Would you support mandatory genetic testing for paternity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d say the backlog of untested rape kits would be a higher priority by an order of magnitude than this, if we are going to be throwing money and hours into testing dna.

Very true, as well as other crimes.

Lying on the BC is a crime. One has nothing to do with the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bad idea and total overreach.

+1 terrible idea. I have two very close friends who both have children fathered by AP’s instead of their H’s. This would wreck probably 10-20% of marriages.


HORRIBLE IDEA.

No, that's exactly why its needed. Women cheats and gets a free pass. Kids have a right to know as do dad's. If the divorce happens a man should not have to pay for at least 18 years, if not longer for a child who isn't his and lied to. They should be held accountable.

Lol. Since when is pregnancy "a free pass"?

You're referring to pregnancy, birth, and parenthood as a punishment for cheating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m fine with the availability of a free test at the hospital if either parent wants it. I think getting the government involved in families is a bad idea.

I suspect the percentage is lower than whatever the manosphere claims. Some men know. Others don’t care.

I'm not. This is a misogynist and abuser wet dream.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think parentage should be determined at birth. Should just become a routine check for all babies

[Anonymous]

What!?!? This is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever read here and that's saying alot. I'm with the PPs who said let's get through the rape kit backlog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m fine with the availability of a free test at the hospital if either parent wants it. I think getting the government involved in families is a bad idea.

I suspect the percentage is lower than whatever the manosphere claims. Some men know. Others don’t care.

I'm not. This is a misogynist and abuser wet dream.

That's the argument for making it mandatory rather than optional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bad idea and total overreach.

+1 terrible idea. I have two very close friends who both have children fathered by AP’s instead of their H’s. This would wreck probably 10-20% of marriages.


HORRIBLE IDEA.

No, that's exactly why its needed. Women cheats and gets a free pass. Kids have a right to know as do dad's. If the divorce happens a man should not have to pay for at least 18 years, if not longer for a child who isn't his and lied to. They should be held accountable.

Lol. Since when is pregnancy "a free pass"?

You're referring to pregnancy, birth, and parenthood as a punishment for cheating?

You clearly cheated and are in this situation. None have to do with paternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government already has a very clean, simple, cheap way to establish paternity when married women give birth: the child is presumed to be a product of the marriage and the woman’s husband is legally the father. Switching from that method of determining paternity to paying for tons of DNA testing and potentially blowing up families has no benefit to the state, so there’s no reason for them to require that. Furthermore, civil rights organizations would fight against huge swaths of the population having to turn over their DNA to the government when no crime has been committed.

A man can have DNA testing done without involving the government as long as he has access to the child, which, presumably, he does if he’s legally the father.

So, basically bias to the woman as if he's not the dad, too bad and he pays. He should not be presumed the legal father until a test is done. A paternity test is 10-20 via amazon. Its not expensive. A crime has been committed if mom had an affair and committed purgery on the BC saying its one man when its not.

The law treats a woman’s husband as the legal father unless someone takes steps to fight that and proves he’s not the father. This dates back to the days when a woman went from being her father’s dependent to her husband’s and had no legal standing on her own and couldn’t vote or own property. Therefore, it’s not perjury for a woman to list her husband as her baby’s father, regardless of biological paternity. Legally, he IS the father unless proven otherwise. Men designed these laws. The government benefits from this being very clear cut without DNA testing, and society benefits from the stability it gives married couples and their children. It’s unfair to individual men who would have decided not to participate in raising or supporting children who are not theirs biologically, but have been tricked into doing so, but it’s beneficial to everyone else, so men need to do the DNA testing without government mandate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government already has a very clean, simple, cheap way to establish paternity when married women give birth: the child is presumed to be a product of the marriage and the woman’s husband is legally the father. Switching from that method of determining paternity to paying for tons of DNA testing and potentially blowing up families has no benefit to the state, so there’s no reason for them to require that. Furthermore, civil rights organizations would fight against huge swaths of the population having to turn over their DNA to the government when no crime has been committed.

A man can have DNA testing done without involving the government as long as he has access to the child, which, presumably, he does if he’s legally the father.

