Mens Rights Thread

Bannasidhe

Seriously? wrote: »

I'm surprised anyone would object to the idea of a man who suspects they are being cuckolded should be able to avail of fairly unintrusive tests to allay their suspicions.

Its shocking to think that in germany you can be indentured to child which isn't your own.

Who is objecting?

I am objecting to mandatory DNA testing being carried out in maternity hospitals at public expense.

A man is perfectly free to seek a DNA test and can avail of the courts if the mother refuses.

Also - Germany forbid secret testing - not all testing. If a man is unsure he can avail of the court system

From ibtpa's link:

Paternity testing with legal standing must be ordered by courts, and court-ordered tests are allowed even against the consent of the mother

Seriously?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who is objecting?

It was a general statement, not aimed at anyone in particular.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Also - Germany forbid secret testing - not all testing. If a man is unsure he can avail of the court system

Testing in germany is only available if either the mother or child agrees, which places a barrier to testing.

Bannasidhe

Seriously? wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who is objecting?[.quote]
It was a general statement, not aimed at anyone in particular.


Testing in germany is only available if either the mother or child agrees, which places a barrier to testing.

No - if you read the quote it clearly says the mother can be overruled and the test done without her consent. As for the child - their ability is give consent is dependant on their age which means it is legally not relevant if they do/do not consent when they are under age. The courts decide.

Maguined

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who is objecting?

I am objecting to mandatory DNA testing being carried out in maternity hospitals at public expense.

A man is perfectly free to seek a DNA test and can avail of the courts if the mother refuses.

Also - Germany forbid secret testing - not all testing. If a man is unsure he can avail of the court system

From ibtpa's link:

Do you not think having to go through court is a massive time delay as well as costly endeavour that benefits no one in the situation except for the lawyers?

Do you hold the same opinion when it comes to abortion? That it doesn't matter if abortions are not available in Ireland because a woman can avail of simply travelling to the UK to get one done? The fact this increases the costs involved as well as the stress is irelevant as it is an available option?

Bannasidhe

Maguined wrote: »

Do you not think having to go through court is a massive time delay as well as costly endeavour that benefits no one in the situation except for the lawyers?

Do you hold the same opinion when it comes to abortion? That it doesn't matter if abortions are not available in Ireland because a woman can avail of simply travelling to the UK to get one done? The fact this increases the costs involved as well as the stress is irelevant as it is an available option?

There is no cost to going to the Family Court and and legal representation is not required. I don't see why a lawyer would even be necessary to request that the court orders a DNA test.

Mandatory testing would be far more expensive and benefit only the companies carrying out the testing - the difference being the expense is shoved onto the taxpayer. If these DNA tests are to have any kind of legal standing then those testing companies would be in the UK and the expense even greater as strict procedures would have to be followed.

The current system is in place because there can be serious legal repercussions for man/woman/child so the courts oversee it. Better that then some private testing company in the UK. I can also foresee situations where the finding are challenged as procedure were not followed leading to lengthy court battles where the lawyers will indeed make some money - should the tax payer pay for that as well?

Abortion is not relevant to this in the slightest.

Maguined

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is no cost to going to the Family Court and and legal representation is not required. I don't see why a lawyer would even be necessary to request that the court orders a DNA test.

Mandatory testing would be far more expensive and benefit only the companies carrying out the testing - the difference being the expense is shoved onto the taxpayer. If these DNA tests are to have any kind of legal standing then those testing companies would be in the UK and the expense even greater as strict procedures would have to be followed.

The current system is in place because there can be serious legal repercussions for man/woman/child so the courts oversee it. Better that then some private testing company in the UK. I can also foresee situations where the finding are challenged as procedure were not followed leading to lengthy court battles where the lawyers will indeed make some money - should the tax payer pay for that as well?

Abortion is not relevant to this in the slightest.

I think you are underestimating the work involved in court cases, it is not as simple as strolling up to the court and saying you want a DNA test and job done. There is lots of paperwork to be filled out and if you do anything wrong it gets thrown out. Having a lawyer is recommended for any court appearance, just because you can go to court without one does not mean it is a good decision and things will go your way.

Courts also take time, do you think forcing all the people involved to wait the weeks/months for the court case benefits those involved?

The expense of testing is often very high as it is a nice industry with little demand, if this became a mandatory process performed by the hospitals at birth the costs would be dramatically reduced and an internal team could be setup for reduced cost rather than shipping it off to the UK.

Abortion is relevant because your basic point is that there is currently an option available to fathers. The point people are making is that this option is not every efficient at all so they want a more efficient process but you just keep saying there is no need as a process exists.

Abortion is directly relevant, there is a current available option in that women can travel to the UK for an abortion, many people say this is an inefficient system and only causes more time, money and stress so they propose a more efficient system in place. Do you tell pro-choice there is no need as there is already a viable option for them? that is the argument you are making on this thread, you don't care about the inefficiencies of the current system or the possible more efficient systems your point all along is that there is a system in place so no need to rock the boat and making any changes.

Bannasidhe

Maguined wrote: »

I think you are underestimating the work involved in court cases, it is not as simple as strolling up to the court and saying you want a DNA test and job done. There is lots of paperwork to be filled out and if you do anything wrong it gets thrown out. Having a lawyer is recommended for any court appearance, just because you can go to court without one does not mean it is a good decision and things will go your way.

Courts also take time, do you think forcing all the people involved to wait the weeks/months for the court case benefits those involved?

The expense of testing is often very high as it is a nice industry with little demand, if this became a mandatory process performed by the hospitals at birth the costs would be dramatically reduced and an internal team could be setup for reduced cost rather than shipping it off to the UK.

Abortion is relevant because your basic point is that there is currently an option available to fathers. The point people are making is that this option is not every efficient at all so they want a more efficient process but you just keep saying there is no need as a process exists.

Abortion is directly relevant, there is a current available option in that women can travel to the UK for an abortion, many people say this is an inefficient system and only causes more time, money and stress so they propose a more efficient system in place. Do you tell pro-choice there is no need as there is already a viable option for them? that is the argument you are making on this thread, you don't care about the inefficiencies of the current system or the possible more efficient systems your point all along is that there is a system in place so no need to rock the boat and making any changes.

No abortion is not relevant and introducing it as a topic here will, I believe, only result in a train wreck.

As my son is an unmarried father who has used the court system with me as his sidekick I am very familiar with the cost, system, and time it takes.

My brother-in-law was also involved in the court system as he denied paternity. Yes - it cost a lot of money because he fought it for 15 years and the court was unimpressed. The cost came about due to his fighting liability and attempting to minimise the amount he had to pay.

Did you actually read my posts?

I wonder as I have repeatedly said the Court system needs to be reformed.

