Cane Caldo discusses the issue of mandatory paternity testing in his post Paternity and Bats in Oz. Given the controversy around mandatory paternity testing I propose what should be an uncontroversial change to the birth certificate application.
Today the birth certificate form asks the husband to certify that he is the child’s father. If a husband balks when confronted with this form, his wife indignantly asks:
What! Aren’t you sure?
To address the issue, I propose changing the birth certificate application form to allow the mother to check one of three options:
- I do not know who the father is.
- I believe _________________ is the father.
- I swear under penalty of law that ________________ is the father, and there is absolutely no possibility that another man fathered this child.
Make it a felony to fill out and sign the form with option 3 inaccurately. A paternity test proving that the man she named isn’t the biological father would be legally defined as proof of her falsely filling out the form, and is therefore evidence of a felony.
To those ladies who would object to this proposal I ask:
What! Aren’t you sure?
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
As an aside.. If you knew someone as a distant acquaintance who claims to be lying about the paternity of her child in order to receive child-support, would you seek out the payee and tell them what you were told?
The evidence that she cheated on her ex is pretty obvious and significant, so part of me wonders if he simply doesn’t want to know.
Morticia – “would you seek out the payee and tell them what you were told?”
If the child is less than two years old, definitely. In most states, that’s the cut-off for gaining indemnity via disproving paternity. Otherwise, it’s simply a matter of someone wanting to know, one way or the other.
I understand why some people are reluctant to embrace the idea of mandatory paternity testing, yet, the only other viable option to protect men is to allow the legal disestablishment of paternity and any subsequent (court –ordered) financial liability at any age (of the child in question). This would put the rights of men/fathers more on par with what woman/mothers already enjoy – namely, their ability to have legal paternity and retro-active financial liability assigned to a biological father at any point in a child’s life (even after they reach adulthood).
I like Dalrock’s approach, but without a mechanism by which cuckolded men are to be indemnified, even charging paternity fraudsters with the same sort of felony that is normally charged for other financial frauds, just isn’t enough.
It’s about equality. (yes, Tradsters, I said it: equality)
Although the tone of this post is humorous, the subject matter sure isn’t. I saw a post on Red Pill Wifey’s recently about this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/legal/9798650/Husband-tricked-into-believing-wifes-children-were-his-awarded-25000-damages.html
So if anyone tells you it’s *only* about money, and men trying to avoid paying child support, it isn’t. This poor man thought he had children as his legacy, but he doesn’t.
Women can fill out #3 and absolutely believe it even though they were spreading their legs for some other cock around the time of conception.
People are reluctant to accept mandatory paternity testing because people are reluctant to protect men in these areas of life
Ton – “People are reluctant to accept mandatory paternity testing because people are reluctant to protect men in these areas of life”
While this is true in most cases of those against MPT, there are those who argue both against the government mandating any such thing along with the associated costs, and against what they fear might be done with the raw DNA data (they do not understand the nature of DNA-based paternity testing, and how it differs from full DNA profile work-ups for applications such as CODIS, and they fear the potential for misuse).
Of course, many will claim that there objections lie with one or both of these latter concerns, while their truer interests lie with the “Team Woman” inclinations to protect guilty women from the consequences of their sins.
Biological children? Legacy? That sounds so middle-ages of us. Why should this man care if the children he provided for, under the explicit basis that they were his blood and kin, were really the living avatars of his wife’s infidelity? Any emotional pain this man suffers is obviously some barbaric cave-man instinct that he must outgrow to become a “civilized” member of society.
Sadly a lot of people will say that. They equate adoption with parental fraud, which is completely unfair. Adoption is a mutual decision, typically made from infertility. The child becomes kin by conscious acceptance. Deceit and cuckholdry have poisoned this man’s relationship with the kids he raised, loved, and reared for the rest of their lives.
The irony of the situation is terrible: “Dad, you’re adopted.”
@ Karamazov
Yes indeedy, I’m sure that line of defense has been used.
As a good little Libertarian, I can’t get behind mandatory testing. That’s why I think Dalrock’s solution is pretty reasonable although it will never be implemented. Also, men should be able to request a DNA test without the woman’s consent in my opinion.
Man, that is great. Only thing is, I’d want the test no matter which box was checked.
Some women don’t understand “under penalty of law” properly. I presume you are proposing that at least 1 and 2 trigger automatic testing.
@slwerner – In my state, you have about 1 year to correct an inaccurate assertion of paternity. You have 5 years after the child turns 18 to establish paternity. I’m not sure if there’s a limit to the amount of back support the state can come after you for. Attempts to change this are always met with “it’s not in the best interests of the child”. Change is not in the best interests of those mothers who have committed fraud, either.
sunshinemary:
Also, men should be able to request a DNA test without the woman’s consent in my opinion.
Can’t he already? He doesn’t need a sample from his wife: he just needs one from his child and from himself.
It is a good proposal, for lots of reasons. If she did commit a felony on the BC that would presumably count against her in any family court proceeding later.
Take a strand of hair from yourself and the baby. Take it to a private lab. Confront cheating wife with the results.
According to La Wik:
“In the United States, paternity testing is fully legal, and fathers may test their children without the consent or knowledge of the mother. Paternity testing take-home kits are readily available for purchase, though their results are not admissible in court, and are for personal knowledge only.”
Oh sorry, don’t confront her at all… yet. Get the Doctor to fake a major problem for the baby that requires, you guessed it, something from the biological father…
She was under duress, she just had a baby, when she checked option 3, etc etc
Eh, ‘not permissible in court’. Well, at least with the results you will have proper redress to have one done that is ‘permissible in court’. I hope.
