# DNA, child support and paternity?



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

I put this thread in "Activism" because I feel that child support is a children's rights issue. If it needs to be moved, that's fine too.

I've recently read a few articles about how DNA is changing the way we view paternity as a society. Apparently, one change has been that men who've had father-child relationships with children for _years_ are having DNA tests done and proving they are not the father. Of course, these tests are ususally done after a messy break-up with the child's mother. I'm not even going to get into that part of it...

So, obviously, children are being hurt by this. What can be done? I have an idea, but I'm sure it's got some downside to it. So I'm hoping maybe we can discuss this issue with a focus on what is best for the children invovled.

My idea is that paternity can be contested until the child is a certain age. After that, paternity cannot be contested by either parent because a father-child relationship has been established, regardless of DNA. I think a good age would be two, because while it would certainly be painful for a toddler to loose their father, the child will most likely not remember it.

With DNA becoming cheaper all the time, this is an issue we will surely be faced with more and more often. What are some other ideas of how to handle this? Or should fathers legally be allowed to test their child for paternity at any age?


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

My ex insisted on a dna test when our son was 9 years old. (year and a half ago) The funny thing is, they look EXACTLY alike!
Let me tell you what a slap in the face that was. Especially as we had broken up when he was 3. Funny, he wouldnt pay for half of his perscription glasses but seemed to find $600 for the test....
Anyway, my lawyer explained to me that even if it came out that he wasnt the father, ds recognized him _as_ a father and he would still have to pay support.
So, I'm happy with our courts line of thinking. I would hope all courts would look at the interests of the child - especially after the child has bonded with this man as the father.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

My off-the-cuff first guess is that such a system would help destabilize marriages, in that it would help prompt a man to question paternity...and not only that, but relatively soon after a child is born. Whether or not the test is negative, some damage has likely been done - just as, for instance, damage is done when a partner thinks the other has been cheating, and becomes so insecure about it that s/he checks up on the partner, only to find, lo and behold, that there's no evidence of cheating.

I suppose the interesting question here is: what does it mean to be a parent, and to what extent, if at all, is "actual" parenthood tied up with biological parenthood?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I think it's great that courts are finally recognizing that parenthood is more than biological.

I hear the DNA tests aren't 100% accutate - that they can only prove that you're NOT the father, not that you are the father. They can show you could have been the father, but if there are many possible fathers to choose from (let's say someone was gang-raped by 20 men) and it shows that 15 aren't the father and 5 could have been, what does the woman do then?

Also, can a man legally refuse a DNA test?


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

it's the wave of the future, better get used to it. we're entering a golden age where we're going to discover just how much hanky panky is going on out there.

you can blame the brits: a few years back a genetics study was started that sampled the DNA of all new borns and the couple who claimed to be their parents. the study was cancelled once they started discovering something like 1 in 5 babies were not related to the guy in the delivery room: word spread, consent signatures became scarce.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Yup, those stats jive pretty well with those found in the U.S. when tests are done to determine whether a person is a potential organ or tissue donor for a parent or child. Approximately 20% are not related at all (leading to one of several ethical questions - what should the doc tell the person who provided the sample?)

Re this:

Quote:

I think it's great that courts are finally recognizing that parenthood is more than biological.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. Only relatively recently have some courts decided that they'll allow a husband to disavow paternity (with all its rights and duties) on the basis of a DNA test re a child born during the marriage. According to this view, it's the genes that matter, or whether the person did the deed, rather than the person's emotional and material relationship with the child. And genes have been gaining even more prominence in family law in recent years, what with a number of prominent cases concerning the right of one individual to use frozen embryos produced during a marriage or relationship after the relationship goes south. At least to the best of my knowledge, all such cases have come down on the side of the parent who DOESN'T want to reproduce to bar use of the embryos, even if the other parent is willing to not seek any support of any kind from the unwilling one.