How do you become the legal father without testing first if you're not the husband?

I can answer this! I had a child with my unmarried partner and they have a form, I think it's called acknowledgement of paternity or something like that? They had a notary come to our room and we both filled in a form where he affirmed that he was the father and accepted the legal obligation of paternity/wanted to be on the birth certificate. I have heard this is different in other states, but in DC where I gave birth if you aren't married you can't just put someone on the birth certificate without them agreeing.

From what I understand if the parents are not married and aren't together the dad can sue for to establish paternity or the mom can bring a child support case and they will establish paternity during that. I did not have to deal with either of those things though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government already has a very clean, simple, cheap way to establish paternity when married women give birth: the child is presumed to be a product of the marriage and the woman’s husband is legally the father. Switching from that method of determining paternity to paying for tons of DNA testing and potentially blowing up families has no benefit to the state, so there’s no reason for them to require that. Furthermore, civil rights organizations would fight against huge swaths of the population having to turn over their DNA to the government when no crime has been committed.

A man can have DNA testing done without involving the government as long as he has access to the child, which, presumably, he does if he’s legally the father.

How do you become the legal father without testing first if you're not the husband?

I can answer this! I had a child with my unmarried partner and they have a form, I think it's called acknowledgement of paternity or something like that? They had a notary come to our room and we both filled in a form where he affirmed that he was the father and accepted the legal obligation of paternity/wanted to be on the birth certificate. I have heard this is different in other states, but in DC where I gave birth if you aren't married you can't just put someone on the birth certificate without them agreeing.

From what I understand if the parents are not married and aren't together the dad can sue for to establish paternity or the mom can bring a child support case and they will establish paternity during that. I did not have to deal with either of those things though.

And without the active participation of the mother you're going to need to test. And involve the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government already has a very clean, simple, cheap way to establish paternity when married women give birth: the child is presumed to be a product of the marriage and the woman’s husband is legally the father. Switching from that method of determining paternity to paying for tons of DNA testing and potentially blowing up families has no benefit to the state, so there’s no reason for them to require that. Furthermore, civil rights organizations would fight against huge swaths of the population having to turn over their DNA to the government when no crime has been committed.

A man can have DNA testing done without involving the government as long as he has access to the child, which, presumably, he does if he’s legally the father.

So, basically bias to the woman as if he's not the dad, too bad and he pays. He should not be presumed the legal father until a test is done. A paternity test is 10-20 via amazon. Its not expensive. A crime has been committed if mom had an affair and committed purgery on the BC saying its one man when its not.

The law treats a woman’s husband as the legal father unless someone takes steps to fight that and proves he’s not the father. This dates back to the days when a woman went from being her father’s dependent to her husband’s and had no legal standing on her own and couldn’t vote or own property. Therefore, it’s not perjury for a woman to list her husband as her baby’s father, regardless of biological paternity. Legally, he IS the father unless proven otherwise. Men designed these laws. The government benefits from this being very clear cut without DNA testing, and society benefits from the stability it gives married couples and their children. It’s unfair to individual men who would have decided not to participate in raising or supporting children who are not theirs biologically, but have been tricked into doing so, but it’s beneficial to everyone else, so men need to do the DNA testing without government mandate.

Men should do it on their own but it should be done before the parents are put on a legal document that can impact everyone's lives forever. The world has changed. Time to change with it. Kids deserve to know who their dad's are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government already has a very clean, simple, cheap way to establish paternity when married women give birth: the child is presumed to be a product of the marriage and the woman’s husband is legally the father. Switching from that method of determining paternity to paying for tons of DNA testing and potentially blowing up families has no benefit to the state, so there’s no reason for them to require that. Furthermore, civil rights organizations would fight against huge swaths of the population having to turn over their DNA to the government when no crime has been committed.

A man can have DNA testing done without involving the government as long as he has access to the child, which, presumably, he does if he’s legally the father.

How do you become the legal father without testing first if you're not the husband?