I have repeatedly said that unmarried fathers should have the same legal status as married fathers - it is the failure to do so that ties up court time as men who wish to be acknowledged are forced to appeal to the courts to get piecemeal recognition. That needs to change as a matter of urgency.

There is no reason why an unmarried father who does not contest paternity should be forced to go to court. Yet they are. It is unjust and discriminatory and mandatory DNA testing will have no impact on that as they will still have to go to court to get legal recognition.

The solution is to implement a legal mechanism whereby unmarried fathers who do not contest paternity can get equal legal status with the mother and leave the courts to deal with disputes.

Maguined

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No abortion is not relevant and introducing it as a topic here will, I believe, only result in a train wreck.

As my son is an unmarried father who has used the court system with me as his sidekick I am very familiar with the cost, system, and time it takes.

My brother-in-law was also involved in the court system as he denied paternity. Yes - it cost a lot of money because he fought it for 15 years and the court was unimpressed. The cost came about due to his fighting liability and attempting to minimise the amount he had to pay.

Did you actually read my posts?

I wonder as I have repeatedly said the Court system needs to be reformed.

I have repeatedly said that unmarried fathers should have the same legal status as married fathers - it is the failure to do so that ties up court time as men who wish to be acknowledged are forced to appeal to the courts to get piecemeal recognition. That needs to change as a matter of urgency.

There is no reason why an unmarried father who does not contest paternity should be forced to go to court. Yet they are. It is unjust and discriminatory and mandatory DNA testing will have no impact on that as they will still have to go to court to get legal recognition.

The solution is to implement a legal mechanism whereby unmarried fathers who do not contest paternity can get equal legal status with the mother and leave the courts to deal with disputes.

Yes I have read all of your posts and I do not believe your solutions fixes the problems. Your fixes to the court system will make it easy for a non-biological father to perform as the actual father in the childs life but does not to address the actual biological fathers rights.

In a hypothetical paternity fraud case there are 4 people involved, the mother, the biological father, the non-biological father and the child. All your proposed amendments are fine for the mother and the non-biological father but what about the child and the biological father?

Do you think a child should have the right to know who their biological parents are? Do you think the biological father has the right to know if they have a child or not? Do you think it is fair that a mother and non-biological father have the capacity to deny the biological father the knowledge that they even have a child yet if they so choose they can pursue for maintenence at any time? Who does a father have absolute financial responsibility to a child yet with this responsibility does not even have the basic right to know if they have a child or not?

Playboy

I advocate testing for every single birth and would be happy for it to be paid out of my taxes. There are enough exposed cases of paternity fraud to warrant mandatory testing and who knows how many cases will be revealed once testing is mandatory? It shouldn't matter whether you have doubts or not, whether you are married or not, everyone is tested regardless.

There are two sides to this coin, there is a benefit for fathers who gain some assurance that they are in fact the biological father and acts as a deterrent to mothers from engaging in this type of fraudulent behavior. However, it also allows mothers to categorically hold fathers to account who try and deny paternity and dodge the obligations that come with fathering a child. Its a straightforward test that can be done quickly and cheaply so don't see any reason why not to do it.

Bannasidhe

Maguined wrote: »

Yes I have read all of your posts and I do not believe your solutions fixes the problems. Your fixes to the court system will make it easy for a non-biological father to perform as the actual father in the childs life but does not to address the actual biological fathers rights.

In a hypothetical paternity fraud case there are 4 people involved, the mother, the biological father, the non-biological father and the child. All your proposed amendments are fine for the mother and the non-biological father but what about the child and the biological father?

Do you think a child should have the right to know who their biological parents are? Do you think the biological father has the right to know if they have a child or not? Do you think it is fair that a mother and non-biological father have the capacity to deny the biological father the knowledge that they even have a child yet if they so choose they can pursue for maintenence at any time? Who does a father have absolute financial responsibility to a child yet with this responsibility does not even have the basic right to know if they have a child or not?

I clearly said we need a mechanism whereby when paternity is undisputed an unmarried father should be able to avail of a simple legal mechanism- like signature on the Birth register - to be granted equal status and not have to go to court.

Where there is a dispute - the courts are the correct venue for dealing with those - and even if mandatory testing was in place the courts would still be the only place where an unmarried man can be declared legally the father.

No man will be ordered to pay child support unless he has acknowledged the child is his - or a court mandated DNA test proves it - that man then has the option of applying for access/custody. Which is an area that needs to be reformed as the tendency to favour the mother is sexist.

Do you expect us to believe a man can be forced to pay maintenance for a child he doesn't even know exists?

Care to explain how that is possible since only the courts have the power to compel and no court will issue such an order until such time as paternity is proven?

I made no reference whatsoever to biological vs non-biological fathers so I don't know where you are getting that from unless you believe that no man should accept he is a child's father without DNA evidence - if that is the case it says a lot about your opinion of women.

Bannasidhe

Playboy wrote: »

I advocate testing for every single birth and would be happy for it to be paid out of my taxes. There are enough exposed cases of paternity fraud to warrant mandatory testing and who knows how many cases will be revealed once testing is mandatory? It shouldn't matter whether you have doubts or not, whether you are married or not, everyone is tested regardless.

There are two sides to this coin, there is a benefit for fathers who gain some assurance that they are in fact the biological father and acts as a deterrent to mothers from engaging in this type of fraudulent behavior. However, it also allows mothers to categorically hold fathers to account who try and deny paternity and dodge the obligations that come with fathering a child. Its a straightforward test that can be done quickly and cheaply so don't see any reason why not to do it.

Link to the number of exposed cases please?

I keep hearing there are 'loads' but not one shred of supporting evidence had been produced yet.

As I have repeatedly said - no man will be forced to pay child support unless he has acknowledged paternity of his own free will or it has been proven via a court mandated DNA test.

I think we have far more important issues that need our limited supply of funds then reassuring men who have trust issues - particularly when a mechanism already exists where it can be legally proven beyond a doubt.

iptba

Seriously? wrote: »

Testing in germany is only available if either the mother or child agrees, which places a barrier to testing.

You are right, there is a big barrier for testing in Germany:

Germany
Under a 2009 law, secret paternity testing is illegal, and any paternity testing must be conducted by a licensed physician and with the consent of both parents with the exception of sexual abuse and rape cases. Any genetic testing done without the other parents' consent is punishable with a 5,000-Euro fine.[23] Paternity testing with legal standing must be ordered by courts, and court-ordered tests are allowed even against the consent of the mother. Due to a reform in the law, any man who contests paternity no longer automatically severs legal rights and obligations to the child.[24][25]

The only testing that can be done without the mother's consent are court-ordered testing. If a man has to go to court to get testing, it is going to place a huge strain on a relationship.

strobe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mandatory testing would be far more expensive and benefit only the companies carrying out the testing.