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

Sometimes I wonder if we should just test every child at birth. If it's everyone, all the time, there should not be trust issues.
I do think there should be a limit to contest paternity, say 2 years. Also, you shouldn't be able to track down a man and demand 9 years child support for a nine-year-old that the father doesn't know about. That should be a 2 year limit, too.
In my genetics studies, the often quoted figure is 10% mis-identified paternity. That seems to hold true for religious families in religious communities in the US (not to name names) as well as urban British hospitals and tribes living deep in the rain forest.
I know of two cases, personal friends and family, both married couples. No one ever suspected, seriously! The kids looked like Mom and sort of like Dad and I never questioned it. Life is strange, huh?
Did you hear about the woman who was not genetically related to her children? She was a chimera of two fertilized eggs. Her mouth had one DNA pattern and her ovaries had the other. So the cheek swab did not match the children. Can you imagine not being related (well, sort of) to your children, that you birthed?


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Great topic, pug!

I have to disagree with Marlena: your marriage was already in trouble if your DH has to question paternity, or if you have to follow your spouse around to see if he's being faithful.

I'm heartened by those who claim that law recognizes the bond established between a man and child regardless of genetics.

As an adopted child myself, I am all too aware of how little DNA factors into parenting and a sense of family.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Quote:

I have to disagree with Marlena: your marriage was already in trouble if your DH has to question paternity, or if you have to follow your spouse around to see if he's being faithful.

ITA with your statement. I think, though, that if men knew they had a two year window in which to contest paternity or else it would be shut forever, it might prompt men who would otherwise give it a passing thought and then let it go to instead go through with the testing, to everyone's detriment.

For women, maternity is a biological fact. For men, it's taken on faith. Why do something that's bound to shake the faith, particularly when men are generally so insecure about the matter anyway (hence many of our cultural and legal conventions regarding marriage and paternity)?


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Will not rehash the story from another thread, but will put it out in hypothetical.

And if a wife leaves the husband before she even takes a pregnancy test, moves in with her lover, sues for divorce while still in the first trimester ... ie., the husband has the DNA but not the child, and another man (the lover) is claiming the child as his ... is that DNA determinative of anything except that the DNA provider is required to pay money?

The lover has zero incentive to legally adopt the child, because then the family unit (mother, lover, and child) lose a source of nontaxable income (read: the DNA-provider no longer would have to send them money every month).

Remembering that there are several sides to a story.

The courts in NY have stated (as someone in the above-referenced situation was told) that a child born within the legal boundaries of a marriage will not lose that presumption of legitimacy. Despite the fact that the mother sued for divorce while the child was in the early stages of gestation ... because the divorce was not final for several years.

Another relevant tale, was from the news some years ago (about 5 or 6, but then it was already a little old) about a couple who froze some embryos for themselves, but then a few years later divorced. A few years after that (the ex-husband had remarried & had a family, the ex-wife had not) the ex-wife decided to take those frozen embryos and have a baby.

The ex-husband was made to pay child support. Didn't have much choice in the parenting part, and doesn't have much choice about the payment part either.










Am surprised, pugmadmama, that you would suggest that testing for paternity should be allowable post-birth at all. Particularly because of the inability of paternity testing to be 100% despositive of paternity ...


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I didn't get that the OP was suggesting paternity tests be used for or against monetary compensation.

I got the idea that she was pointing out the potential for damaged relationships between children and their fathers should the father learn late in the child's life that he's not the biological parent.

While I agree that such things *may* pose potential emotional harm to the children, I think disallowing paternity tests would fall into a zone of restricted personal rights that I'm not comfortable with. It reminds me of closed adoption laws where nobody was allowed to see the records even if both parties wanted to.

I am having a hard time putting myself in a position where I would truly care if I found out my child was not genetically mine. Again, this probably comes from being adopted and recognizing how unimportant that factor is in a relationship between parent and child. The hurt would more likely be extended to the person who lied and/or cheated to set up that situation. Certainly I could not love my daughter any less!

