – once legally established – continue until the child's 18th birthday, regardless of who the real biological father is. Eleven states have changed similar laws since 1994. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]A new state law took effect in Colorado this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring – at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action. However, once a final order is entered, the new law says, the man is barred from presenting evidence of non-paternity. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]But there is also a problem with the way some DNA tests are conducted and analyzed, say experts. [/font]
[font=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]For instance, one physician reported that two unrelated men – one black, the other white – both tested with a probability of paternity at 99 percent for the same child.[/font]

The reality is that nobody knows what the real incidence is.

Wibbs

For me it would depend on the situation. If it was a one nighter or short fling, damn right I'd ask for a test. I dunno her she doesn't know me, so I simply wouldn't sign my life away without proof. Long termer different thing. I doubt I would, but I've been screwed over and indeed have been the "other guy" enough times to be somewhat cynical. Hard to say.

Coriolanus

@Cdfm There's supposed to be several genetic studies that back up the 30% number. I've been trying to track them down to the actual journals they were published in but pop science authors are crap at bibliographies and referencing. Most recently read it in Jared Diamonds The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee. Reading it at the moment and just re-read the chapter on adultery but can't find his references. <<

That said, surveys on adultery itself are a dime a dozen and have been pretty steady since the sixties for America at least, which is the most surveyed. Starting with Kinsey a steady rate of about 25% of married people will have commited adultery by age 40. Given that I'd have thought that rates of paternity mismatch would be lower, but, well, risk taking behaviour (adultery) and using protection don't exactly go hand in hand

ANYWAY, on topic. If I had some doubts about the OH's fidelity I'd just fake a freak-out over the baby not looking like either of us and rest at nothing short of twin pater/maternity tests to settle my poor, worried first-time-father brain.

metrovelvet

Just be aware than any kind of questioning someone's word is always going to be touchy. Imagine i someone you were seeing, or someone you loved asked you when you had your last std/hiv test and what the results were. You told them, and then they demanded to see the paperwork to back it up.

DubiousDude

I havent read through all the posts on this topic but for me its simple.
It is the mans right to know if he is the father. I have many times said that the health board should offer free paternity testing at the birth of every child. This should just become standard practice.
After the initial 'gasps' I hear from everyone, think about it for a second.

The mother is the only one who know 100% that the child is hers. Should the father not also be afforded the same knowledge? Especially when the result can mean 18 years of monthly fines for something that has nothing to do with you.