I'm undecided on how I feel about mandatory testing but that's clearly not the case. Would also benefit children who have been mislead as to who their biological father is and men who have been mislead as to who their biological children are. Isn't that the whole point of the suggestion?

iptba

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No man will be ordered to pay child support unless he has acknowledged the child is his

The thing is that men don't know for certain if a child is theirs. They may have the option of requesting a test but by doing so they are put a huge strain on the relationship with the woman.

Maguined

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I clearly said we need a mechanism whereby when paternity is undisputed an unmarried father should be able to avail of a simple legal mechanism- like signature on the Birth register - to be granted equal status and not have to go to court.

Where there is a dispute - the courts are the correct venue for dealing with those - and even if mandatory testing was in place the courts would still be the only place where an unmarried man can be declared legally the father.

All of this is fine and I am not disputing any of it, It just does not help at all towards an actual case of paternity fraud as per the article this entire debate came about from.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No man will be ordered to pay child support unless he has acknowledged the child is his - or a court mandated DNA test proves it - that man then has the option of applying for access/custody. Which is an area that needs to be reformed as the tendency to favour the mother is sexist.

Do you expect us to believe a man can be forced to pay maintenance for a child he doesn't even know exists?

Care to explain how that is possible since only the courts have the power to compel and no court will issue such an order until such time as paternity is proven?

I made no reference whatsoever to biological vs non-biological fathers so I don't know where you are getting that from unless you believe that no man should accept he is a child's father without DNA evidence - if that is the case it says a lot about your opinion of women.

No a father cannot be forced to pay maintenence to a child he does not know exist. I am talking about that fathers right, he has all the responsibilities when the mother chooses but he has none of the rights. Do you think it is fair that a mother can choose to never inform the father and raise the child alone without financial help or if she so chooses she can name the father and he has the responsibility to pay maintenence?

I asked a very simple question so I would appreciate if you answered. Do you believe a child has the right to know who their biological parents are? Do you believe a man should have the right to know if they have any children?

Let us take the original article that created this debate. A young woman slept with 2 men and was unsure about who was the father, she chose to lie to both men (and the child) and just tell one man he was the father. Do you think this is perfectly fine? Will your proposed changes to the law address this issue or prevent it? I believe it does not. Under your proposals the man would endure the same fate, he would of been duped and lied to and spent years of his life raising a child that was not his.

Bannasidhe

iptba wrote: »

The thing is that men don't know for certain if a child is theirs. They may have the option of requesting a test but by doing so they are put a huge strain on the relationship with the woman.

You don't think that fact that the man doesn't trust the woman is already straining their relationship?

iptba

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Link to the number of exposed cases please?

I keep hearing there are 'loads' but not one shred of supporting evidence had been produced yet.

While I'm not giving evidence in this e-mail, I'll point out again that a figure of 2% gives 91,780 cases in Ireland. I have heard higher figures mentioned before. If it was only a bit higher, at 3%, it would be 137,670 cases in Ireland.

iptba

Bannasidhe wrote: »

iptba wrote:

The thing is that men don't know for certain if a child is theirs. They may have the option of requesting a test but by doing so they are put a huge strain on the relationship with the woman.

You don't think that fact that the man doesn't trust the woman is already straining their relationship?

No. As I've pointed out before, the sort of figures that are bandied about are that 60% of men and 50% of women have affairs (or 50% of men and 40% of women). Whatever the exact figure, affairs are not rare so it is not unreasonable to want to know for sure.

Maguined

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Link to the number of exposed cases please?

I keep hearing there are 'loads' but not one shred of supporting evidence had been produced yet.

As I have repeatedly said - no man will be forced to pay child support unless he has acknowledged paternity of his own free will or it has been proven via a court mandated DNA test.

I think we have far more important issues that need our limited supply of funds then reassuring men who have trust issues - particularly when a mechanism already exists where it can be legally proven beyond a doubt.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/one-in-25-fathers-raises-another-mans-child-502364.html

3.7 Percent according to this article so with 70,000 children being born every year in this country that means over 2,500 cases every year.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You don't think that fact that the man doesn't trust the woman is already straining their relationship?

Surely that depends on the context of the situation? There will be some cases where their partner might be acting suspicious and the father suspects and affair and there will be cases when the partner is just being jealous and suspicious and his lack of trust is unfounded.

Bannasidhe

Maguined wrote: »

All of this is fine and I am not disputing any of it, It just does not help at all towards an actual case of paternity fraud as per the article this entire debate came about from.



No a father cannot be forced to pay maintenence to a child he does not know exist. I am talking about that fathers right, he has all the responsibilities when the mother chooses but he has none of the rights. Do you think it is fair that a mother can choose to never inform the father and raise the child alone without financial help or if she so chooses she can name the father and he has the responsibility to pay maintenence?

I asked a very simple question so I would appreciate if you answered. Do you believe a child has the right to know who their biological parents are? Do you believe a man should have the right to know if they have any children?

Let us take the original article that created this debate. A young woman slept with 2 men and was unsure about who was the father, she chose to lie to both men (and the child) and just tell one man he was the father. Do you think this is perfectly fine? Will your proposed changes to the law address this issue or prevent it? I believe it does not. Under your proposals the man would endure the same fate, he would of been duped and lied to and spent years of his life raising a child that was not his.

He cannot have any responsibilities towards a child he doesn't know exists because he doesn't know it exists.

Seriously - how on Earth can a man be held responsible for a child he doesn't even know exists??? How would that work in practice? Does he get a registered letter requiring him to deposit a sum of money in a particular bank account no questions asked?

No. He either pays voluntarily for the child he knows about or he is taken to court and, once paternity is established, an order can be made. Paternity cannot be established unless he gives a DNA sample and correct procedures are followed. How do you expect us to believe this can happen and he still be unaware of the existence of the child?

A woman cannot just say Bob is the baby daddy and Bob has to pay based on her word alone. Bob has to either agree - of his own free will - or Bob can insist it is proven. There is no obligation on Bob to pay a cent based on the word of the mother. None. Never. Does not happen.

Funnily enough that scenario you outlined is nearly exactly what happened my brother-in-law (although he wasn't my brother-in-law at the time of conception). He had a one night stand. He was contacted and told she was pregnant. He denied paternity. He continued to deny paternity for 15 years until he was tracked down and forced into court where he insisted on a DNA test which ended up proving he was the father. Then, and only then, was he ordered to pay maintenance until his son left education and an amount backdated to cover the 15 years he had been dodging the issue.

How exactly do you envision men be informed if they have children they are unaware of?