If a father found out years later that the child he raised as his own was not his, why would that change anything? I actually have to question (as I think this through further) why this would need to be so hurtful to either parent or child. After all, the reality is that many children are not biologically related to their parents. Perhaps getting that message out loud and clear in our society would lessen the blow of discovering that the person they know as Dad simply doesn't share their genes.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*
If a father found out years later that the child he raised as his own was not his, why would that change anything?*
i think for most men, they'd get over it, and the relationship with the child could continue. now, the relationship with the mother, that would probably be a completely different story...

there's a lot of biology going on under the surface that as a society we're turning a blind eye to. for instance, it is now well documented that the timing of female acts of marital infidelity is correlated with the fertility cycle - ie, concisously or not, women are *trying* to get knocked-up outside the marital bond.

i'm not particularly shocked by this: what might appeal to a women as a set of genes to pass along is not always the same as what appeals to a women in the sense of "i want up wake up next to these genes every morning", KWIM?


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Piglet, I think the issue is not simply that people would have any big problem with raising a child that is not biologically theors (although some would, certainly) but that unlike a simple adoption equation we are talking about situations in which the lack of biology is evidence of a deeper treachery. It is proof of lies and infidelity. That's a big hurdle for many, many people.

ER touched on this last night. Anyone see it?


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*there's a lot of biology going on under the surface that as a society we're turning a blind eye to.*
Yup. Reminds me of a famous study of monogamous bird mating pairs. These birds apparently mated for life. An unexpected finding when trying to genetically profile these birds was that a huge proportion of nests had chicks from multiple fathers. Few of these birds were "faithful" to the male who built the nest and supplied mama with food. It turned out to be a great way to promote genetic diversity, while maintaining a strong female/chick bond (due to help from a stable and loyal "spouse").

Oh the things animals teach us about ourselves!


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Quote:

The lover has zero incentive to legally adopt the child, because then the family unit (mother, lover, and child) lose a source of nontaxable income (read: the DNA-provider no longer would have to send them money every month).
That income IS taxable in Canada, so getting it isn't an incentive, but giving it is, because it comes out of pre-tax dollars. So his income effectively goes down, and hers goes up and has to be taxed, sometimes shooting her into a higher and harsher tax bracket.

Dickwad, my name for my daughter's biodad, was the only man I slept with for almost two years. He was the only one there at her conception and there at her birth. And he even argued with me about which name was going to be on her certificate. And his parents tried to get him to marry me which I refused.

Then we split up. At that point, he started calling me a whore and a tramp and more. DD was eventually lost to CPS because of a family war my mother decided to start. He showed up at court a year and a half before the actual trial started and said he didn't want either me or my mother raising DD and that she should be adopted out. This is a man who gave up custody and it was a fight to get child support out of him!

Then, during all that, I start hearing that he's saying he's not her father and that I was a tramp. I just about flipped and if I hadn't lost custody of her to CPS, I would have demanded a DNA test. Even now, I still say she should get one when she comes of age.

-----------------------------------

My dad might not be my dad. Rumours abound that my mother was screwing two other men about the same time she conceived me. But my dad says that I am his daughter since I was born during the marriage and before the divorce was started and that I look like him. I'm still tempted to go on Maury and get a DNA test to prove that I'm his. Cause if I'm not, my mother and I will have words.....

-----------------------------------

Then there's DP. We're not married. I have no desire for him to make me an "honest woman" and we're having our second child together. I asked him what he thought about going on Maury for DNA testing. He said no, that it didn't matter. DS and DB are his even if they aren't biologically his and there's no need for a test to prove it.

Not like I've been sleeping around on him, but that just shows how much of a Man I have vs the boy that sired my DD.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*...If a father found out years later that the child he raised as his own was not his, why would that change anything? I actually have to question (as I think this through further) why this would need to be so hurtful to either parent or child...*
From a USA Today article:

_An acid sense of betrayal has been gnawing at Damon Adams since a DNA test showed that he is not the father of a 10-year-old girl born during his former marriage.

