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.

Anonymous wrote:If paternity establishes that the mother committed fraud, men should be able to attempt to recover damages after the child reaches adulthood.

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.

I'm describing a situation where he isn't the presumed legal father because the mother is married to someone else.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

He'd have to do one himself if he has access to the child and then go to court to request it and then if its not his child go through a long and difficult process to get him removed from the BC but if they are married he's the presumed father and still often on the hook.

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 coming back to clarify. If a state gets rid of access to abortion and forces women to birth babies, the state should help them get the financial support they need to raise the child.

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.

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.

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.

I have a friend who knew his wife got pregnant with an AP but didn’t want the child — his own kids sibling — to be fatherless or viewed as less than so out his name in the birth certificate and told everyone he was the father. There’s no reason to cause the child pain if the parents aren’t looking to ask questions.

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.