One night stand - how to find the 'daddy'?
Ads in the paper perhaps?
A national DNA bank?

If he is in contact with the mother than he would presumably notice she is pregnant - it's usually fairly obvious- and can do basic maths.

If he is not in contact with the mother - how exactly can he be informed?

As a matter of interest - are you suggesting that a man cannot love or care for a child unless it is biologically his? As that seem to be the implication of all this talk of another man's child and men being duped/tricked.

Yes - children should know who the identity of their biological parents are when possible. In the real world this is not always possible.
We live in a mobile society where people move/emigrate etc - how do we keep track?

Bloke has a one night stand - condom fails - woman gets pregnant. Bloke has moved to Canada for work. How - in the real world - can he be informed?
Will a DNA test of the baby solve that? No. It won't. Unless there is a national DNA bank and every single person in the country is obliged to be registered - even then, if he is outside the jurisdiction there is nothing that can be done to 'force' him to have any responsibilities.

You seem to want a world where the State oversees sexual fidelity and men cannot trust women and the taxpayers should pay.

Bannasidhe

Maguined wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/one-in-25-fathers-raises-another-mans-child-502364.html

3.7 Percent according to this article so with 70,000 children being born every year in this country that means over 2,500 cases every year.



Surely that depends on the context of the situation? There will be some cases where their partner might be acting suspicious and the father suspects and affair and there will be cases when the partner is just being jealous and suspicious and his lack of trust is unfounded.

3.7 % is hardly 'loads' and it certainly is not enough to justify such massive State expenditure or the introduction of mandatory testing which has serious civil rights implications.


To return to my mandatory breathalysing for every driver before every journey analogy

18,851 drivers were arrested on suspicion of drink driving in 2007. A total of 18,053 drivers were arrested on suspicion of drink driving in 2008. That’s an average of around 347 drivers arrested each week for drink driving in the Republic of Ireland.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Drink-Driving/Drink-Driving-in-Ireland-/

An average of 347 arrests for drink driving a week.

If you look at the link it shows evidence that men make up the vast majority of those arrested (90%) - therefore should all male drivers be forced to take a test before driving because some men drink and drive?

It would certainly cut down on the number of drunk drivers - but it would be a logistical nightmare, expensive, stretch already under sever pressure Garda resources and have serious civil rights implications - it would also, however, save lives.

Maguined

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He cannot have any responsibilities towards a child he doesn't know exists because he doesn't know it exists.

Seriously - how on Earth can a man be held responsible for a child he doesn't even know exists??? How would that work in practice? Does he get a registered letter requiring him to deposit a sum of money in a particular bank account no questions asked?

No. He either pays voluntarily for the child he knows about or he is taken to court and, once paternity is established, an order can be made. Paternity cannot be established unless he gives a DNA sample and correct procedures are followed. How do you expect us to believe this can happen and he still be unaware of the existence of the child?

A woman cannot just say Bob is the baby daddy and Bob has to pay based on her word alone. Bob has to either agree - of his own free will - or Bob can insist it is proven. There is no obligation on Bob to pay a cent based on the word of the mother. None. Never. Does not happen.

Funnily enough that scenario you outlined is nearly exactly what happened my brother-in-law (although he wasn't my brother-in-law at the time of conception). He had a one night stand. He was contacted and told she was pregnant. He denied paternity. He continued to deny paternity for 15 years until he was tracked down and forced into court where he insisted on a DNA test which ended up proving he was the father. Then, and only then, was he ordered to pay maintenance until his son left education and an amount backdated to cover the 15 years he had been dodging the issue.

How exactly do you envision men be informed if they have children they are unaware of?

One night stand - how to find the 'daddy'?
Ads in the paper perhaps?
A national DNA bank?

If he is in contact with the mother than he would presumably notice she is pregnant - it's usually fairly obvious- and can do basic maths.

If he is not in contact with the mother - how exactly can he be informed?

As a matter of interest - are you suggesting that a man cannot love or care for a child unless it is biologically his? As that seem to be the implication of all this talk of another man's child and men being duped/tricked.

Yes - children should know who the identity of their biological parents are when possible. In the real world this is not always possible.
We live in a mobile society where people move/emigrate etc - how do we keep track?

Bloke has a one night stand - condom fails - woman gets pregnant. Bloke has moved to Canada for work. How - in the real world - can he be informed?
Will a DNA test of the baby solve that? No. It won't. Unless there is a national DNA bank and every single person in the country is obliged to be registered - even then, if he is outside the jurisdiction there is nothing that can be done to 'force' him to have any responsibilities.

You seem to want a world where the State oversees sexual fidelity and men cannot trust women and the taxpayers should pay.

Of course I am not saying a father is responsible to a child when he doesn't know it exists, I did not think I would have to explain the concept of time and things chaning to you. When a child is born the mother can choose to name the father and pursue child support or she can choose not to. Then when time passes at any time the mother can then change her mind and demand the father fulfils his responsibility and pay maintenence, your proposal means she can take him to court and once resolved he will have to pay. What your proposal does not address if is the mother chooses not to look for maintenence.

I have asked this multiple times so why can't you simply answer yes or no to the question do you believe a biological father should have the right to know if they have a child or not? do you think a child should have the right to know who their biological parents are? Why are these questions so hard that you refuse to answer them?

Bannasidhe

Maguined wrote: »

Of course I am not saying a father is responsible to a child when he doesn't know it exists, I did not think I would have to explain the concept of time and things chaning to you. When a child is born the mother can choose to name the father and pursue child support or she can choose not to. Then when time passes at any time the mother can then change her mind and demand the father fulfils his responsibility and pay maintenence, your proposal means she can take him to court and once resolved he will have to pay. What your proposal does not address if is the mother chooses not to look for maintenence.

I have asked this multiple times so why can't you simply answer yes or no to the question do you believe a biological father should have the right to know if they have a child or not? do you think a child should have the right to know who their biological parents are? Why are these questions so hard that you refuse to answer them?

I have answered it. In my last post in fact.
This is what I said.

Yes - children should know [typos removed from quote] the identity of their biological parents when possible. In the real world this is not always possible.
We live in a mobile society where people move/emigrate etc - how do we keep track?

See- this is why I wonder if you are actually reading my posts. My answer is right there yet I am being accused of failing to answer...



How do you propose mandatory DNA testing at birth would resolve the issue you are speaking about?

If the biological father was unaware of the child when it was born there would be no sample of his DNA available to prove paternity. So how does mandatory testing at birth solve that unless there is a national, compulsory, DNA bank?

If the mother has no contact with him- how do you envision he be found and informed?

If a man suspects he is the father of a particular child - he also has the option of going to court and legally establishing paternity beyond a doubt - the Family Court is not just for women you know. Men can and do use it. There are even procedures in place and everything.