"Something changes in your heart," says Adams, 51, a dentist in Traverse City, Mich. "When she walks through the door, you're seeing the product of an affair."_

From the website, Paternity Fraud.com :

From a letter a lawyer wrote to encouage a "paternity fraud" law in Georgia (bolds are mine): _Opponents of the Bill have cited the "best interest of the children" and the necessity of a statute of limitations in an effort to derail the Bill, however, the logic behind these arguments is fallacious... There is no best interest because it is not your child. The best interest analysis is pretermited by *your non-relationship*._

I hate, absolutely hate, that in this day and age, so many people are still insisting that parenthood consists of nothing more than passing on DNA. And who gets hurt the most? The children involved.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

saying it matters to pass along your own genes is not the same as saying it's the *only* thing that matters. the individual in that article has every right to feel betrayed.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

It's amusing to me how these "paternity fraud" people switch the article from "best interests of *the* children" to "*your* child" (with a negative modifier thrown in) to make it sound as though by negating the paternity you negate the needs, perhaps even the very existance, of the child.

"I'm pissed at the mother and shall punish the child"
second verse, same as the first.
A little bit louder and a little bit worse!


----------



## daria (Feb 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Apricot_
*
Did you hear about the woman who was not genetically related to her children? She was a chimera of two fertilized eggs. Her mouth had one DNA pattern and her ovaries had the other. So the cheek swab did not match the children.*
I read an article about that woman...it makes you question the validity of paternity testing, at least with negative results. There was also a scandal in Washington DC a few years back where a city health worker was accepting bribes to swap a suspected father's cheek swab with a stranger's...so that the paternity test would come out negative.

The age cut-off doesn't work for me though. It's just too arbitrary.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

There is a law in Florida that says if a woman conceives as a result of rape, she cannot give the child up for adoption unless the "father" agrees to it, and he is entitled to visitation if the mother chooses to keep the child.





































If the woman doesn't know the identity of the rapist, they run ads in the newspaper looking for him. The ads consist of a description of the woman, where and when conception took place, and any known physical characteristics of the man.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*saying it matters to pass along your own genes is not the same as saying it's the *only* thing that matters. the individual in that article has every right to feel betrayed.*
I agree he has the right to feel betrayed. But to take it out on the child you've raised as your own for ten years??? His exact quotes were that something changed "in his heart" and that when he looks at his daughter, he sees "the product of an affair."

I guess what I am wondering is this...if adults cannot be expected to honor the bonds of love and parenting when testing proves the bond of DNA is not there, then is that something we should be allowing with children under the age of 18?

My idea behind a law not allowing DNA tests when children are between the ages of 2-18 is not for secrecy or deception, but rather to protect the children involved. It's a way of saying, "DNA is not as important as the bond you've created with this child. Please honor that, no matter how this child was concieved."

I know there would be problems with a law like that. It just breaks my heart to think of these completely innocent children being hurt like this. And the fact is that a lot of these cases come on the heels of a divorce, so now we've got a child whose life has been disrupted twice in very painful ways.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*There is a law in Florida that says if a woman conceives as a result of rape, she cannot give the child up for adoption unless the "father" agrees to it, and he is entitled to visitation if the mother chooses to keep the child.





































If the woman doesn't know the identity of the rapist, they run ads in the newspaper looking for him. The ads consist of a description of the woman, where and when conception took place, and any known physical characteristics of the man.*
Good grief! I hope there is a movement to change that law!


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Apricot_
*Sometimes I wonder if we should just test every child at birth. If it's everyone, all the time, there should not be trust issues.
I do think there should be a limit to contest paternity, say 2 years. Also, you shouldn't be able to track down a man and demand 9 years child support for a nine-year-old that the father doesn't know about. That should be a 2 year limit, too.
In my genetics studies, the often quoted figure is 10% mis-identified paternity...*
I wonder if that's the direction we're moving in? Testing children for DNA at birth, like we test for other things routinely. On one hand, that sounds fine. But on the other hand, what happens in those 1 in 10 fathers find out the DNA results???

It seems to me that if the 10% figure is fairly consistant across populations, then maybe it's some sort of biological imperative that we should not be messing around with.

Why can't there ever be easy answers to these difficult questions?!


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

_what happens in those 1 in 10 fathers find out the DNA results???_

i thought you were in support of people being held accountable for the choices they make at the time of sexual intercourse. since the "father" in these cases had nothing to do with conception, your questions shouldn't be directed at him, they should be directed at the women who made a choice to have reproductively viable intercourse outside the bounds of her relationship.

in these cases the husband did absolutely nothing wrong: is he now responsible for not only his choices, but everyone elses as well?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

They would have to account for false positives and lab errors.