Suppose in addition to Dalrock’s proposal, paternity testing were mandatory only in a divorce / adoption situation? Instead of assuming the parentage both parents are required to prove it?
Do you think it would reduce the number of frivolous divorces?
I think it is saying that the take-home kits are not admissible (which makes sense: a take-home kit for DNA analysis of a murder scene wouldn’t be either). Presumably if he got a negative on the take home kit the next step is to go to a lab, which would be admissible.
Yea, that’s what I was thinking.
Zippy – “If she did commit a felony on the BC that would presumably count against her in any family court proceeding later.”
One might imagine this would be true, but, alas, it would NOT be true.
The laws on the books that even (Anti-)Family Court judges must abide by clearly state that if a man fails to disestablish his paternity of a child by a certain fixed dead-line (typically, 2 years after birth), then he has been established as the “father” in the eyes of the law. A woman could fully acknowledge that the man she named as the father was not, she could even taunt him with the fact in open court; and yet the judge would be required under the law to apply the legally-proscribed assessment of child-support against him, if the child in question is 2 years of age or greater, and is the putative father has failed to dis-establish his paternity inside of the legal time-limit.
Sorry, neither scientific reality nor common-sense are applicable in the (Anti-)Family Court System.
slwerner:
Yes, I’ve heard that. But this would be a new felony under Dalrock’s proposal. Even if the law had established him as legally the father at the two year mark, she would still be guilty of a felony as a separate issue. I suppose we’d have to watch out for statutes of limitation though.
(Nota bene I’m not a lawyer, though I’ve generated plenty of billable hours).
Zippy – “But this would be a new felony under Dalrock’s proposal. Even if the law had established him as legally the father at the two year mark, she would still be guilty of a felony as a separate issue.”
The Criminal Court System, and the tragically mis-named Family Court System are two entirely separate entities. A woman can be found guilty of a felony, true. But the duped dad would still be on the hook for child-support under the laws governing the Family Courts. And, to make matters worse, even if a woman were convicted in Criminal Court of that felony, the defrauded putative father would have to go through a third entity, the Civil Courts, to seek remediation for his financial losses.
I’m not against holding women criminally responsible. But, I’m far more concerned with gaining indemnity for defrauded men via the legal, genetic disestablishment of paternity.
Hear, hear! Would that it were so.
Rather than make paternity testing mandatory, how about the law be changed to say that a child only has a father for legal purposes if and only if the father is confirmed via paternity testing or the presumed father waives this requirement for the specific legal action in question? I mean, as long as we’re talking about unicorn power fairy magic…
I’m for the birth certificate multiple choice.
I’m also for the putative father testing the child, with or without mom’s consent. Any man fathering children today should get this done, regardless of any representations the mother/wife makes.
Other reforms I would suggest:
1. The presumption of husband paternity of children born in wedlock should remain, but it should be deemed rebuttable, subject to challenge and override at any time. A husband who disestablishes paternity may disavow all parental relationship to that child at his option. He is relieved of all responsibility to support and care for that child at his option.
2. The mother can be sued in civil court for fraud, just as in any other common law action, and monies paid for support recovered as damages.
3. The biological father can be identified, even against his will, and forced to pay child support. He can be forced to undergo testing to determine his paternity. He also can be sued and the cuckolded husband can recover damages from him for fraud or the old tort of “alienation of affections”.
A paternity test should just be part of the drill. It shouldn’t be mandatory, but standard practice. In today’s world there is far too much cuckoldry, and cuckoldry is rape. Government sanctioned rape.
It is exceedingly rare for a woman to be prosecuted for false allegations of DV, or even false report of RAPE. There would be no money or political will to prosecute the fraudulent checking of this box. Interesting idea- but women would know better than to fear this box check. Any man should have the test done for himself- he doesn’t need her consent.
Agree, 30words.
A man should get one of those take home DNA kits. Reliable results can be obtained with cheek swabs from the child and putative father. Send them in and get results in 2 weeks. Do it on the down low and without telling the mother. The man should personally take the swabs so there are no questions about where the samples came from.
Dalrock’s idea is fair, meaning just, not meaning mediocre.
Deti, usually I agree with your often aggressive stance on things. Not this time. That has a hue similar to the over reach of family law now as laid out in Baskerville’s book Taken Into Custody, and smells like its motivated by a need for vicarious revenge. There are too many rights being violated to make it work as a way to correct someone rights having been already violated.
I agree with the alienation of affections aspect once that identity is established and wish that were an actionable thing with or without children involved, but placing the power in a woman’s hands to finger potentially several guys and force them into DNA testing falls under “X wrongs wont make a right”
Agreed on getting the kits and using them. They are cheap and simple. There are lots of “kits” and tools available to a man who has reason to suspect many things, there are semen tests for fabric, the DNA test of course, others forensics, all affordable and doable with online kits. Men who look the other way or refuse to believe shit happens are fools.
@deti
“3. The biological father can be identified, even against his will, and forced to pay child support. He can be forced to undergo testing to determine his paternity. He also can be sued and the cuckolded husband can recover damages from him for fraud or the old tort of “alienation of affections”.”
I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think that there should be a presumption that the biological father knew what he was doing. IE, if a man goes to a bar, is seduced by a slut, and only finds out later that she was married and poked holes in the condom, then he bares no guilt for a husband being cuckholded.
The unfortunate thing about all this is the distrust and skepticism this foments.
Before I stumbled onto the manosphere, put on the glasses and took the Red Pill, it would never have occurred to me that a wife would cheat on a husband for anything other than as retaliation for his cheating on her.
