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

mrslancaster

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

VinLieger

Bambi wrote: »

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

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

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

RabbleRouser2k

_Brian wrote: »

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

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

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

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

One eyed Jack

mrslancaster wrote: »

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

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

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

I can think of at least one very good reason:


Child custody rights for rapists? Most states have them

Wibbs

eviltwin wrote: »

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

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

RabbleRouser2k

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can think of at least one very good reason:


Child custody rights for rapists? Most states have them

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

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

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

Podge_irl

VinLieger wrote: »

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

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

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

Dyr

VinLieger wrote: »

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

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

Captain Obvious

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

One eyed Jack

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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

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

RabbleRouser2k

lawred2 wrote: »

Mandatory?

How would you achieve that exactly?

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

lawred2

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RabbleRouser2k

lawred2 wrote: »

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

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

A database? What? No.

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

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

GarIT

lawred2 wrote: »

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

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


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

irishproduce

seamus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One eyed Jack

irishproduce wrote: »

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

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

EdgeCase

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

Jeff2

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

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

Jeff2

EdgeCase wrote: »

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

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

RabbleRouser2k

EdgeCase wrote: »

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

Indeed-it was often a heartbreaking discovery for the 'father'. It's not just the financial costs, it's very much a case of your legacy, for want of a better word, being wiped out. Now your offspring is gone. Your genetic heritage.

It's different to adoption-one knows the child isn't biologically theirs, but is still their child. They chose that child. No deception is involved.

Jeff2

So say you are sure that a late teen of age child is your child and not who they think they are.
Do you say anything as it would kick off a ship storm.

It is just something I'd like to know.

mrslancaster

Jeff2 wrote: »

So say you are sure that a late teen of age child is your child and not who they think they are.
Do you say anything as it would kick off a ship storm.

It is just something I'd like to know.

Imo parents who raise a child should be honest with the child. They may tell him/her the truth at 18.

If you are the natural father why does your child not know that?

VinLieger

Bambi wrote: »

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

And again for what feels like the hundredth time the idea that we could criminalise such a deception is bonkers and sexist which is where i started arguing this point in the first place but you jumped into the thread and read what you wanted to, once you get your head around that you'll be up to speed.


Well that's completely incorrect and shows you didn't read the data which was skewed as it is 1 in 28 of men who applied for the test so it makes complete sense why that number is the way it is as many of those men would likely have a reason to believe their partner was unfaithful for them to go and request such a test in the first place.



So the entire basis for this discussion is around incorrect data meaning everyone up in arms about all men being deceived by evil women need to really take a good look at yourselves and ask why you are so willing to distrust all women simply based of reading a headline containing an incorrect statistic.

Women are terrible altogether, with their abortions and cheating and skewed data. #banwomen

EdgeCase

EdgeCase wrote: »

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

Apt username since your thought process is certainly in no way the norm.

valoren

If there was any doubt in my mind about paternity then I'd go about getting a test done anonymously with a swab or whatever was required. Nobody would need to know only me and would give peace of mind and reassurance. If it did happen, if it turned out the child wasn't my own, I would have zero qualms about cutting ties, contact and financial support immediately. To be duped and made a mockery of like that would be unforgivable and whatever relationship it was, a marriage, a long term partner, it would no longer be one. I'm cold like that I guess because I would be incredibly angry and any reasonable man would see it as an immediate deal breaker. There would be no marriage counselling or let's work it out sessions, I'd be gone. Better to be deemed cold and callous to decide that than to be someone who decided to look on and say nothing as I bonded, raised and unconditionally loved a child that actually wasn't my own.

Adamocovic

I'm kind of finished with this but saw the post and can't help myself :P

VinLieger wrote: »

And again for what feels like the hundredth time the idea that we could criminalise such a deception is bonkers and sexist which is where i started arguing this point in the first place but you jumped into the thread and read what you wanted to, once you get your head around that you'll be up to speed.

Now I haven't said it one hundred times like you have said your point, but I've definitely responded to you at least once pointing out the Paternity Fraud (misattribution of paternity) exists in many countries. Again I don't think anyone is pushing for it to be a criminal offense but it is a punishable offence. I keep seeing people saying they believe it should be punishable and you then respond saying you can't criminalise it, which is a different thing altogether.

