Man wants maintenance repaid following dna test

pickarooney

I'd say at this stage the money is pretty much immaterial. It would be better to try and come to terms with the fact that you've at least helped an innocent child to a better life for four years than try and scrape it back through the courts and have everybody come out worse off financially.

I can't begin to imagine what it's like to effectively lose your child (and your father) after four years though. It's hard to see any resolution to this that doesn't involve more suffering.

Fittle

Your post no11 is very far-fetched OP.

First you say he wasn't at the birth.
Then you say that he remembers the nurse saying it was a full-term pregnancy if every there was one

And if she 'Had cases against him wanting to stop him from seeing the child..' knowing that he wasn't the father, why on earth did she not just tell him at that stage? If she didn't want him to see the child, and 'wanted to make his life hell' why didn't she just tell him he wasn't the child's father?

I have worked with single parent groups for years now (both men and women) and in my experience, both sides of the story need to be heard, before the 'actual' story can be clarified.

You say he raised the child as his own, yet there are other comments about the mother saying 'it's definitely your child'.
Surely he had his suspicions from the start?
And what man doesn't know that a pregnancy is 40wks?

Either way, it's hearbreaking for the child particularly - I'm unsure how often he saw the child however, and if things were as chaotic as you say, how on earth did he have any input in raising the child as his own when (from what you say) she rarely let him see the child????

pickarooney

Fittle wrote: »

And what man doesn't know that a pregnancy is 40wks?

I'd say somewhere north of 68% if you were to do a random poll.

iguana

Fittle wrote: »

And what man doesn't know that a pregnancy is 40wks?

What I found strange about the post is that in actuality 37-42 weeks is considered full term. Not 40-44 as the medical professionals he knows supposedly told him. Afaik, nobody is allowed go to 44 weeks any more as that is far from normal and most hospitals induce at or around 42 weeks as the risk of death to the infant is up to 6 times higher if a pregnancy is allowed go beyond that point.

Freefallen

Mr.S wrote: »

If the women made him pay then yeah.

Yes, the woman made him pay maintenace as a condition for the regulated access and guardianship.

Freefallen

samina wrote: »

Terribly sad situation for himself and his family as well as the child. He should be entitled to all he paid.

One has to wonder how many other men are in this situation and don't or never will know.

Apparently every 1 out of 5 children born... The alleged father is not the biological father...

Freefallen

iguana wrote: »

What I found strange about the post is that in actuality 37-42 weeks is considered full term. Not 40-44 as the medical professionals he knows supposedly told him. Afaik, nobody is allowed go to 44 weeks any more as that is far from normal and most hospitals induce at or around 42 weeks as the risk of death to the infant is up to 6 times higher if a pregnancy is allowed go beyond that point.

Okay got it wrong.. 38 to 42 is considered full term...

Fittle

pickarooney wrote: »

I'd say somewhere north of 68% if you were to do a random poll.

I'd disagree entirely. There's no way 68% of men or more don't know that a pregnancy is 40wks. (They certainly know it's not 36wks anyway!).

Fittle

Freefallen wrote: »

Okay got it wrong.. 38 to 42 is considered full term...

So was he at the birth, or wasn't he?

Dades

Freefallen wrote: »

Apparently every 1 out of 5 children born... The alleged father is not the biological father...

That sounds like a complete urban myth.

Freefallen

Fittle wrote: »

Your post no11 is very far-fetched OP.

"First you say he wasn't at the birth.
Then you say that he remembers the nurse saying it was a full-term pregnancy if every there was one

Yeah thats right, the nurse said that but the mother denies that it was said.

"And if she 'Had cases against him wanting to stop him from seeing the child..' knowing that he wasn't the father, why on earth did she not just tell him at that stage? If she didn't want him to see the child, and 'wanted to make his life hell' why didn't she just tell him he wasn't the child's father?

Exactly, or why didnt she tell him when or after he suffered with depression which was long before she put in the cases against him.

"I have worked with single parent groups for years now (both men and women) and in my experience, both sides of the story need to be heard, before the 'actual' story can be clarified"

Her lie went past the point of no return then taking on a life of its own when she believed that the hook was embedded enough.

"You say he raised the child as his own, yet there are other comments about the mother saying 'it's definitely your child'.
Surely he had his suspicions from the start?
And what man doesn't know that a pregnancy is 40wks?

Most men dont have a clue about pregnancy unless they're surrounded by females, sister's etc....

Either way, it's hearbreaking for the child particularly - I'm unsure how often he saw the child however, and if things were as chaotic as you say, how on earth did he have any input in raising the child as his own when (from what you say) she rarely let him see the child????

He put himself out on a limb and seen the child as often as he could.. Sometimes weekly, other times a couple of times a week, sometimes overnight.. Everything depended on the mother... So when things were ok between mother and "father" the child seen him a lot more often but as soon as things turned bad between them access was cut back to the minimum being the court order arrangment. That alone had a bad affect on the child cause she badly missed her "daddy" But even when things were ok between them she still treated him dispicably. She orchestrated a row so him and the child couldnt be together on fathers day because she had already made alternative plans with her sister( the sister who she was on holidays with when she became pregnant)

Freefallen

Fittle wrote: »

So was he at the birth, or wasn't he?