It would never, ever occur to me that a wife could cheat on a husband and knowingly bear her extramarital lover’s child while married to another man. It would never, ever occur to me that a wife could be so evil, cruel and heartless as to KNOW there is a distinct probability that her husband isn’t the child’s father, yet pass off the child as the husband’s to conceal her treachery and fraud, avoid conflict, and secure provisioning for herself as the child.
It was because I thought that no woman could possibly have it in her to do this to someone.
But there are women who, in fact, DO have it in them to do this.
When I think about that distrust, I remember that feminists have been loudly fomenting that distrust and skepticism. I remember “I’m not haaaaaappy”. I remember that many women are putting off marriage until the last possible moment after stepping off, or getting kicked off, the carousel. I remember that there are women with baby rabies who will do anything — ANYTHING — to get pregnant. I remember there are women who are so self-absorbed and so selfish they can and will cuckold a man for their own ends.
I am lamenting the fact that this kind of distrust and skepticism seem to be necessary for a man’s survival, even for a married man. I am disheartened that a man has to do things like this, in a stealth fashion, to ruthlessly protect his own self-interest even at the expense of his wife and the risk of exploding the marriage. I’m disheartened that it seems men have to “trust but verify” and adopt Cold War-style diplomatic hard lines, keeping his wife at arm’s length, carefully measuring her every move, action and reaction. He has no choice but to observe his own wife with a healthy skepticism. He has to see if what she is telling him really is the truth, by double checking and using technology to cyberspy. He has to keep a “go bag” with important papers and clothes in places she doesn’t know about. He has to spirit away cash from the marital assets so as to have a little emergency fund in case she goes all “Eat Pray Love”.
He has to brace himself against the potential that she can blow it all up anytime she wants. He has to hold out the subtle implied threat of “scorched earth/Sherman’s March to the Sea” if she divorces him. He has to threaten to destroy everything and everyone in the wake of a divorce, if she decides to push the detonator. He has to threaten to waste the marital assets and/or consume them in divorce litigation so as to leave nothing left for property division, child support or alimony. This kind of thing is what produces expatriation, men quitting their jobs and leaving the country. It produces men like Thomas James Ball.
It’s a shame, a tragedy and a travesty that it’s come to this. But come to this it has. All that’s left now is to deal with it as is.
I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think that there should be a presumption that the biological father knew what he was doing. IE, if a man goes to a bar, is seduced by a slut, and only finds out later that she was married and poked holes in the condom, then he bares no guilt for a husband being cuckholded.
Exactly….and more
Testing shouldn’t be an option, it should be mandatory.
To this day, my ex-wife doesn’t know I had a paternity test done as soon as my daughter was born. No way would I raise a child that I’d been led to believe was mine when it wasn’t.
Speaking of which, you know that paternity testing is banned in France and punishable by up to year in jail and a fine of 15 000€? The justification for this is “to prevent harm to families and children”. Notice how the interests of the children are suddenly important when it concerns something other than the wife escaping her unhaaaaapy marriage, in which case divorce isn’t bad for the children at all.
Slwerner- Thanks for your reply.
I am trying to overcome my habit of hijacking threads so if anyone cares to discuss the particular circumstance I mentioned feel free to do so at my blog where I opened a made a maternity post.
I have no objections to Dalrock’s proposal. Sounds completely reasonable to me.
Can’t he already? He doesn’t need a sample from his wife: he just needs one from his child and from himself.
Yes, a man can already do that. I know someone who did it. It’s not very expensive either. This is why I don’t understand why all the talk about whether it should be routine or not. It should not be routine.
If a man suspects there is a problem with one of his children, pop for the $200 and have the test done, with or without his wife’s consent.
No, it should be routine, Elspeth. Not mandatory, but routine.
Just the fact that it was routine would prevent most attempts at cuckoldry.
And sadly, the more a woman presents herself as a paragon of virtue, the more suspect she is.
The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham says that if people know they will be monitored then they change their behavior accordingly.
If there was a mandatory DNA test by law to establish paternity as a legal step that all people must pass in having a baby and it is a right for a man to have that paternity established and it is a right that he cannot be allowed (forced) to wave, that he must take the test, then it absolves men from having to push the issue to remove any doubt he may have.
It is perfectly fine that “those men” must submit to a background test to prove there is no domestic violence offenses, no alcohol or drug offenses, before gaining a K-2 visa, even though the vast vast majority of American men do not have either, and it tells the world that American men are so violent that we must protect foreign women from them.
Data shows that between 3% and 7% of samples to not match for paternity. That is a sufficiently high enough number to instill doubt, reasonable doubt.
This idea of the “Guvment” having samples of DNA is hogwash. HIPPA laws protect lab specimens. The two samples can go any lab that is normally is certified enough to do life and death lab testing for medical reasons, certified enough to perform a drug test that can deny you a job or send you to jail, and they process the test and send back a report, yes or no. It’s match or it isn’t. And they dispose of the samples as they do all other samples. The name of the father is recorded on the birth certificate and that’s the legal document of record from that point forward.
If it is a law then there is no discussion of it. It is a law. You used to have to supply blood samples to get married and couples made a fun thing out of it. One of those steps on the way to the wedding. The nurse could just swab the fathers cheek at some point during the delivery and say “Oh it’s that stupid law”. Time magazine (that was where I got the between 3% and 7% number) had an article about the ethics of doctors once false paternity had been discovered, should they tell the father or not? Most said “No, it will destroy the family.”
But the whole point of paternity is establishing genetic responsibility therefore financial responsibility. If a man can be compelled to pay because of paternity then why isn’t the reverse the case? Then he should not be compelled to pay if there is no paternity. It is an issue of fairness and rights, basic rights. And it is a right, a fundamental right to know that you are passing your family line, without a shadow of doubt. It used to not be possible to establish that certainty and now it is.
