Would you support mandatory genetic testing for paternity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there fixation on getting the government to mandate something that people already can do freely?

They can't. It is incredibly hard for a biological father to can an order for a test to establish paternity.

Not if he’s already the legal father.

Once again, this is how the government wants it, so don’t look to them to help you undo someone else’s standing with paternity.

The state doesn’t want a situation where mandatory testing reveals that a woman’s partner (the presumed father) is proven not to be her baby’s biological father, so another guy submits a DNA sample for analysis, thinking he’s the biological father, but testing reveals that the baby’s not his either. No one else comes forward for testing or is named by the mother, so now there’s no one who has established paternity. Mom can’t support baby on her own, so she and baby end up on government assistance.

From a public policy perspective, it’s better for the wrong guy to support the kid than for no guy to support the kid.

Also, under your proposed system, would every single man have to submit to DNA testing upon his 18th birthday, to be stored in a database in case paternity needs to be determined someday or would it be optional for unmarried men who aren’t seeking to establish paternity? A system that helps men escape legal paternity for children who aren’t theirs biologically, but doesn’t determine who is the biological father, leaves children fatherless. The state isn’t going to go along with that. To get automatic paternity testing for newborns mandated, the government would have to have a database of every single man’s DNA. I don’t think men would be very happy about that.

Before the BC is finalized, they can do a paternity test. They can do it at the hospital before release when possible and just charge a small fee for it or mandate health insurance pays for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if the mother wasn’t married. This way the government can garnish the sperm donor’s wages for child support.

Pp from earlier who had a child with a partner while unmarried. You are so classist, honestly. I was in the hospital giving birth with a partner who was there are ready to acknowledge paternity but we a you do have had to submit to a test for…what reason? To make my live in partner….pay me child support? All unmarried mothers aren’t single. It’s 2025.

DP. Not all cases are that simple. And sometimes the truth becomes known years later, or potentially never. Mandatory testing helps with a lot of problems, and bypasses the conflict in couples over whether or not to test.

The first pp is suggesting mandatory testing for only unmarried mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if the mother wasn’t married. This way the government can garnish the sperm donor’s wages for child support.

Pp from earlier who had a child with a partner while unmarried. You are so classist, honestly. I was in the hospital giving birth with a partner who was there are ready to acknowledge paternity but we a you do have had to submit to a test for…what reason? To make my live in partner….pay me child support? All unmarried mothers aren’t single. It’s 2025.

If you are not married, even if you live with him, you can still file for and get child support.

Be for real for a second. Do you really think any woman who is in a long term partnership and has a household with their partner would take them for child support? What are you even talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically the government doesn't want to be involved in interpersonal drama, so they're simply not going to put themselves into that position. It costs money and leads to more potential costly drama, so from a pure cost standpoint, they don't want to do it. People can pursue their own options easily enough.

The courts often do paternity tests when there is a question. Its very costly to a man to pay for a child that is not theirs. If he is put on the birth certificate and not the father, its near impossible to remove him. They don't do it because they protect women over men.

That’s verifiably false. These laws predate women’s having legal status to vote or own property or serve in legislative bodies or as judges. Women didn’t write or pass these laws. They are a vestige of a time when a man’s wife and children were his property. He was king of his castle and no one else could claim the children his wife bore. Even today, most legislators are men. Paternity law could be changed without a single vote from a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there fixation on getting the government to mandate something that people already can do freely?

They can't. It is incredibly hard for a biological father to can an order for a test to establish paternity.

Not if he’s already the legal father.

Once again, this is how the government wants it, so don’t look to them to help you undo someone else’s standing with paternity.

The state doesn’t want a situation where mandatory testing reveals that a woman’s partner (the presumed father) is proven not to be her baby’s biological father, so another guy submits a DNA sample for analysis, thinking he’s the biological father, but testing reveals that the baby’s not his either. No one else comes forward for testing or is named by the mother, so now there’s no one who has established paternity. Mom can’t support baby on her own, so she and baby end up on government assistance.

From a public policy perspective, it’s better for the wrong guy to support the kid than for no guy to support the kid.