Also it is not bonkers or sexist in the slightest. That is a completely ridiculous angle to take. The law and action isn't taken because the person is a woman, it just so happens it is more difficult for a man to misattribute the paternity of their child. :rolleyes:

VinLieger wrote: »

Well that's completely incorrect and shows you didn't read the data which was skewed as it is 1 in 28 of men who applied for the test so it makes complete sense why that number is the way it is as many of those men would likely have a reason to believe their partner was unfaithful for them to go and request such a test in the first place.

Here you talk about how completely incorrect the stats are while completely using the above stats incorrectly to represent all the population of the UK requesting tests.

Firstly it was 1 in 25. Secondly this was an estimate based off untested population.

Studies based on populations not being tested for paternity suggested a 3.7% rate, said the authors, but accurate figures were needed for Britain, where about a third of pregnancies are unplanned and one in five divorces cites infidelity by one or both partners.

Now I'm not a fan of the article. It uses a mixture of current data with unrecorded data to come up with the estimation that you cannot be sure is even accurate.

I agree most fathers who apply for a paternity test do so because they more than likely have reason to believe the child isn't theirs. If you want accurate data the DNA BioClinic in the UK selected 5000 tests by random to analyse. Of the 5000 tests between 2014-2016 the percentages where it was determined the person was not the father were the following:

UK 48%
-England & Wales 51%
-Northern Ireland 42%
-Scotland 39%

To stat the figures from the article are from suspicious partners requesting testing is false from my understanding as the 3.7% (1 in 25) it says clearly comes from untested estimations of the population as a whole. The above I would deem accurate results for testing in the UK.

VinLieger wrote: »

So the entire basis for this discussion is around incorrect data meaning everyone up in arms about all men being deceived by evil women need to really take a good look at yourselves and ask why you are so willing to distrust all women simply based of reading a headline containing an incorrect statistic.

Pot calling the kettle black here about incorrect data being used.

I have no interest in men who think all women are evil, or women who think all men are untrusting of women. My post is purely based on the data and statistics.

And as I've stated before, I'm not a fan of the idea of mandatory paternity tests but I do find it an interesting debate purely because of the whole birth certificate angle of it.

VinLieger

Adamocovic wrote: »

I'm kind of finished with this but saw the post and can't help myself :P


Now I haven't said it one hundred times like you have said your point, but I've definitely responded to you at least once pointing out the Paternity Fraud (misattribution of paternity) exists in many countries. Again I don't think anyone is pushing for it to be a criminal offense but it is a punishable offence. I keep seeing people saying they believe it should be punishable and you then respond saying you can't criminalise it, which is a different thing altogether.

JMNolan wrote: »

It should be a criminal offence to deceive a man into believing a child who isn't his is his.

Hmm you were saying? and 62 thanks from many who also posted in this thread with only myself and 1-2 others disagreeing with them so i would disagree and say it seems like many are calling for it or would agree it should be made a criminal offence

Adamocovic wrote: »

Also it is not bonkers or sexist in the slightest. That is a completely ridiculous angle to take. The law and action isn't taken because the person is a woman, it just so happens it is more difficult for a man to misattribute the paternity of their child. :rolleyes:

Again i agreed paternity fraud with compensation is completely reasonable at least twice in this thread, my problem was with the criminalisation proposal which is sexist in its goal as it looks to punish the woman instead of holding them accountable.

Adamocovic wrote: »

I have not interest in men who think all women are evil, or women who think all men are untrusting of women. My post is purely based on the data and statistics.

And as I've stated before, I'm not a fan of the idea of mandatory paternity tests but I do find it an interesting debate purely because of the whole birth certificate angle of it.

And I would argue if it is your goal to make birth certificates accurate then we should be actively searching for the bilogical fathers as well instead of just shaming the mother a holding her accountable which is the goal of paternity fraud laws, the biological father should also be held accountable too through then having to support the child he created.

Wibbs

Non hyped up headline stats from researchers in the area come back with a figure of around 2% of births.