So if the 2 year mark is set as irreversible, and the numbers, the data shows that between 3% and 7% of children do not match the stated father, isn’t that enough to introduce enough doubt that paternity should definitively be established at the time of birth? And if women knew this would happen as part of the law, then wouldn’t they modify their behavior? To at least admit the true paternity before hand or god forbid, maybe not actually screw around.
I am of the belief that are fewer “accidental” pregnancies then we are lead to believe. My belief had been further hardened when the 2011 teen pregnancy data showed a drop in teen pregnancies and the birth rate decline. When women do not wish to have children, then they do not.
Given the next time you are at a youth football game, given that between 3% and 7% number of false paternity, one of those kids on that field isn’t the kid of the man that is named on the birth certificate.
I say test them. Make it a law. Women have courthouses full of laws that are for the benefit of women. We could have at least one that exists to protect men.
Why should women have issues with this? They are supposedly the more moral, the more faithful gender, not like “those men”. They never cheat do they? I have no idea where that “alpha f*cks and beta bucks” thing comes from.
Of course, my ex wife did, probably many times. I have slept with 12 married women. All the PUAs say that sleeping with a married woman that has been married over 3 years is easier than a single girl because the single girl still has commitment as a filtering item and the married woman doesn’t.
VK says that when a woman uses the “I have a husband” line on you, say “I have a goldfish. Oh, I’m sorry I thought we were talking about things that don’t matter”. That usually works.
But I am sure all of our experiences are aberrant.
I am trying to overcome my habit of hijacking threads
Thats very funny, and I don’t mean that sarcastically. it really is a funny statement
I can already see this getting hijacked.
Jack marries Jill. Jill has a baby. Jill signs on Line 3. A year later, Jack finds out he isn’t the father. Jack takes Jill to court, where she is found guilty of a felony. Jill gets time in the slam. Jill doesn’t remember the name of the guy she had a drunken cuck-fuck with. Family court wonders who will take care of the child until Jill is released. Hey, Jack, the baby has already started to bond with you, so…
Sounds far-fetched. Stranger things happen in courts.
@Dalrock
Thanks for the link! I’ve been out of town and relying on my phone for info, so I haven’t had time to reply to your idea on my blog. I’m glad it’s getting a full airing.
I like putting the onus on the wife to bear witness to the paternity. In the meantime: suspicious fathers–even ones merely nagged by a feeling–ought to avail themselves of the tests with a clear conscience. Even if the good news is in fact good news, one of you needs clarity.
This whole discussion is like a re-reading (nerd alert) The Watchmen. Ozymandias is there and Rorschach is here. Silk Specter shows up in both incarnations, and
Edmund BurkeEdward Blake is dead…or at my blog; which is pretty much the same thing as hit counts go.@ZC and SSM
There’s a whole post (at least!) in that interaction.
@Deti
I hope you’re stressing the word seem in that comment, because a lot of this is about perception, and I mean that in the sense that perception is important. It’s not necessary for most married men to contemplate cuckoldry. This whole argument is about perception, though. Women who would/do argue against paternity testing or Dalrock’s paternal affidavit are arguing to maintain the perception of female sincerity and autonomy on birthright–which is preceisely why Dalrock’s affidavit strikes us as a good idea. You want to own it? Then you fully shall.
They don’t, we must understand, argue against blood tests at birth, or hospital bracelets on newborns. However; we should not let that perception drive us to mistrust wives who we believe to be in all other ways honorable. That way lies madness and divorce and adultery–the very things we’re trying to prevent.
@Booch
Bullshit. This is the problem with the “no rings for sluts” mantra: It doesn’t go far enough. Don’t fuck with sluts, period. If you transgress that, you too must own it. Passing off responsibility for what you did is to pass off authority to her, as well. They are inseparable. You must legitimately man-up in all circumstances, or you are still her bitch. I’m seeing shades of woman-prescribed vasectomy here; voluntary emasculation at a woman’s behest. (Those of you who have already lost your balls may find now an appropriate time to tell this dirty man-upper to go to Hell.)
Mandatory paternity testing is unlikely to gain traction. So heres an alternative. How about making child support payments conditional on proof of paternity?
No genes, no cash.
If the woman objects to testing, she must have something to hide. Special little snowflake indeed. Take the bitch to court.
Sound reasonable to me. Although maybe you could add something about using a sperm donor with both of your knowledge to line three.
Passing off responsibility for what you did is to pass off authority to her, as well. They are inseparable. You must legitimately man-up in all circumstances, or you are still her bitch
Sounds very righteous, nearly perfect, something to get behind.
The problem is, it may or may not make sense. As worded its vague enough to be a principle, try to allocate it to actions and the train of reason derails between A and B. The principle may be N/A to the issue the bar/slut example was addressing.
His response, I think, was to Deti’s aggressive 1,2,3 or paternity culpability. It read like, how to violate civil rights in response to a violation of civil rights…..or something. The example may be imperfect, but renouncing it doesn’t change the fact that it was pointed in the right direction. The i operative issue was about the redress Deti prescribed. The morality and responsibility of the man who copulates with the bar/slut overlaps the issue of redress only by coincidence.
While I think this idea is a “nice try”, it will never happen. No legislator is going to make lying on a birth cert a felony for a mother. Not going to happen. Neither will mandatory paternity testing. In fact, throughout the West, the trend is in the opposite direction, legally speaking –> outlawing paternity testing either completely (e.g., France) or requiring the mother’s consent for it (e.g., Germany), on the basis that this is the interest of the children. The US is much more libertarian than either of those countries, of course, in temperament, but if enough guys in the US start making a stink with the use of paternity test kits, we’ll see similar legislation passed in at least our bluest states for similar reasons. The best bet a guy has, in the meantime, is to use one of these kits if he has any doubts personally — but if too many guys do that, they’re going to be outlawed to one degree or other as is already happening in Europe.