Also, under your proposed system, would every single man have to submit to DNA testing upon his 18th birthday, to be stored in a database in case paternity needs to be determined someday or would it be optional for unmarried men who aren’t seeking to establish paternity? A system that helps men escape legal paternity for children who aren’t theirs biologically, but doesn’t determine who is the biological father, leaves children fatherless. The state isn’t going to go along with that. To get automatic paternity testing for newborns mandated, the government would have to have a database of every single man’s DNA. I don’t think men would be very happy about that.

Before the BC is finalized, they can do a paternity test. They can do it at the hospital before release when possible and just charge a small fee for it or mandate health insurance pays for it.

You clearly didn’t read the entire post you’re responding to. What you’re suggesting merely proves or disproves the biological relationship between a man who comes forward as the presumptive father and a newborn. The state has zero incentive to do that, so they will not mandate it.

[Anonymous]

What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Men want the legal right to establish paternity when they want it or evade paternity when they don’t want it, and they want the law to enforce this in the way that is most convenient for them, so that even if they deposit their sperm inside another man’s wife, they have an easy path to claim the resulting child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Men want the legal right to establish paternity when they want it or evade paternity when they don’t want it, and they want the law to enforce this in the way that is most convenient for them, so that even if they deposit their sperm inside another man’s wife, they have an easy path to claim the resulting child.

Given that the mother could claim or reject paternity of her unmarried partner to either retain sole parental rights or seek child support either immediately or in the future, why shouldn't men have legal rights? Why are you intent on continuing policies that are blatantly one sided?

Before paternity tests there wasn't much of an alternative. But we can do better now.

[Anonymous]

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.

New poster here. I don't care about the marriages so much but for the kids. When a couple is married, the husband is always legally the father unless proven otherwise. That gives kids more shot at stability and financial security. No need to wreck kids' lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Currently laws provide limited legal protections for men wrongly identified as fathers as well as for men wrongfully not identified as fathers. They make it shockingly easy for women to commit fraud to either deny parental rights or seek financial gain.

[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.

New poster here. I don't care about the marriages so much but for the kids. When a couple is married, the husband is always legally the father unless proven otherwise. That gives kids more shot at stability and financial security. No need to wreck kids' lives.

If the mother is sleeping around, it's going to be even worse for them to have their lives wrecked when they're older. It's better to deal with that problem when they're born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if the mother wasn’t married. This way the government can garnish the sperm donor’s wages for child support.

Pp from earlier who had a child with a partner while unmarried. You are so classist, honestly. I was in the hospital giving birth with a partner who was there are ready to acknowledge paternity but we a you do have had to submit to a test for…what reason? To make my live in partner….pay me child support? All unmarried mothers aren’t single. It’s 2025.

DP. Not all cases are that simple. And sometimes the truth becomes known years later, or potentially never. Mandatory testing helps with a lot of problems, and bypasses the conflict in couples over whether or not to test.

The first pp is suggesting mandatory testing for only unmarried mothers.

That’s silly. It should be for a
L children to make sure they go home with the right parents and parents are known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if the mother wasn’t married. This way the government can garnish the sperm donor’s wages for child support.

Pp from earlier who had a child with a partner while unmarried. You are so classist, honestly. I was in the hospital giving birth with a partner who was there are ready to acknowledge paternity but we a you do have had to submit to a test for…what reason? To make my live in partner….pay me child support? All unmarried mothers aren’t single. It’s 2025.

DP. Not all cases are that simple. And sometimes the truth becomes known years later, or potentially never. Mandatory testing helps with a lot of problems, and bypasses the conflict in couples over whether or not to test.

The first pp is suggesting mandatory testing for only unmarried mothers.

That’s silly. It should be for a
L children to make sure they go home with the right parents and parents are known.

All

[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.

New poster here. I don't care about the marriages so much but for the kids. When a couple is married, the husband is always legally the father unless proven otherwise. That gives kids more shot at stability and financial security. No need to wreck kids' lives.

A parent having an affair wrecks kids lives. Not knowing who your father is wrecks kids lives. Growing up with lies wrecks kids lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would the point of such a policy be? Seriously, what is the premise of this post?!

Men want the legal right to establish paternity when they want it or evade paternity when they don’t want it, and they want the law to enforce this in the way that is most convenient for them, so that even if they deposit their sperm inside another man’s wife, they have an easy path to claim the resulting child.

Men have the right to know if it’s their child. It’s not about evading child support. Men want to take care of their kids, not the ap kids. Why should a man pay for a child who isn’t theirs that they were lied to about.