I can answer this! I had a child with my unmarried partner and they have a form, I think it's called acknowledgement of paternity or something like that? They had a notary come to our room and we both filled in a form where he affirmed that he was the father and accepted the legal obligation of paternity/wanted to be on the birth certificate. I have heard this is different in other states, but in DC where I gave birth if you aren't married you can't just put someone on the birth certificate without them agreeing.

From what I understand if the parents are not married and aren't together the dad can sue for to establish paternity or the mom can bring a child support case and they will establish paternity during that. I did not have to deal with either of those things though.

That's good they at least do that but many states don't and even if the Dad isn't present, he can be put on the BC and its assumed correct in less he gets a test and fights it. Sometimes he may not know for years until they go after him for child support, etc. and by then some judges say its too late to change it as he should have known and done it before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government already has a very clean, simple, cheap way to establish paternity when married women give birth: the child is presumed to be a product of the marriage and the woman’s husband is legally the father. Switching from that method of determining paternity to paying for tons of DNA testing and potentially blowing up families has no benefit to the state, so there’s no reason for them to require that. Furthermore, civil rights organizations would fight against huge swaths of the population having to turn over their DNA to the government when no crime has been committed.

A man can have DNA testing done without involving the government as long as he has access to the child, which, presumably, he does if he’s legally the father.

How do you become the legal father without testing first if you're not the husband?

I can answer this! I had a child with my unmarried partner and they have a form, I think it's called acknowledgement of paternity or something like that? They had a notary come to our room and we both filled in a form where he affirmed that he was the father and accepted the legal obligation of paternity/wanted to be on the birth certificate. I have heard this is different in other states, but in DC where I gave birth if you aren't married you can't just put someone on the birth certificate without them agreeing.

From what I understand if the parents are not married and aren't together the dad can sue for to establish paternity or the mom can bring a child support case and they will establish paternity during that. I did not have to deal with either of those things though.

To clarify, the scenario being discussed in this thread is where the mother has an affair, leading to a child whose biological father is not the husband.

In such a scenario, everyone seems to agree that the mother is incentivized to lie. The husband may not know the truth. And the father would not be able to conduct a paternity test on his own, and it would be nearly impossible for him to get a court to order a test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government already has a very clean, simple, cheap way to establish paternity when married women give birth: the child is presumed to be a product of the marriage and the woman’s husband is legally the father. Switching from that method of determining paternity to paying for tons of DNA testing and potentially blowing up families has no benefit to the state, so there’s no reason for them to require that. Furthermore, civil rights organizations would fight against huge swaths of the population having to turn over their DNA to the government when no crime has been committed.

A man can have DNA testing done without involving the government as long as he has access to the child, which, presumably, he does if he’s legally the father.

So, basically bias to the woman as if he's not the dad, too bad and he pays. He should not be presumed the legal father until a test is done. A paternity test is 10-20 via amazon. Its not expensive. A crime has been committed if mom had an affair and committed purgery on the BC saying its one man when its not.

The law treats a woman’s husband as the legal father unless someone takes steps to fight that and proves he’s not the father. This dates back to the days when a woman went from being her father’s dependent to her husband’s and had no legal standing on her own and couldn’t vote or own property. Therefore, it’s not perjury for a woman to list her husband as her baby’s father, regardless of biological paternity. Legally, he IS the father unless proven otherwise. Men designed these laws. The government benefits from this being very clear cut without DNA testing, and society benefits from the stability it gives married couples and their children. It’s unfair to individual men who would have decided not to participate in raising or supporting children who are not theirs biologically, but have been tricked into doing so, but it’s beneficial to everyone else, so men need to do the DNA testing without government mandate.

Men should do it on their own but it should be done before the parents are put on a legal document that can impact everyone's lives forever. The world has changed. Time to change with it. Kids deserve to know who their dad's are.

Right, you want this for the kids’ sakes. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bad idea and total overreach.

+1 terrible idea. I have two very close friends who both have children fathered by AP’s instead of their H’s. This would wreck probably 10-20% of marriages.


HORRIBLE IDEA.

+1 mandating sending a vulnerable woman who has just given birth and her newborn home with her husband and that new knowledge is like an engraved invitation to domestic violence.

The number of likely lab errors testing every newborn will probably result in dead babies and women.