On the equities, while this is an issue that is of course going to be very irritating to men, in reality if the man has an established relationship with a child, it’s not a wrong that is easily fixed without it messing up the children royally in doing so. This is the rationale behind strict time limits that exist in many states, and it makes sense — a father bonds witha child very quickly, and the child bonds back. I would be in favor of even stricter time limits for men who are actually married and/or cohabiting with mom at the time of birth, and therefore bonding with the kid, and vice versa, from the get-go — perhaps a few months, tops, if he takes the initiative to get a test. For men who are not married to the mother and not living with her, perhaps a year. For men who are out of the picture, they should probably have a year from the time they receive actual notice (not “presumed notice”) of their alleged paternity, because in that case there is no relationship to the child formed at all.
It’s definitely one of the most evil things a woman can do to a man she is married to other than killing him, but it’s a wrong that doesn’t have a good solution. I think we need to understand that mandatory paternity testing will never have any kind of significant support — from the right, left or centre. Everyone is against it for a different reason, but everyone is against it. It’s not going to happen. And neither will a felony-creating affidavit on a birth certificate.
an observer – “How about making child support payments conditional on proof of paternity?
No genes, no cash.”
Exactly! Simple and precise.
I was contemplating droning on and on about how The State needs to be held to a higher standard if obligations are to be mandated; but, you managed to state the obvious so directly and unarguably, that nothing more really needs to be said.
“It’s definitely one of the most evil things a woman can do to a man she is married to other than killing him, but it’s a wrong that doesn’t have a good solution. I think we need to understand that mandatory paternity testing will never have any kind of significant support — from the right, left or centre. Everyone is against it for a different reason, but everyone is against it. It’s not going to happen. And neither will a felony-creating affidavit on a birth certificate.”
I have to agree with this. My proposal was that which I’d like to see in a perfect world, as would making a felony out of lying on a BC. But I agree none of these remedies are ever going to happen, not ever.
Men should just get their kids tested at birth using a kit.
I continue to lament, though, that all this simply foments distrust. You can see it:
Mother: You don’t trust me! You’re essentially accusing me of cheating!
Father: If I really am the father, then you have nothing to fear from my verifying that fact. What is your objection? What are you trying to hide?
Child: I have a right to know who my parents are.
State: SOMEBODY’S got to support the child.
It’s definitely one of the most evil things a woman can do to a man she is married to other than killing him, but it’s a wrong that doesn’t have a good solution
How about 500 lashes and branding her forehead?
Men should just get their kids tested at birth using a kit.
I continue to lament, though, that all this simply foments distrust. You can see it:
Mother: You don’t trust me! You’re essentially accusing me of cheating!
Father: If I really am the father, then you have nothing to fear from my verifying that fact. What is your objection? What are you trying to hide?
Child: I have a right to know who my parents are.
State: SOMEBODY’S got to support the child.
He can do it in the US without her knowledge or consent from a swab from the inside of the baby’s mouth — not hard to do if you are regularly changing diapers or bathing the kid or what have you when your wife is asleep. What a family court would do with that information for a married man, however, is very, very open to question, depending on when he does the test and learns the results — it has to do with the relationship with the child. I can imagine that courts would be very reluctant to allow a married man to disown paternity of a child with which he has an established paternal relationship past a certain time period, regardless of what the statute says — remember they are courts of equity, in most states.
That’s the justification for outlawing it, by the way (or circumscribing its use without the mother’s consent): the man has already been fooled/cuckolded by that point. His definitive knowledge of it will only disrupt what could/would otherwise be a potentially good parental relationship with the child — therefore for the man to know the truth is likely harmful for the child in the case of a finding of non-paternity, so it’s better that he remain fooled, from the perspective of what is best for the child. It can seem self-serving if you look at it from the women’s point of view, but not so much from the child’s point of view, and while it is can be easier in other contexts to separate those out this is one case that makes it particularly difficult, from the equity point of view, I think.
This is good one example of how laws protect bad behavior while pretending to provide a solution.
No one wants to be in a situation where they are challenging their wife’s faithfulness, unless they are already getting divorced. When paternity testing is optional, any man who requests it before accepting paternity is opening himself to a lot of grief from his wife just for having raised the issue. After the test shows the kids are his, she won’t let him forget so fast that he showed a lack of trust.
The default response that Dalrock points out, “aren’t you sure?” is more than just a fitness test. It is a foolproof defense mechanism, which a man cannot challenge unless he is ready to divorce. A mandatory paternity test would remove this shield, by taking away the personal aspect. no one would have to question their wives faithfulness, because the law asks the question. There is no strain put on the relationship, unless she has actually cheated.
A similar issue is prenups. Since prenups are optional, the bride will make a big deal of how the groom is not trusting her, which puts pressure on men to not ask for a prenup. When they do ask for one, they are weakening their position, because they are starting off with a request which comes across to all women as a lack of trust. If the law would require prenups, as it should, then there would be no personal aspect to having one, and writing one would be entirely positive.
By making these choices personal, instead of required and impersonal, the law protects bad behavior, and puts a high cost on men for demanding legitimate protections. The proponents of the law always maintain plausible deniability of any acceptance of bad behavior because, after all, if its important for you, just ask for it. The correct function of the law is to demand reasonable protections from everyone, to remove the personal cost of individual action.