It is difficult to accurately estimate the incidence of misattributed paternity, and there have been large discrepancies in the research published on the topic. Often data on non-paternity rates are reported tangentially to the primary goal of research without sufficient detail, and very few studies involve randomized samples. As such, it is not possible to make valid generalizations based on a large portion of the available literature.[5] Bellis et al. (2005) found that between 1950 and 2004, the rates of misattributed paternity published in scientific journals ranged from 0.8% to 30% with a median of 3.7%.[1] According to a study published in the Lancet, "High rates have been quoted, but are often unsupported by any published evidence or based on unrepresentative population samples."[5]

Turi King and Mark Jobling of the Department of Genetics at University of Leicester called the commonly cited 30% rate of non-paternity an "urban myth".[6] According to King and Jobling, the figure is around 2%. They also stated that misattributed paternity is often impacted by cultural and socioeconomic factors and that it occurs more frequently among couples who aren't married.[7] Sociologist Michael Gilding concluded that inflated figures have been circulated by the media, the paternity testing industry, fathers' rights activists and evolutionary psychologists.[8][9] He traced many of these overestimates back to a 1972 conference where non-paternity rates as high as 30% were discussed.[10] Gilding states that these data only show the incidence of non-paternity in cases where disputed parentage was the reason for paternity testing. [1][11] In situations where disputed parentage was the reason for the paternity testing, there were higher levels with an incidence of 17% to 33% (median of 26.9%).
He addresses the high results in suspected infidelity[underlined]. 2-3% seems to be the likely percentage. That this figure jumps to up to 30% in suspected cases is no surprise, though it also shows that even in suspected cases where the men were suspicious enough to call for tests two thirds were the biological father.

In short the risk is negligible. It wouldn't be something I'd be concerned about anyway. Unless of course there were actual suspicious circumstances in an individual relationship. In which case get tested to be sure. I'd not be completely against genetic testing across a population, but paternity would be right down the list for reasons for it.

Adamocovic

VinLieger wrote: »

Hmm you were saying? and 62 thanks from many who also posted in this thread with only myself and 1-2 others disagreeing with them so i would disagree and say it seems like many are calling for it or would agree it should be made a criminal offence

The person you quoted then went on to clarify they we're not implying jail, and rather fines. Which while criminal offences can carry fines I would assume it very unlikely Paternity Fraud would ever be considered a criminal offence, as I believe it does not meet enough criteria for such.

If you want to analyse the thanks received on a post as proof for the common thinking of the subject fair enough. I'm just basing mine on overall post content. I think it is very easy to thank a post early in a thread with a headline aimed to create an emotional response, without clearly agreeing or knowing what you are thanking.

While some may push for a criminal offence regarding it I believe, since people aren't actually calling for jail/severe punishment, that most would come to understand the reasoning behind it being a civil offence.

But maybe we're both guilty here of leaning on expectations based off our contrasting interpretations.

VinLieger wrote: »

And I would argue if it is your goal to make birth certificates accurate then we should be actively searching for the bilogical fathers as well instead of just shaming the mother a holding her accountable which is the goal of paternity fraud laws, the biological father should also be held accountable too through then having to support the child he created.

You misunderstand my point regarding that I think. I just find it interesting that in a world where we are demanded multiple documents of proof for the miniscule things in life that a legally required document that goes to the national registry takes the name of a child's father to be either
A) automatically the husband of the wife
or
the name the wife gives
It's just fascinating to me how the process works like this. Searching for the biological father is performed but generally you will need assistance from the mother through a list of potential fathers.

And Paternity Law is in no way set up to "shame" the mother. It is a financially driven practice. It revolves around child support, the purpose of which is not to shame the mother but to determine if the man paying the child support is actually legally required to.

And of course the biological father should be held responsible for paying child support. The whole process is to determine whether or not the person actually is the biological father.

I find your opinions on this practice beyond bizarre. How can they as you say "be actively searching for the bilogical fathers as well instead of just shaming the mother a holding her accountable" before proving the man paying the benefits is in fact not the biological father?

Also with Paternity Law, in the event where damages are to be paid from the mother it is a case where there is sufficient evidence to suggest she willingly took money from the man knowing he was in fact not the biological father.

Captain Obvious

I'm pretty sure it is a criminal offence to purposely give incorrect details when registering your childs birth.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Adamocovic

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it is a criminal offence to purposely give incorrect details when registering your childs birth.