Look what happens in the states that require HIV testing of pregnant women - 1% of them falsely test +. To some that might be an acceptable margin of error, but not to me.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*what happens in those 1 in 10 fathers find out the DNA results???

i thought you were in support of people being held accountable for the choices they make at the time of sexual intercourse. since the "father" in these cases had nothing to do with conception, your questions shouldn't be directed at him, they should be directed at the women who made a choice to have reproductively viable intercourse outside the bounds of her relationship.

in these cases the husband did absolutely nothing wrong: is he now responsible for not only his choices, but everyone elses as well?*

My first concern is for the child. That comes before everything else, in my opinion. In most cases, it benefits the child to have two parents contribute substantial resources to their upbringing. The most basic way of identifing those two parents is through (assumed) biology. Of course, there are other ways, like adoption. And some parents _want_ to be single parents, which can be good too.

But this "10%" fact has me puzzled. I assumed that number was much lower. 1 in 10, across most populations, is significant. What does that 10% mean?

Then there is DNA, that is forcing the hand on that 10%...is that a good thing?

I've got a lot more questions now than when I started the thread. I'm not sure what the right answer is...


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I wonder, though, if we can protect children against everything.

i mean, finding out your "father" isn't genetically your father may be disrupting, but so are so many other potential crises that families find themselves in - divorce, affairs, substance abuse, sexual abuse, violence in the home, wife beating, or even something as "simple" as a child not being told they were adopted only to find out years later...

i appreciate the sentiment behind this, but I'm just not sure it warrents any extra-special attention.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*...i appreciate the sentiment behind this, but I'm just not sure it warrents any extra-special attention.*
Maybe it's just caught my attention because it's a new technology that's making this possible? I'm just so frustrated with this idea that severing a father-child relationship after five, ten or more years is the right thing to do based on one test.

I've been noticing more articles about it lately, too. Although the articles I've read pay lip-service to the fact that these tests can be devestating to children, mostly they seem to be a platform for some pissed off guy to self-rightously claim that now he has proof that his ex-wife was nothing but a no-good b*tch. I'm just amazed at how quickly some men can go from "father-child" to "non-relationship". If I found out some switch had occured at the hospital...well, good luck to whoever thinks they are going to get my 11 year old son away from me.

My heart just breaks for these kids, who truly did nothing wrong and yet are paying such a high price.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*My first concern is for the child...But this "10%" fact has me puzzled.*
i'm completely confused. when it was an issue of where the man put his Wonder Wand, you were all over him for evading responsibility and making his choice at the time of intercourse. in these cases it is clearly and 100% the wife's actions, yet you seem unable to be anywhere near as blunt in holding the individual to accountability. instead of wondering why these women are making the choices they're making, you're worried about men having "proof that his ex-wife was nothing but a no-good b*tch".

which in this case, she was.

forgive me, but this looks like a total double standard...?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

That's really sad that a man can look at his daughter and see nothing but the product of an affair.









That's like those men whose wives are raped, and then who say that every time they look at her they see a sullied, used-up woman who has absorbed the taint of another man.









I read another story of a five-year-old girl who was playing on a fire hydrant and slipped and fell, and her vagina was cut. She didn't speak English, so the hospital staff just assumed she was raped, which is what they told the parents. And her father never looked at her the same again.


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

T but I just wanted to clarify..

Quote:

That income IS taxable in Canada, so getting it isn't an incentive, but giving it is, because it comes out of pre-tax dollars.
As of 1997, the person who is receiving child support does not have to claim it as income and the person paying cannot claim it as a deduction.
alrighty, back to your regular topic.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

T

Quote:

If the woman doesn't know the identity of the rapist, they run ads in the newspaper looking for him. The ads consist of a description of the woman, where and when conception took place, and any known physical characteristics of the man.
This law was stricken in 2003:

http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/ar...tletterwin.cfm

Quote:

At issue was a provision of Florida's adoption law that required a mother to make public her sexual history if she wished to place her child with a private adoption agency but did not know the identity or whereabouts of the father.