@Empath
Coincidence the the wrong word. His actions played an intricate part. Indeed she couldn’t have born his bastard child without him. He was an active participant in the cuckoldry. “He didn’t know” is not an excuse any more than being ignorant of the law is an excuse. This is an complementary reason for all parties to keep sex in marriage; not a coincidental one. The guy at the bar knows he’s not married to the slut. Saying he’s not responsible for cuckoldry is like saying he’s not responsible for getting crabs from her. Yes, he is; even if he didn’t know she had them. Only a really heartless person would teach him that it’s not his fault, and therefore increase the chances of bar guy getting herpes, or worse.
I’m surprised you’d even make this argument. Put yourself in the bar guy’s shoes: Would you or would you not believe yourself responsible if you found out?
Aside from all that: you’re generally arguing in bad faith, though I don’t believe you mean to. Dalrock’s paternity affidavit is not active. We’re discussing what we’d like to see, if this were a more just universe. I continued on in the fantasy, while you’re trying to bring it back to the real world. As I think I demonstrated, even in the real world those principles have sway whether we like it or not.
T says:
February 12, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Sound reasonable to me. Although maybe you could add something about using a sperm donor with both of your knowledge to line three.
Look, T is trying to introduce cuckold festishism in a backhanded and seemingly innocent manner.
Look T, (Troll, feminst shrill) take your perverse sexual deviancy else where.
Deti wrote: Mother:
I wouldn’t mind in the least if HHG wanted our kids paternity tested. I actually offered at one point after our first daughter was born (not because I had any doubts; I didn’t as there was 0% chance he wasn’t the father), but he declined.
In all likelihood, of course, the children you think are yours really are. David Collard talked about this on my site awhile back. He wrote:
Deti – ”State: SOMEBODY’S got to support the child.”
And, this is the real issue most women and many soc/tradcons have towards paternity testing. If a putative father can avoid being obligated to pay and pay for a child who is not his, then either the women would have to work harder and make more personal sacrifices to cover the cost of the child, or the burden is going to be dumped on the taxpayer. I understand their concerns, but I have always noted the nearly absent consideration of the duped man.
I would, however, make the observation that in the Criminal Justice System, great care is taken to ensure that the innocent are not punished (or, at least that’s the stated goal – I realize many here doubt the sincerity of the effort vis-à-vis accused males).
In that same line of reasoning, a court ordering child-support is comparable to finding that man “guilty” of having fathered the child. Yet, as with many criminal proceedings, a simple DNA test can be applied which can absolutely determine a man’s paternal “guilt”.
Thus, I believe it can be argued that The State must bear the obligation to prove the (paternity) case against a putative father before they can judge him guilty and impose a sentence of child-support.
Rather than MPT, I’d argue for mandatory paternity testing to ensure the proper obligation of child-support.
If there was no way around getting the check without proving it is his child, women would be more likely to avoid such cuckoldry, or at least to work harder to preserve a marriage wherein they are not assured that paternity would be verified.
And, as an added bonus, a man needn’t even suspect it. The law would actually serve to protect his interest without his need to take the initiative.
Novaseeker wrote:
I wouldn’t agree with that justification. A lie is a lie; upholding a lie to make someone feel better is generally not a great idea. And these kinds of things tend to come out eventually, so the sooner the better.
Not to mention, the child, regardless of his feelings, should know who his biological father is. Some men will still choose to raise their non-bio offspring and bond with them, so it isn’t necessarily going to destroy that bond for the truth to be known.
“What a family court would do with that information for a married man, however, is very, very open to question, depending on when he does the test and learns the results — it has to do with the relationship with the child.”
I agree that given the equities, the father has to get the DNA test early so he can mount a challenge to paternity if he wants to. If he waits too long, the equities slide to the child because of parental bonding and the child’s interest in support and society with the father.
“His definitive knowledge of it will only disrupt what could/would otherwise be a potentially good parental relationship with the child — therefore for the man to know the truth is likely harmful for the child in the case of a finding of non-paternity, so it’s better that he remain fooled, from the perspective of what is best for the child. It can seem self-serving if you look at it from the women’s point of view, but not so much from the child’s point of view,”
This is really quite murky. The onus is still on the father to investigate if he is unsure. In these situations the mother has given assurances the child is her husband’s. He has relied on her representations to his detriment; and put repose and trust in her (now found to be false) representations. On whom should the burden lie? This is a “hard facts make bad law” or “hard facts make even harder law” situation. I would posit the burden should lie on the mother, to make the (probably ex) husband whole somehow, in money damages or restitution. Is that ever going to happen? Never. You’ll never, ever see a private cause of action for such a situation, I think. So though the burden lies on the man, it should by rights fall upon the mother.
I understand their concerns, but I have always noted the nearly absent consideration of the duped man.
Isn’t that to be expected, though? And not because of the general tilt against men, either. There has always been a substantially negative social sentiment *against* cuckolded men — they have been considered the proper subject of scorn and ridicule, paraded through the streets in some cases and the like, in our illustrious history. So it’s no surprise that the consideration of the guy who has been duped is not a social priority — we’re no longer as nasty as we used to be towards cuckolded men, but we do kind of still pretty much hold them responsible for what happened, and while perhaps no longer worthy of outright open social scorn, nevertheless not really worthy of any real sympathy or redress.
Couple that with the problem of what to do with children who already have an established relationship, and the social answer is: nothing.
It’s going to remain that way too, I’m almost certain. This is not a “problem” most people think is worth a solution of any kind for, really.