Actually very true.

Paternity Fraud in itself is not considered a criminal offence (at least in the countries I'm aware of where it's practiced) but as you said entering false information onto public documents is in fact a criminal offence.

I'll put my hand up and say I'm not sure how countries handle this.

Adamocovic

Also just to add on Paternity Fraud, as a whole it is very difficult procedure.

In most circumstances when it is proven the man is not the father no reimbursement for child welfare is given. The courts tend to side with the mother despite when the fraud occurs. The only time reimbursement is really considered is when the man has made child support payments but has not taken on the role of the father. So basically when he has chosen to just make the payments and not be involved.

I think it's a difficult area and mainly used for people trying to stop mandatory child support payments. There have been cases where the judges rulings have been very sketching in my personal opinion. If the man has taken the role of the father even after being mislead into believing he is, it is extremely rare to get any reimbursement and in some cases will even be force into continuing to pay the support costs.

Personally I find some of the rulings in the past to have been extremely unfair on the man who discovers he is not the father.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Adamocovic

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah, I'm aware of the law in regarding how the father is attributed to the birth certificate. However in UK law for Paternity Fraud they state:

In the United Kingdom, paternity fraud, like adultery, is not a criminal offence[2] except in the case of the lineage of the children of the British monarch under the Treason Act 1351 where the adulterers are punishable as adultering against the lineage of the King with the King's "companion, ... or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir". In all other cases, only making a false statement on a public document is a criminal offence, including naming someone who is not the biological father.

So I can't say I don't know how they handle it. If it's a case of the father signing it unknowingly false, the same as the mother could do so, perhaps is why they wouldn't pursue it. As the line after says as of 2008 there has been no charges related to it.

But it still adds more to my fascination with the birth certificate. I swear I needed to provide more proof a €3 book which I collected from the post-office belonged to me than is required to add my name to a birth certificate as a father :pac:

Dyr

VinLieger wrote: »

And again for what feels like the hundredth time the idea that we could criminalise such a deception is bonkers and sexist which is where i started arguing this point in the first place but you jumped into the thread and read what you wanted to, once you get your head around that you'll be up to speed.

.

You might want to show where I suggested anything be criminalised. In fact you don't need to criminalize anything.

Getting a bit hysterical there chief, straw men all over the place.

GarIT

Someone said this was assuming all women to be devious or something like that, that's ridiculous.


If you want to travel on an aeroplane you must pass through a security check, it's not assuming anything, it is a simple check.


If you want to put a father on the birth cert you should have to pass a simple check, it's not accusing anyone of anything, it's just verification because some people lie.

An_Toirpin

It would seem like A very bad thing to lie about. Aside from the ethical ramifications from being mislead and having wrong medical histories, there is a high risk of it being found out. DNA is becoming so easy to test and whole families histories are increasingly appearing on sites like 23andMe.

hatrickpatrick

So this is today's big news story:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/adoption-controversy-zappone-reveals-at-least-126-babies-incorrectly-registered-36957826.html

DOZENS of people aged between 49 and 72 years old may have no idea that they were adopted.

Comments from the minister and from Tusla in that article, talking about how this may cause serious anxiety and upset to people.

Why is it that this particular issue is regarded as a legitimate issue of concern, but the idea of somebody's father not being the person they thought it was is regarded as something people should just "get over" essentially? It's an absolutely horrendous double standard.

mrslancaster

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So this is today's big news story:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/adoption-controversy-zappone-reveals-at-least-126-babies-incorrectly-registered-36957826.html



Comments from the minister and from Tusla in that article, talking about how this may cause serious anxiety and upset to people.

Why is it that this particular issue is regarded as a legitimate issue of concern, but the idea of somebody's father not being the person they thought it was is regarded as something people should just "get over" essentially? It's an absolutely horrendous double standard.

Not that people were adopted and they don't know rather that babies were registered as the natural child of a couple who were not the parents so the child, now an adult, knows nothing about it.

Falsified birth certs, wrong mother and father. Nothing went through the adoption process, the couple got a baby and registered it as their own.

At least if a child is adopted, there is a correct birth cert showing the biological mother.

Another scandal ??