The law required the woman to take out an ad once a week for four weeks in a newspaper in every city where conception may have occurred._ The ad was to include her name and physical description; her child's name and age; the names and physical descriptions, if known, of everyone with whom she had sexual relations during the year preceding the child's birth; the cities in which conception may have occurred; and the dates on which it may have occurred._ The Florida Attorney General's office declined to defend the provision.

The court held that "the offending provisions substantially interfere with both a woman's independence in choosing adoption . . . and with [her] right not to disclose the intimate personal information that is required when the father is unknown._ We deem the invasion of both of these interests so patent in this instance as to not require our analysis."


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Good for them! Did they also get rid of the law that says rapists are entitled to visitation?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*i'm completely confused. when it was an issue of where the man put his Wonder Wand, you were all over him for evading responsibility and making his choice at the time of intercourse. in these cases it is clearly and 100% the wife's actions, yet you seem unable to be anywhere near as blunt in holding the individual to accountability. instead of wondering why these women are making the choices they're making, you're worried about men having "proof that his ex-wife was nothing but a no-good b*tch".

which in this case, she was.

forgive me, but this looks like a total double standard...?*

We're talking about men cutting off ties with *children* they have fathered for *years* because of one test and because of something their mothers did. Some of these men are using DNA tests to sever father-child relationships they've had for over a decade. What does that have to do with whether or not the ex-wife is a "no good b*tch"? I see those as two issues as seperate.

That's why I came up with the idea of putting a time limit on paternity tests. If it's not biologically your baby, and DNA is important to you, then at least do the test in a timely fashion. Don't wait ten years, establish a parent-child bond that has nothing to do with DNA as far as the child is concerned, and then break your child's heart as a by-product of "getting back" at your ex-wife. Too many of these stories involved divorces for me to overlook that fact. Are we really talking about truth-telling and responsibility or are we talking about yet another weapon that adults try to use to hurt each other but really wind up hurting children in the end?

I'm just not seeing the double standard when you are looking at from a children's rights position. Shouldn't an older child have a claim to their father beyond DNA and outside of what their mother did or didn't do? Does a decade of fathering a child really get trumped by one test? I'm not so sure it should. If you're looking at it from a "father's rights" position, maybe it could be seen as a double standard but even then I'm not sure it is since we are talking about infants vs. children who are fully aware of who they think their father is.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Yes, by all means, if your wife has cheated on you, never talk to her again! She is a bitch! But the child has not done anything wrong. The child did not choose the circumstances of her birth.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Good for them! Did they also get rid of the law that says rapists are entitled to visitation?*
Dunno about that one. I'd never heard of it, and can't find anything pertaining to it in a quick search.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*... instead of wondering why these women are making the choices they're making, you're worried about men having "proof that his ex-wife was nothing but a no-good b*tch"...*
I just want to clarify one thing. My priority and concern is the children in these cases. I think making trying to figure out who was thinking what and so on is just a waste of time. Sometimes it looks like if someone is not on the man's side, she must be on the woman's side and that's just not true. I'm not worried about the men having proof of anything, I'm worried about children who are of an age to be very aware of who their fathers are having that comfort and knowledge ripped away from them because of something their mothers did years ago.

As it happens, children are most often being raised by their mothers so perhaps their mothers benefit as a by-product of some of the ideas I have and/or am in favor of. But that's a world apart from thinking all the women in these situations are saints, or flawless, or even right.

I spent a year and a half in family court and here's what I learned:

1. When they want to, both men and women seem to have an endless wells of energy they can tap into to make each others lives miserable. There seems to be no end to the creatively hateful ways in which they can screw each other over.

2. When children are involved, they are typically the ones most deeply hurt.

I had an "ah-ha" moment of sorts sitting in court one day. I realized we are never going to be able to legistlate for every situation adults can come up with to hurt each other. But we can make laws that make disruptions to children's lives less common and less destructive.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I'd hope these "men" would be bigger people than that.