“Make it a felony to fill out and sign the form with option 3 inaccurately”
lol yeah when do i get my new pony too?
felonies are like misdemeanors — theyre for males
females KILL males in western nations now, with impunity, or near-impunity
thus, i dont see the Fempire’s lawmakers, police, persecutors, judges, bar associations, and voting public (ie women) rushing forward to enact or enforce any measure that holds females to even the vaguest responsibility, or that reduces female socio-legal power
as female persecutors and “judges” continue to pour out of the “law” skools, as theyve done for thirty years now, i dont anticipate a tremendous future groundswell to ensure paternity
(tho there will be some other groundswells!)
sit in the gallery and spend a week observing any criminal court in the u.s, youll figure it out real fast
Not to mention, the child, regardless of his feelings, should know who his biological father is. Some men will still choose to raise their non-bio offspring and bond with them, so it isn’t necessarily going to destroy that bond for the truth to be known.
They may never know, though, SSM. It’s not like a finding of non-paternity will tell you who the father is. The mother may know, or she may not (depending on how many men she was bedding at the time), and even if she does know, she may never say, or if she says, the man may never be found, may have lied about his identity, etc, etc., etc. It can very easily be a lose/lose for the kid.
I don’t think Dalrock’s idea would work. Too much legal wiggle room. But I do think that routine paternity testing could work, but only if it is done not through the angle of protecting the father. No one would go for that. BUT everyone wants to do things that are ‘in the best interests of the child’ and a routine test of the (supposed) father at birth would be very useful to ensure medical compatibility in the event some health problem arises with the child. If it is simply a matter of saying, “we need to confirm this information in the unlikely event that your child develops a medical condition in the future that blah blah blah”. There is no implication of infidelity or anything nefarious. Just a simple routine medical procedure.
Then on the other front push for paternity / child support reform tying the payment of child support to legal / biological paternity, so that a man cannot be forced to pay support for children that are not his biologically UNLESS he makes a positive assertion of paternity. This would solve the potential problem of adoptees or children that have really only known the one man as their father and he WANTS to maintain the parental relationship
This is really quite murky. The onus is still on the father to investigate if he is unsure. In these situations the mother has given assurances the child is her husband’s. He has relied on her representations to his detriment; and put repose and trust in her (now found to be false) representations. On whom should the burden lie? This is a “hard facts make bad law” or “hard facts make even harder law” situation. I would posit the burden should lie on the mother, to make the (probably ex) husband whole somehow, in money damages or restitution. Is that ever going to happen? Never. You’ll never, ever see a private cause of action for such a situation, I think. So though the burden lies on the man, it should by rights fall upon the mother.
It is murky. On the one hand, there was that case in the Daily Mail where the guy was awarded some back child support payments and so on, but the article also talked about how it scarred the children, himself and so on. Of course that was a particularly bad case because the children were young adults and had am obviously fully-formed relationship with the man, but it gets murkier the further you get away from birth, really, and quite quickly, I think.
BUT everyone wants to do things that are ‘in the best interests of the child’ and a routine test of the (supposed) father at birth would be very useful to ensure medical compatibility in the event some health problem arises with the child. If it is simply a matter of saying, “we need to confirm this information in the unlikely event that your child develops a medical condition in the future that blah blah blah”.
Issue there is that there is already a body of medical ethics around the idea that disclosure of non-paternity, when the test is done for reasons other than confirming paternity, is unethical. So even in the very unlikely event that a medical condition-related paternity test were to become normal, it’s almost certain that medical ethics would ensure that the disclosure of non-paternity findings for that routine test performed for other reasons would be unethical to disclose to the putative father.
By making these choices personal, instead of required and impersonal, the law protects bad behavior, and puts a high cost on men for demanding legitimate protections. The proponents of the law always maintain plausible deniability of any acceptance of bad behavior because, after all, if its important for you, just ask for it. The correct function of the law is to demand reasonable protections from everyone, to remove the personal cost of individual action.
This is true. Most women will make their husband’s pay dearly for requesting a paternity test. However, “I’m scared of my wife,” is not a good reason to make paternity testing mandatory for all.
slwerner — I would, however, make the observation that in the Criminal Justice System, great care is taken to ensure that the innocent are not punished (or, at least that’s the stated goal – I realize many here doubt the sincerity of the effort vis-à-vis accused males).
wait! youre the guy with the Prosecutor Wife, yes?
i mixed you up with another weasel last week, but i think (?) i’ve got the right boy this time! (pls tell me if i’m Rong again tho)
i guess you and the Ms have to sit around at night and tell yourself that incredible lie (easily disproved by simple observations) that the Justsis Sistem takes “great care to ensure the innocent arent punished”
when you cash those Phat Paychecks do you ever think about the tens-of-thousands of innocent men you and the Ms and Just Sis have doomed to lives of agony, abuse, and degradation? when the twenties come outta the atm, the whirring sound rather resembles the muffled screams of those in your mancages, being taken “great care” of whilst paying their “debt” to you and your gynarchy
Nova, slwerner:
“It can very easily be a lose/lose for the kid.”
And that’s really the beginning and ending of this issue, isn’t it? The state essentially making sure at least one man and one woman are on the hook to support the child so that burden doesn’t fall to the taxpayer.
And that’s really the beginning and ending of this issue, isn’t it? The state essentially making sure at least one man and one woman are on the hook to support the child so that burden doesn’t fall to the taxpayer.
In part there is that concern, but the other part is mucking up the established de facto paternal relationship — that tends to make lots of people from all different ideological and worldview stripes queasy if it has any significant duration at all.
And: our society and legal thought puts a high, compelling premium on “best interests of the child”. I.e., a child should not be penalized and deprived familial relationships or financial support because of the poor decisions or infidelity of his mother, nor for a father’s resting on his rights and failing to exercise them.