No, she didnt want him to witness it...

Freefallen

Dades wrote: »

That sounds like a complete urban myth.

international statistics... to be found online....

implausible

Fittle wrote: »

I'd disagree entirely. There's no way 68% of men or more don't know that a pregnancy is 40wks. (They certainly know it's not 36wks anyway!).

I wouldn't be so sure about that! Even women get this wrong. Most people go "well, you're pregnant for 9 months and there's roughly 4 weeks in a month, so 9X4=36". Lots of people have no interest/idea until they're involved in a pregnancy themselves.

I always answer in weeks if someone asks how far gone I am, to keep myself straight, but unless someone has had babies themselves, they tend to want an answer in months.

Fittle

Freefallen wrote: »

No, she didnt want him to witness it...

So when he did he hear the nurse say 'That's a full term pregnancy, if ever I saw one'...?

Freefallen

implausible wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure about that! Even women get this wrong. Most people go "well, you're pregnant for 9 months and there's roughly 4 weeks in a month, so 9X4=36". Lots of people have no interest/idea until they're involved in a pregnancy themselves.

I always answer in weeks if someone asks how far gone I am, to keep myself straight, but unless someone has had babies themselves, they tend to want an answer in months.

It has to affect you directly or in directly before the ins and outs of pregnancy is even looked at and even then most men leave it to the women...

Freefallen

Fittle wrote: »

So when he did he hear the nurse say 'That's a full term pregnancy, if ever I saw one'...?

When he went in to the room following the delivery... The mother actually repeated what the nurse said to him but then she denied that the nurse said it at all... Sticking to her stance that the child arrived early.

LegacyUser

Freefallen wrote: »

international statistics... to be found online....

Those statistics that certain groups like to quote mainly come from a study by Zoologist Robin Baker that was conducted in the late 80s before paternity testing became more widespread in the 90's. He also made alot of other notes in the study that have misrepresented by anti-women websites such as womens vaginas hold sperm better/tighter when they are cheating.

Freefallen

log in you say wrote: »

Those statistics that certain groups like to quote mainly come from a study by Zoologist Robin Baker that was conducted in the late 80s before paternity testing became more widespread in the 90's. He also made alot of other notes in the study that have misrepresented by anti-women websites such as womens vaginas hold sperm better/tighter when they are cheating.

Here are a few of the studies or authorities for these statistics:
Sometimes misquoted, the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) publishes an annual report. They have statistics regarding paternity fraud. Note that the statistics were concerning men that suspected that they are not the father and therefore sought testing.
Parentage Testing Program Unit - 1999 study by the American Association of Blood Banks that found that in 30 percent of 280,000 blood tests performed to determine paternity, the man tested was not the biological father.

Dades

Freefallen wrote: »

Note that the statistics were concerning men that suspected that they are not the father and therefore sought testing.

Which renders the statistic useless, no?

If 1 in 20 women taking a pregnancy test get a positive, it doesn't mean 1 in 20 women are pregnant.

Sleepy

Freefallen wrote: »

Here are a few of the studies or authorities for these statistics:
Sometimes misquoted, the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) publishes an annual report. They have statistics regarding paternity fraud. Note that the statistics were concerning men that suspected that they are not the father and therefore sought testing.
Parentage Testing Program Unit - 1999 study by the American Association of Blood Banks that found that in 30 percent of 280,000 blood tests performed to determine paternity, the man tested was not the biological father.

It's a fairly self-selecting analysis though: people who have no question whatsoever about parentage don't tend to get paternity tests done.

Freefallen

Sleepy wrote: »

It's a fairly self-selecting analysis though: people who have no question whatsoever about parentage don't tend to get paternity tests done.

I agree...

Fittle

Freefallen wrote: »

Here are a few of the studies or authorities for these statistics:
Sometimes misquoted, the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) publishes an annual report. They have statistics regarding paternity fraud. Note that the statistics were concerning men that suspected that they are not the father and therefore sought testing.
Parentage Testing Program Unit - 1999 study by the American Association of Blood Banks that found that in 30 percent of 280,000 blood tests performed to determine paternity, the man tested was not the biological father.

You do understand that the above does NOT translate into

'Apparently every 1 out of 5 children born... The alleged father is not the biological father...' which is what you said in a previous post?

LegacyUser

Freefallen wrote: »

Here are a few of the studies or authorities for these statistics:
Sometimes misquoted, the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) publishes an annual report. They have statistics regarding paternity fraud. Note that the statistics were concerning men that suspected that they are not the father and therefore sought testing.
Parentage Testing Program Unit - 1999 study by the American Association of Blood Banks that found that in 30 percent of 280,000 blood tests performed to determine paternity, the man tested was not the biological father.