It's not the child's fault that the mother and father weren't gelling in their marriage and the woman looked elsewhere. And that's exactly who would suffer: the child.

It's not a "he's right, she's wrong" issue. It's about being a bigger person and understanding what is best for children. Period.


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

That's why I think there should be a solution for this going forward. If DNA test are available at all, they should not be being used on 9 year olds in 2013. Maybe they should be being used on infants in 2004?
It doesn't solve what is happening now, with 10 year olds and 20 year olds and 30 year olds finding out their father is not their father.
I guess I think having a man who can't stand raising the "cowbird" child (another man's egg in his nest) shouldn't have to, as a favor to the child. Having no father, to me, is infinitely better than having a father who knows you intimately and still rejects you. One is the rejection of a concept, the other is the rejection of a person.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*you should be yelling at the mother for (a) endangering her child's welfare by being extremely deceitful and (b) not valuing her child's welfare by holding the conception-male accountable.

sorry, this is a total double standard and is no different than the "blame the woman" attitude so prevalent elsewhere.*
What good would yelling at the mother do? Or yelling at the father, for that matter? Seriously, I'm confused by your attitude. I'm not getting into the blame game because I don't see how it is productive. Yelling at adults is about as effective as yelling at children. Which is to say, it's not. Adultry, sadly, is here to stay.

Does the act of breaking off a father-child relationship after, say, five years somehow un-do the wrong of the mother? I don't think it does. What the mother did, she has to live with. And what the father does, he has to live with. But the person most impacted by both parents actions did nothing.

Again, I bring the discussion back around to the child. Is it really fair _to the child_ to allow men to do DNA testing after five, ten or more years of _active parenting_? Does one test trump that relationship? Should we really be promting that idea?

I can't help but feel that this issue remains one of punishing the mother rather than "helping" the father. It's sure as hell is not about protecting children, and I think that shoud always be our focus in child support issues.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*...It's not a "he's right, she's wrong" issue. It's about being a bigger person and understanding what is best for children. Period.*
Yes!

Quote:

_Originally posted by Apricot_
*That's why I think there should be a solution for this going forward. If DNA test are available at all, they should not be being used on 9 year olds in 2013. Maybe they should be being used on infants in 2004?
...I guess I think having a man who can't stand raising the "cowbird" child (another man's egg in his nest) shouldn't have to, as a favor to the child. Having no father, to me, is infinitely better than having a father who knows you intimately and still rejects you. One is the rejection of a concept, the other is the rejection of a person.*
Yes, the more this conversation goes on, the more I'm leaning towards thinking mandatory DNA testing of infants might be a good idea.

I understand what you are saying about the man and his attitude. But society has a hand in how that attitude is shaped. I'm heartened that some courts have said, "Look, the fact you have a long-standing father-child bond trumps a DNA test". I think that sends out the absolute right message. But not all courts are doing that. I wish more would.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Yes, the more this conversation goes on, the more I'm leaning towards thinking mandatory DNA testing of infants might be a good idea.
Infants cannot consent to mandatory testing. There are other tests done on infants that they cannot consent to, but I think those should only be done if there is a reason to believe they are necessary, and not routinely.

I know my children are dh's and there is no chance they could be anyone else's, so I will refuse all DNA testing. If he doesn't trust me than there is something seriously wrong with our relationship that a DNA test will not fix.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*We're talking about men cutting off ties with children they have fathered for years because of one test and because of something their mothers did.*
you should be yelling at the mother for (a) endangering her child's welfare by being extremely deceitful and (b) not valuing her child's welfare by holding the conception-male accountable.

sorry, this is a total double standard and is no different than the "blame the woman" attitude so prevalent elsewhere.


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

So, maybe the better solution is to offer the testing, but if it's not done in the first 6 months, the next opportunity will be at 18 when the now-adult child can sign for it him/herself.


----------



## urklemama (May 4, 2003)

I'm not aware of a single one of these cases where there had been, as one poster put it, five to ten years of active parenting on the part of the man whose paternity was in question. In every single one that I've followed, there either had never been a marriage or marriage-equivalent (long term cohabitation) or the marriage or marriage-equivalent had broken up when the child was very young. The man's "parenting" had consisted almost entirely of child support checks.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

...