Maguined

Bannasidhe wrote: »

3.7 % is hardly 'loads' and it certainly is not enough to justify such massive State expenditure or the introduction of mandatory testing which has serious civil rights implications.

When dealing with rights it is never supposed to be about the numbers but the principle involved. Today there are no gay marriages in Ireland because homosexuals do not have the right to get married. To me it is irrelevant whether it is ten gay couples or ten million gay couples being denied this right, it is wrong on principle and no matter the number gay couples should have the right to get married

Since you base your rights on numbers can you tell me what number it would have to be for you to believe that state expenditure or mandatory testing should get involved?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To return to my mandatory breathalysing for every driver before every journey analogy

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Drink-Driving/Drink-Driving-in-Ireland-/

An average of 347 arrests for drink driving a week.

If you look at the link it shows evidence that men make up the vast majority of those arrested (90%) - therefore should all male drivers be forced to take a test before driving because some men drink and drive?

It would certainly cut down on the number of drunk drivers - but it would be a logistical nightmare, expensive, stretch already under sever pressure Garda resources and have serious civil rights implications - it would also, however, save lives.

Your comparison is just outlandish. I donate blood, when I donate blood they test my iron levels first before letting me donate. They do not send a nurse or a doctor around to follow me to take a test, they perform it in the same building by the same professionals that take my blood. A mandatory test at birth would be the same. The same doctors and nurses who are already peforming their duties in delivering the child and then peform the test. The time and costs involved would benefit from economies of scale so in my opinion it would end up costing far less than sending every dispute through the courts.

Maguined

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have answered it. In my last post in fact.
This is what I said.


See- this is why I wonder if you are actually reading my posts. My answer is right there yet I am being accused of failing to answer...

My apologies but I am taking my time to respond to your posts so frequently I am working on one response for twenty minutes so I had not seen this last post of yours with the answer. However your answer is yes you think they should but you don't care to offer up any suggestion as to how and you oppose ideas that would actually combat the problem.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How do you propose mandatory DNA testing at birth would resolve the issue you are speaking about?

If the biological father was unaware of the child when it was born there would be no sample of his DNA available to prove paternity. So how does mandatory testing at birth solve that unless there is a national, compulsory, DNA bank?

If the mother has no contact with him- how do you envision he be found and informed?

If a man suspects he is the father of a particular child - he also has the option of going to court and legally establishing paternity beyond a doubt - the Family Court is not just for women you know. Men can and do use it. There are even procedures in place and everything.

The reason why a lot of biological fathers never know is that another man could be lied to and supporting the child. Mandatory testing at birth would prevent any non-biological fathers being duped. This would increase the chances the mother will pursue the biological father for support. If the mother never wants to pursue any father for child support then there is not a lot that can be done however I feel this level of testing would contribute far more and far cheaper than forcing thousands to go through court.

Bannasidhe

Maguined wrote: »

When dealing with rights it is never supposed to be about the numbers but the principle involved. Today there are no gay marriages in Ireland because homosexuals do not have the right to get married. To me it is irrelevant whether it is ten gay couples or ten million gay couples being denied this right, it is wrong on principle and no matter the number gay couples should have the right to get married

Since you base your rights on numbers can you tell me what number it would have to be for you to believe that state expenditure or mandatory testing should get involved?



Your comparison is just outlandish. I donate blood, when I donate blood they test my iron levels first before letting me donate. They do not send a nurse or a doctor around to follow me to take a test, they perform it in the same building by the same professionals that take my blood. A mandatory test at birth would be the same. The same doctors and nurses who are already peforming their duties in delivering the child and then peform the test. The time and costs involved would benefit from economies of scale so in my opinion it would end up costing far less than sending every dispute through the courts.

Donating blood does not have legal implications. Establishing paternity does. That is why the courts deal with it.

You are the one advocating mandatory testing of over 200,000 people a year - when it is only estimated 3.7% of babies - or around 2,500 - may not be the biological child of the man raising them so I think the onus is on you to justify it.

Which I honestly do not think you have done.

It will not inform men who are unaware they have a child as they will not be sampled.

There are already mechanisms in place - which have the force of law - where a man can legally establish paternity.

You haven't addressed the issue of how men who are not in contact with the mother be found.

You haven't even considered the civil rights repercussions.

You have ignored that unless such DNA tests are carried out according to strict procedures they are meaningless in law. So a court mandated DNA test could still be required.

You haven't demonstrated that this is widespread enough to justify that funds be diverted from other sources - the Health budget perhaps - to pay for this.

You haven't explored the data protection implications.

Plus - it is possible that such a move would require a Referendum as the Constitution protects bodily integrity - and while it may be fuzzy on protecting the bodily integrity of pregnant women due to the 8th Amendment - The Constitution states you have the right not to have your body or personhood interfered with - which was interpreted in Ryan v Attorney General [1965] as "That the general guarantee of personal rights in section 3 (1) of Art. 40 extends to rights not specified in Art. 40. One of the personal rights of the citizen protected by the general guarantee is the right to bodily integrity. This makes it is clear that a citizen cannot be compelled to give a DNA sample against their will without the express approval of the courts.
The government could not introduce legislation to make DNA testing mandatory as it does not have the legal right to interfere with a person's bodily integrity.

I could see this ending up in the European Court of Human Rights.

It would be far better and more effective to allow unmarried fathers who do not dispute paternity to be allowed equal rights as parents (the same as married men have) and leave the Family Court - which will have a lot of time freed up as it will not be inundated by unmarried fathers who trust their partners trying to get rights- to handle any disputes in a legally binding way.

I do acknowledge there is a (small in the greater scheme of things) problem - but I am trying to find a cost effective, practical, solution that uses existing frameworks and does not infringe on anyone's Constitutional right to bodily integrity.

Also - I seriously doubt there is any way that would pass in a Referendum.

Playboy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Link to the number of exposed cases please?

I keep hearing there are 'loads' but not one shred of supporting evidence had been produced yet.

As I have repeatedly said - no man will be forced to pay child support unless he has acknowledged paternity of his own free will or it has been proven via a court mandated DNA test.

I think we have far more important issues that need our limited supply of funds then reassuring men who have trust issues - particularly when a mechanism already exists where it can be legally proven beyond a doubt.

But a man can be easily duped and many have been by long term partners, short term partners and even their wife's. I wonder how feminists would react if the shoe were on the other foot? Just take it from men that we don't lie, trust us, sure we would never go behind your back and ask you pay for maintenance or even raise another mans child unknowingly. Nothing to hide then no problem and I don't see how that infringes your civil liberties? A blood sample taken from the child at birth and one from the father, quick test, job done. No anxiety about having to ask your partner or mother for the test, no uncertainty for the father or the child, no court cases etc etc. Something this important and which has so many difficult social implications can be solved quite easily by removing choice. Imo my right to be sure of my paternity and the child's right to be sure of his father supersede any right of a mother to privacy.