Going off topic here but that is study of people who've taken a paternity tests not all children born which is what you claimed. What % of the worlds population have taken a paternity test? Lets say all 280,000 blood tests were of babies born in one year, there are 134 million births each year but as you've used an american study I'll be nice and use just the american birth rate of roughly 4100000 so [rough maths in head time] 7% of the population has taken a test of that only 2% have had results saying they are not the father. Hardly the 1 out of 5 children born that you claimed.

Freefallen

Fittle wrote: »

You do understand that the above does NOT translate into

'Apparently every 1 out of 5 children born... The alleged father is not the biological father...' which is what you said in a previous post?

It was just an example albeit a bad one...

In anyway he's not going to back down and he's going to persue it through the courts. He suffered emotionally, mentally, physically and financially at the hands of a deceitful self centred bed hopper. Why should he just walk away??? Women like her need to realise that there is consequences for their unsavoury actions and she must pay the price even if it takes her an eternity to repay him. It would soon make women think twice before they lie and trick men and their families into believing that they have a child, grandchild, niece, nephew or a cousin. Using them as a scapegoat to protect her own dignity and pride and get the men to pay for it. But now the rest of society has to pay for the error of her ways since the dna revelation. Thats you, me and everybody else will have to pay for that womans antics regardless if he wins his case and gets reimbursed.

al28283

iguana wrote: »

You'd think that but some people get incredibly confused about the fact that as we currently date pregnancy you aren't actually pregnant for week 1 and 2, maybe even 3 if your cycle is more than 28 days, as an awful lot are.

Imagine a woman who doesn't understand how the dating system works has gets her period Jan 1st. She has sex with a man toward the end of her menstruation on the 5th. Then she has sex with a different man 16 days later, around the 20th of January, which is also the time of her ovulation. February comes, but her period doesn't. She does a pregnancy test and it's positive. She's freaked out, who's the father? She goes to the doctor on the 6th of February. He asks the day of her last period and when she tells him, he tells her she is just over 5 weeks pregnant. Great, now she has her answer, if she's over 5 weeks pregnant the father is the guy she was with over a month ago not the guy she was with 2 weeks ago.

Of course she's got it backwards, but it's not deliberate on her part. I don't even think you'd have to be particularly foolish to make that mistake. If no-one ever explained to you that you begin counting the weeks of a pregnancy 2-3 weeks before you were even pregnant, you'd never guess that's how it's done.

The same point could be made for paying taxes, it can get confusing. But if you don't pay your taxes you will be done for tax evasion, they will not accept excuses like you were confused about dates

iguana

I do remember reading and article a few years ago about some town in Northern England where blood/dna tests were taken by everyone as part of some genetics/ancestral project and a huge amount of children in two parent families turned out to have different fathers. Something like 10-15%.

I do wonder if now that foetal dna can be detected in the mother's blood by the end of the 2nd trimester if automatic paternity testing should take place at this point. If it was done for every pregnancy then it would no more be a 'judgement' of the mother than the current routine HIV and hepatitis tests that are taken at 12-13 weeks of every pregnancy presently. Dna test are expensive now while done individually and privately but the cost would reduce drastically if it was done in a public laboratory for every pregnancy. And it could possibly save money in court time when paternity is disputed.

Freefallen

iguana wrote: »

I do remember reading and article a few years ago about some town in Northern England where blood/dna tests were taken by everyone as part of some genetics/ancestral project and a huge amount of children in two parent families turned out to have different fathers. Something like 10-15%.


I read that myself too...

iguana

I found an article that mentions the study but it's a bit wishy-washy really. An unpublished study with no links, quotes or mentions of who conducted it. So it could be something the article author imagined or invented for all we know. The same sentence is quoted all over the place too.

One unpublished study of blood groups in a town in southeastern England indicated that 30 percent of the town’s husbands could not have been the biological fathers of their children.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/whoand8217s-your-daddy/5969/

Fittle

Freefallen wrote: »

It was just an example albeit a bad one...

In anyway he's not going to back down and he's going to persue it through the courts. He suffered emotionally, mentally, physically and financially at the hands of a deceitful self centred bed hopper. Why should he just walk away??? Women like her need to realise that there is consequences for their unsavoury actions and she must pay the price even if it takes her an eternity to repay him. It would soon make women think twice before they lie and trick men and their families into believing that they have a child, grandchild, niece, nephew or a cousin. Using them as a scapegoat to protect her own dignity and pride and get the men to pay for it. But now the rest of society has to pay for the error of her ways since the dna revelation. Thats you, me and everybody else will have to pay for that womans antics regardless if he wins his case and gets reimbursed.

How on earth are the rest of society going to pay for the error of her ways

OP, stories like yours are one of my pet hates. All we get to hear is his side of the story. There is also her side of the story. And somewhere in the middle, is the truth of what actually happened.

...and your post above makes some massive generalisations 'It would make women think twice before they lie and trick men...' and so on.

If he was raising that child as his own, he should just suck it up and try to stay in contact with the child, no matter that he's not the biological father. The child is the innocent party here. Your friend should have acted on his suspicions the second the child was born and should not have allowed this situation to continue for four years, when the only person who will really suffer here, is the child.