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

They exist urkelmama. There is one guy I am thinking of who has put himself out there on a number of the PM news magazine shows, (20/20, etc). If memory serves he discovered that more than one of his four children where not his not long after his divorce when he was still quite active in his childrens lives. I believe that based on his behavior after the revelation he eventually found himself under a restraining order... so yeah, he no longer has any involvement outside of checks but it is by court order, not neccesarily his preference.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by urklemama_
*I'm not aware of a single one of these cases where there had been, as one poster put it, five to ten years of active parenting on the part of the man whose paternity was in question. In every single one that I've followed, there either had never been a marriage or marriage-equivalent (long term cohabitation) or the marriage or marriage-equivalent had broken up when the child was very young. The man's "parenting" had consisted almost entirely of child support checks.*
Did you miss the post I put up with a link to man who had his daughter tested at age 10, soon after he divorced her mother? If you go to that link, you'll find a lot more stories like it, unfortunatly.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Wasn't it years ago that children born within the context of a marriage were considered the father's even if the wife slept around? I remember a tv show about a surrogate mother whose husband had to sign away all his rights to the babies she was carrying for just such a reason.


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

Mamid, still true, depends on the state, though.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Then what the hell are these guys screaming bloody murder about? Let me guess, they're allowed to sow their wild oats but if a woman dares to look at another man?????

Isn't the entire goal of a marriage is to begat and care for children? Does it really matter who is the sire when anyone can sire a child? It takes a MAN to be a father and these men that turn their backs on their children of marriage, bio or not, because of uncertain DNA are nothing more than spoiled little brat boys that don't want to own up to their responsibilites.

If they had any fears about the biology of their children, they should have had the children tested soon after birth. There should be a time limit, imo.

Oh for the death of Patriliny. That has caused so many problems in our culture. Who really cares who the sire is? We know who the mother is and that's all that should really matter.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Piglet, I think the issue is not simply that people would have any big problem with raising a child that is not biologically theors (although some would, certainly) but that unlike a simple adoption equation we are talking about situations in which the lack of biology is evidence of a deeper treachery. It is proof of lies and infidelity. That's a big hurdle for many, many people.
*
Gently pointing out that in a significant number of adoptions the "equation" is not simple. People are adopted by bio family members and not told (or are the last to know). Sometimes the adoptee is a product of infidelity, and certainly many of the ones I know (including me) get that slapped into our face many times. Some people feel betrayed that they "had" to adopt, some adoptees feel betrayed that they were "abandoned". And I have three very good friends who were not told of their adoptions until they were adults (one was told after both parents had died--as per her mother's will!!!)--and then had to deal with a lifetime of lies.

Genetics doesn't guarantee good parenting, not by a long shot. But there is something "special" about that dynamic, and it affects how people in the family and out of the family perceive and react to the individual of "questionable" parentage. It happens with adoption too.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

All valid points tigerchild. I was actually limiting my comments to the feelings/POV of the parents. Not that the childs experience is not valid... simply that it was not the focus of what I was saying, in terms of the difference between "I am knowingly accepting the child of another person/s into my home to raise as my own" and "I have been duped into believing that this child is flesh of my flesh and have discovered s/he is the product of adultry and lies."


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

If you are on welfare they force you take DNA tests to prove paternity. They can arrest you and charge you with a federal crime for not complying.


----------



## Mamid (Nov 7, 2002)

Thankfully, they can't do it in Canada. It would be a Charter of Rights violation....

Or, at least, they haven't tried that I know of.


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

Maybe I should move to Canada. Believe me, I've considered it time and time again.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mamid_
*Isn't the entire goal of a marriage is to begat and care for children? Does it really matter who is the sire when anyone can sire a child? It takes a MAN to be a father....

Oh for the death of Patriliny. That has caused so many problems in our culture. Who really cares who the sire is? We know who the mother is and that's all that should really matter.*










well said, mamid. bravo!


----------