Bannasidhe

Playboy wrote: »

But a man can be easily duped and many have been by long term partners, short term partners and even their wife's. I wonder how feminists would react if the shoe were on the other foot? Just take it from men that we don't lie, trust us, sure we would never go behind your back and ask you pay for maintenance or even raise another mans child unknowingly. Nothing to hide then no problem and I don't see how that infringes your civil liberties? A blood sample taken from the child at birth and one from the father, quick test, job done. No anxiety about having to ask your partner or mother for the test, no uncertainty for the father or the child, no court cases etc etc. Something this important and which has so many difficult social implications can be solved quite easily by removing choice. Imo my right to be sure of my paternity and the child's right to be sure of his father supersede any right of a mother to privacy.

I have dealt extensively with why mandatory testing is not legal or practical.

By the way - blood samples for DNA tests cannot be taken at birth - a baby has to be at least three months old.

Men can de duped and women can be left holding the baby when the man decides to make himself scarce. Please do not try and paint all men as hard done by and all women as potential liars - it is inflammatory and adds noting to the discussion.

If you think feminists don't raise children who are not biologically theirs then you obviously don't know many lesbian couples with children.

Seriously?

It seems to me the more easy solution is to simply allow fathers the right to obtain DNA samples from their kids without the express permission or knowledge of the mother. And from there the results can be used as valid evidence to justify 'legally' compliant testing.

Mothers have privilege of always knowing the child is their own, fathers never have such a reassurance.

Seriously?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think feminists don't raise children who are not biologically theirs then you obviously don't know many lesbian couples with children.

A decision they make with full knowledge, thats the difference.

Bannasidhe

Lads.

Nice debating with ye but I have to go do some work or the words 'mandatory' will take on a new and nasty meaning for me.

I would like to thank you all for the civil tone, level of thought and respect shown for different opinions.

The rumours that ye are all Neanderthals In this forum who hate women and believe feminists are the spawn of Satan certainly do not apply in this thread. :pac: *that was a lighthearted jokes lads!*

Bannasidhe

Seriously? wrote: »

A decision they make with full knowledge, thats the difference.

As do some men.

Bannasidhe

Seriously? wrote: »

It seems to me the more easy solution is to simply allow fathers the right to obtain DNA samples from their kids without the express permission or knowledge of the mother. And from there the results can be used as valid evidence to justify 'legally' compliant testing.

Mothers have privilege of always knowing the child is their own, fathers never have such a reassurance.

Ok - last time.

Unless a man is married to the mother is not legally the 'father' unless he has signed a Statutory Declaration in front of a notary or it has been determined in a Court of Law.

This means he is a stranger until it is proven otherwise.


A stranger cannot take another person's DNA without either court approval or the consent of the legally recognise parent/guardian as even babies have the right to bodily integrity and to have that protected.

What is being advocated is that the right to bodily integrity as enshrined in the Constitution be brushed aside so a DNA test can be done on speck by someone who at the moment in time has no legal relationship to the child.

Seriously?

I'm only speaking of men who are informed they are the biological father and legally bound to provide support (both financial and emotional) for the child.

If a male believes they are the father of a child and the female is denying it, well that's a whole other mess.

Bannasidhe

Seriously? wrote: »

I'm only speaking of men who are informed they are the biological father and legally bound to provide support (both financial and emotional) for the child.

If a male believes they are the father of a child and the female is denying it, well that's a whole other mess.

You are going to get me sacked :eek:

Only the Courts can 'bind' a man legally to provide support for a child. If the man does not dispute paternity then it moves straight on to discussion of maintenance/access etc etc - this is what happened with my son.

If he disputes paternity the court will order a DNA test - if it is positive - the court will bind him legally (this happened brother-in-law).

If it is negative - he walks away as it is not his child.

The courts do not just take a woman's word for it.
If there is a dispute - proof is required. No legally binding order will be made until/unless that proof positive is presented to the court.
If there is no dispute - there simply is no dispute.

As I have said - I do think men get a very raw deal around access/custody and this needs to change urgently and the Court needs to act against those women who flaunt access'custody orders. Apparently, the new automatic guardianship bill deals with this - or so Kathleen Lynch told me - but until I read it I can't comment. I hope it does because some women need a kick up the jacksie and told to stop messing about or face the consequences of ignoring a court order.

Seriously?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are going to get me sacked :eek:

It's all part of the plan....

Playboy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have dealt extensively with why mandatory testing is not legal or practical.

I have read your comments and nothing you have said has convinced me you are correct.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the way - blood samples for DNA tests cannot be taken at birth - a baby has to be at least three months old.

Do it when the baby is getting it's mandatory 12 week check up.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Men can de duped and women can be left holding the baby when the man decides to make himself scarce. Please do not try and paint all men as hard done by and all women as potential liars - it is inflammatory and adds noting to the discussion.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I'm talking about a solution to an specific issue which can prevent all around a lot of hassle and uncertainty for all parties. In fact I would be more than happy if a man who the mother named as father was forced to have a DNA test so their was no doubt as to his paternity and which would save a lot hassle for a mother going through the courts to establish paternity if the father denies it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think feminists don't raise children who are not biologically theirs then you obviously don't know many lesbian couples with children.

huh? Not sure you get my point, which was that if men were the ones getting pregnant etc. Not many people know many lesbian couples with babies as there aren't very many of them around but I do know two lesbian couples who raise children from previous marriages to men. Not sure how that is relevant to what we are discussing?

Maguined

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Men can de duped and women can be left holding the baby when the man decides to make himself scarce. Please do not try and paint all men as hard done by and all women as potential liars - it is inflammatory and adds noting to the discussion.

The difference is that men cannot legally avoid paying maintenence. If a mother names a man as the father he will be pursued for maintenence by the courts, if he leaves the country and refuses to pay then he is violating the law.

When a mother lies to both the biological father and the duped father and the child then no crime has been committed and she will not get in trouble.

This is not painting all men or all women, merely pointing out when a man does engage in immoral behaviour in this instance he is legally at fault, when a women engages in immoral behaviour in this instance she is not.

Bannasidhe

Maguined wrote: »

The difference is that men cannot legally avoid paying maintenence. If a mother names a man as the father he will be pursued for maintenence by the courts, if he leaves the country and refuses to pay then he is violating the law.

When a mother lies to both the biological father and the duped father and the child then no crime has been committed and she will not get in trouble.

This is not painting all men or all women, merely pointing out when a man does engage in immoral behaviour in this instance he is legally at fault, when a women engages in immoral behaviour in this instance she is not.

Again with 'If a mother names a man as the father he will be pursued for maintenance by the courts,' This is not true. In fact, It is a lie. A lie you keep repeating.

If a man has been proven in court via a DNA test to be the father then and only then will an order be made.

Yes - if he fails to pay he is in breach of a court order. Court orders are legally binding this is why one will not be made against a man for maintenance unless he accepts he is the father or it is proven by a DNA test.

If a woman knowingly lies to a man for financial gain then yes, a crime has been committed. It is called fraud.

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0006.html#sec6


There it is in plain and simple language - lying to someone in order to get them to do something is an offence. Lying to a man to get him to pay money is an offence.

Once again there is a legal mechanism in place to deal with problems. It is hardly the fault of the taxpayer if some men fail to use the avenues that already exist and weak justification for infringing the Constitution.

Wompa1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Again with 'If a mother names a man as the father he will be pursued for maintenance by the courts,' This is not true. In fact, It is a lie. A lie you keep repeating.

If a man has been proven in court via a DNA test to be the father then and only then will an order be made.

Yes - if he fails to pay he is in breach of a court order. Court orders are legally binding this is why one will not be made against a man for maintenance unless he accepts he is the father or it is proven by a DNA test.

If a woman knowingly lies to a man for financial gain then yes, a crime has been committed. It is called fraud.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0006.html#sec6


There it is in plain and simple language - lying to someone in order to get them to do something is an offence. Lying to a man to get him to pay money is an offence.

Once again there is a legal mechanism in place to deal with problems. It is hardly the fault of the taxpayer if some men fail to use the avenues that already exist and weak justification for infringing the Constitution.

Could you imagine finding out that the child you raised wasn't yours and then you try to bring a lawsuit against the mother. I wonder what the poor kid would think

Bannasidhe

Wompa1 wrote: »

Could you imagine finding out that the child you raised wasn't yours and then you try to bring a lawsuit against the mother. I wonder what the poor kid would think

Divorce proceedings are quite often vicious - yet no one cares what the children think then.

But do you think we should have a referendum to change the Constitution to remove the protection to bodily integrity so we don't hurt children's feelings?

I am all for not hurting children but I am also a realist and sadly, children's feelings get hurt. If a man is so concerned about not hurting the child in the scenario you outlined that he will not report the mother then I assume he remains acting a the child's father and never breathes a word. After all, losing the man they consider their father would surely be harmful to a child. Imagine finding out the man you called Dad only cared for you because he thought you had his DNA, not because he loved you. What would the poor kid think?

Wompa1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Divorce proceedings are quite often vicious - yet no one cares what the children think then.

But do you think we should have a referendum to change the Constitution to remove the protection to bodily integrity so we don't hurt children's feelings?

I am all for not hurting children but I am also a realist and sadly, children's feelings get hurt. If a man is so concerned about not hurting the child in the scenario you outlined that he will not report the mother then I assume he remains acting a the child's father and never breathes a word. After all, losing the man they consider their father would surely be harmful to a child. Imagine finding out the man you called Dad only cared for you because he thought you had his DNA, not because he loved you. What would the poor kid think?

You got all of that from those few sentences? Also no one cares what the kids think then? I believe most parents do care about the kids during a divorce. I know the few people I know who got divorced were all about the kids.

Personally, if I was in that situation. I wouldn't bring a lawsuit against the mother. I would hate the woman and show her absolutely no respect or interact with her in any way other than to arrange events involving the children, I wouldn't say anything in text, writing or anything like that to their mother that she could show them in order to turn them against me and would make sure the kids know that I'm still their father and will continue to be.

iptba

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Only the Courts can 'bind' a man legally to provide support for a child. If the man does not dispute paternity then it moves straight on to discussion of maintenance/access etc etc

But a man's ability to make such a decision is impaired as he doesn't know whether the child is his or not.

A man is expected to make a very important decision based on incomplete evidence, when there is a ready-made solution to allow them have the full evidence. This is very unsatisfactory.

A court case is not a very easy way for them to have the data as it jeopardises the whole relationship with the mother.

This not a game show: we should try to allow people to have information they need when they are making decisions rather than have to gamble/guess.

iptba

I don't buy the body integrity argument as being a clincher. When one lives in a society sometimes has to do things for the greater good. For example, some of our tax money goes to other countries or schemes the taxpayer themselves will never benefit from. Men pay for schemes just for women, for example.

If men are expected to support children which could cost serious money as well as a lot of commitment, they should have the right to have the full information before having to make such a commitment and take on such responsibilities.

Funnily enough, a child's body integrity doesn't come in to it when there might have been a mix-up in a hospital and maternity is in doubt.

Also, it can be argued it is in the child's own interest to know who is or is not their biological father, for reasons given before.

iptba

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If a woman knowingly lies to a man for financial gain then yes, a crime has been committed. It is called fraud.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0006.html#sec6

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

There it is in plain and simple language - lying to someone in order to get them to do something is an offence. Lying to a man to get him to pay money is an offence.

Once again there is a legal mechanism in place to deal with problems. It is hardly the fault of the taxpayer if some men fail to use the avenues that already exist and weak justification for infringing the Constitution.

You make it sound so easy. If a woman has slept with the man, it's going to be very hard to prove fraud: she can likely say she genuinely thought he was the father.

Also, I imagine it would be very hard to get back all the money in many cases as the woman won't likely have it. And judges won't necessarily want to deprive the child/children.

And emotionally it puts men in a very difficult situation after they have bonded to a greater or lesser extent with the child e.g. if they order a test after a period as the child doesn't look like them at all.

But like with some other things in life, there is less sympathy for male victims than for female victims it seems to me. Similarly there is less of a drive to sort out problems men may face. Men's job is to provide and be given responsibilities, not rights.

---
Here's what happens in the US:

For unmarried parents, if a parent is currently receiving child support or custody, but DNA proves that the man is not the father later on, the support automatically stops; however, in many states this testing must be performed during a narrow time window if a voluntary acknowledgment of parentage form has already been signed by the putative father; otherwise, the results of the test may be disregarded by law, and in many cases a man may be required to pay child support even though the child is biologically unrelated.

diveout

iptba wrote: »

You make it sound so easy. If a woman has slept with the man, it's going to be very hard to prove fraud: she can likely say she genuinely thought he was the father.

Also, I imagine it would be very hard to get back all the money in many cases as the woman won't likely have it. And judges won't necessarily want to deprive the child/children.

And emotionally it puts men in a very difficult situation after they have bonded to a greater or lesser extent with the child e.g. if they order a test after a period as the child doesn't look like them at all.

But like with some other things in life, there is less sympathy for male victims than for female victims it seems to me. Similarly there is less of a drive to sort out problems men may face. Men's job is to provide and be given responsibilities, not rights.

---
Here's what happens in the US:

ipta, you have to look at it in a larger context.

First of all, family courts in the US are ruthless against the provider, whether they are male or female.

Secondly, many family courts in the US give rights to step parents, particularly step fathers who have lived with the child and with whom the child has developed an attachment, and step fathers can also be expected to pay child support in some instances.

So the whole rights and responsibilities issue has been slowly moving away from biology now for a number of years and family is becoming less and less defined by dna to start with.

Maguined

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Again with 'If a mother names a man as the father he will be pursued for maintenance by the courts,' This is not true. In fact, It is a lie. A lie you keep repeating.

If a man has been proven in court via a DNA test to be the father then and only then will an order be made.

Yes - if he fails to pay he is in breach of a court order. Court orders are legally binding this is why one will not be made against a man for maintenance unless he accepts he is the father or it is proven by a DNA test.

If a woman knowingly lies to a man for financial gain then yes, a crime has been committed. It is called fraud.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0006.html#sec6


There it is in plain and simple language - lying to someone in order to get them to do something is an offence. Lying to a man to get him to pay money is an offence.

Once again there is a legal mechanism in place to deal with problems. It is hardly the fault of the taxpayer if some men fail to use the avenues that already exist and weak justification for infringing the Constitution.

Either I was not very clear in which case I apologise or you have completely missed my point.

If a woman names a man as the father he has two options, refute it and go to court or else accept it and pay. My point is that if a mother names the wrong man it is not a crime. Again let's look at the example in the article. A young woman slept with two men within a close enough amount of time so that paternity was in question, there is nothing wrong with that however when she chose to arbitrarily pick one man over the other and name him as the father that is morally wrong in my opinion and it should be a crime.

There is no criminal responsibility at all for a mother who knowingly lies about paternity. The article itself said so. The man who had been duped for years could not even claim his child support payments back because in the eyes of the UK law raising a child is a privilege so the only way duped fathers in the UK can sue is by the trauma it caused.

You implied the situations were equal between a man walking away and abandoning a child and not paying maintenence to a mother committing paternity fraud. My point is that it is illegal when a man walks away yet legal for a mother to commit paternity fraud.

Of course these articles are from the UK so our laws can be different, I do not accept your quoting the fraud laws of Ireland means it will automatically apply to paternity fraud as without an example of this being used I would assume our courts would be similar enough to the UK where this is not allowed.

iptba

I thought I'd also point out that most women prefer to raise their own biological children than somebody else's from what I can see. For example, in Ireland, there were quite a lot of children available for adoption in the 60s and 70s (because of the attitude to unmarried mothers). But most women chose to have their own biological children despite the fact that pregnancy places quite a strain on people and giving birth itself is quite traumatic.

Or if they're going to undergo treatment, they like to be able to freeze their own eggs.

PucaMama

iptba wrote: »

I thought I'd also point out that most women prefer to raise their own biological children than somebody else's from what I can see. For example, in Ireland, there were quite a lot of children available for adoption in the 60s and 70s (because of the attitude to unmarried mothers). But most women chose to have their own biological children despite the fact that pregnancy places quite a strain on people and giving birth itself is quite traumatic.

Or if they're going to undergo treatment, they like to be able to freeze their own eggs.

id like to point out the kind of power the husband held at these times. do you think the women could just go and decide to adopt or do you think husbands could have stopped them?

it would have been the popular thing to have larger families and the woman was expected to have children once married. was that not true? by locking women up for having children outside of marriage they hardly gave the women a feeling of having the freedom of choice when it came to reproduction :rolleyes:

found this online an interesting read

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj91/horgan.htm

Magdalen Laundries and Industrial Schools

While the price of sex within marriage was high, the penalty for sex outside marriage was exorbitant. If a working class woman became pregnant outside marriage, she had to leave her home in disgrace and go to one of the Magdalen Laundries or 'Good Shepherd' convents. Her parents had no choice but to turn her out. Any parents who tried to stand by their daughters had the priest hammering at the door, telling them it was their Christian duty to turn their back on their child.
In recent years the truth about the abuse, even torture, of women and children in the laundries and 'orphanages' has been revealed. 'Pat' described her two years in a mother and baby home in 1963 and 1964:

You couldn't get out of the outside gate, you just weren't allowed... Someone always made a run for it but they were caught and dragged back... We were bad girls, we'd had sex. We were shamed... Six weeks after your baby was born they reckoned you were fit for work. Most of the girls were put out in the farm, working in the fields or the gardens or with the pigs and cattle. Or they were put to cleaning. Girls worked in the dormitories, the laundry, the kitchens...31

The nuns, with the collusion of the state, even sold the women's babies. 'Pat' told journalist Mike Milotte about the American couples who came to the home looking for a baby to adopt and her heartbreak when her son was taken to be adopted:

They had to be physically perfect, and none of the black babies that were there were ever selected... No one ever discussed adoption with me... I was just called over by one of the nuns and told he was going the next day... I remember so clearly, bringing him down to the side door, hugging him, cuddling him and kissing him, and he was just swiped out of my arms by a nun.32

These offences did not take place in the dim, distant past. The now infamous Industrial Schools were still in operation as late as 1984. Most people over the age of 35 can remember being threatened as a child with being sent to one of these institutions if we didn't behave.
The Industrial Schools, set up at the end of the 19th century, were known colloquially as 'orphanages'. In fact, only about 5 percent of the children in them were orphans. The vast majority were there because of the poverty of their parents. Mary Raftery, the television producer who exposed the truth about the Industrial Schools, discovered that about 80 percent of all children committed to the schools and over 90 percent of the girls were detained under the category 'lack of proper guardianship'. In practice, this meant the children of unmarried mothers, children who had lost one or both parents or whose families were unable to look after them due to poverty. In short, the Industrial Schools were 'a crucial element in maintaining social control of the population', a way of training servants and farm labourers for the Catholic middle classes and a method to 'entrench and perpetuate a rigid class system in Ireland'.33
The Industrial Schools played a very important role in policing sexual repression. This is evidenced by the extraordinarily high numbers of girls in the Irish system compared to the UK. In 1933, for example, there were 1,123 girls in the system in all of Britain (population 40 million), as compared to a staggering 3,628 in Ireland (population 3 million). This was because many (poor) teenage girls were sent to Industrial Schools for the crime of being 'sexually aware'.34 Others were committed to the schools because of their mothers' sexual activity.35

Zulu

PucaMama wrote: »

id like to point out...
Magdalen Laundries and Industrial Schools
...

And woe they were terrible times we can all agree.