So if the rights of the child are weighed against those of the putative father, those of the child prevail. Every time.
tbc – “This would solve the potential problem of adoptees or children that have really only known the one man as their father and he WANTS to maintain the parental relationship”
I would argue that what needs to be addressed is the man’s rights as the “father” (even if not biologically based) vs. his (financial) obligations to the child’s mother outside of marriage (i.e. post-divorce).
Typically a man’s rights as a father are intrinsically, not to mention legally, tied to his willingness to meet his obligations (both financial and interpersonal) to the child.
To me, the idea of tying child-support to paternity (or legal adoption) does not need to interfere with the relationship between father and child. In fact, just like biological fathers going through divorce and custody proceedings, the laws need to be changed so as to be more attuned to the man’s interests regarding the children. Protecting his parental rights, but de-emphasizing his financial obligations ought to become the order of business when the children are discovered to not be his.
In that regard, a duped dad should continue to have parental rights, but not court-ordered obligations. Most any man who has a relationship to a child is quite willing to provide financially for that child [I see this in two of my friends who are doting and financially generous uncles to their sister’s children]. Predictably, a man who was duped, but still wishes to maintain a relationship with the children is going to continue to provide for them, especially when they are in his custody and care. This also compels the mother to allow the relationship to continue ands for the children to spend time at the dad’s residence, as she will benefit from some financial relief while he cares for them.
As far as the potential strain on or destruction of the father-child relationship, the reality is that a divorce typically subjects all such relationships. Many biological fathers are kept from, even alienated from, their children as it is.
There are no perfect answers as to haw to deal with the discovery of paternity fraud. I tend to feel that if the father-child bond is being threatened via divorce, then at least his financial interest ought to be protected.
Right, that kind of sentiment exactly.
If the mother wants a man’s name on the birth cert, there is a paternity test. No paternity test, no man’s name, No man’s name, no man’s responsibility. Easy
“the other part is mucking up the established de facto paternal relationship — that tends to make lots of people from all different ideological and worldview stripes queasy if it has any significant duration at all.”
Well, true. But suppose we have a situation in which putative father finds out the two year old boy his wife gave birth to isn’t his. He promptly divorces the mom and establishes nonpaternity by clear and convincing evidence. Legally, he is dad. He says: “I’ll pay child support, but I want no visitation. I want no relationship with this child who is not mine. I’ll abide by the monetary obligation but I want no personal relationship at all with this child, ever.” I don’t think he can be forced to have that relationship even if the child wants it; but certainly he’ll be forced to pay.
Well, true. But suppose we have a situation in which putative father finds out the two year old boy his wife gave birth to isn’t his. He promptly divorces the mom and establishes nonpaternity by clear and convincing evidence. Legally, he is dad. He says: “I’ll pay child support, but I want no visitation. I want no relationship with this child who is not mine. I’ll abide by the monetary obligation but I want no personal relationship at all with this child, ever.” I don’t think he can be forced to have that relationship even if the child wants it; but certainly he’ll be forced to pay.
That’s true — he can waive his visitation for any reason, and may be more likely to if he knows he isn’t the biological father — so that’s another reason that would be used to justify outright outlawing a test in that instance. Of course if he learns of the non-paternity through other means the result in terms of his behavior could be the same, but the state/public would have “clean hands” in terms of motivating him to sever his de facto paternal relationship with the boy in question.
@deti
Its no way to live a life is it? always on edge that armageddon could arrive any day. If you could go back would you do it again?? i’d like your perspective as i would like to have kids in the future but becoming more reluctant
Deti – “I don’t think he can be forced to have that relationship even if the child wants it; but certainly he’ll be forced to pay.”
Which is exactly the reverse of what it should be.
While I understand the potential impacts of extant father-child bonds, there are other ways that a man can end up learning the ugly truth other than the results of a paternity test being forced on him. I’ve even heard of men learning of it from their wives, either in a moment of anger during an argument, or as a cruel act of taunting directed at him.
Even though I would argue for mandatory testing in regard to the assignment of child-support, it should be easy enough to allow men who simply do not wish to know to waive the results being revealed.
Of course, even such a refusal to find out provides no guarantee that they will be able to maintain their desire relationship with the child after a divorce. Likewise, their knowledge of their biological non-parentage, if not revealed to the child needn’t be an issue for those who do wish to try to maintain the relationship.
Nova:
So, when you get right down to it, when all the equities of the situation are considered, we are headed toward outlawing unilateral paternity testing, simply because the “best interests of the child” will demand it. The child needs financial support, and the state cannot make all children wards; that just cannot be done. Most mothers cannot provide that financial support by themselves, without help.
One question I have is how this would be viewed constitutionally: there is supreme court case law that a child has a fundamental right to know who his parents are and to have family relations with them free from governmental interference. There is also case law saying parents have a fundamental right to relations with their children: to live with them, support them and raise them in the way they see fit, free from unreasonable (there’s that word) gov’t interference.
Does a man have a 14th amendment substantive due process right to avoid financial obligations to a child when it’s shown the child isn’t his? What about 5th amendment rights against being deprived of “**** property without due process of law”? I’ve got to believe these challenges have been made and probably swatted away, on the ground that the man’s right to refuse having his name put on the BC was his “due process” or his waiving due process.
Paternity testing at birth doesn’t need to be mandatory; it just needs to be standard. People could still opt out of it, like they can with many vaccinations and such. But that would switch the onus to the woman: if she says she wants to decline a test that most people accept as a matter of course, she must have a reason — at least some doubt.
It wouldn’t become ordinary overnight, of course. But with gene therapy progressing as it is, there will continue to be more reasons for parents and children to have DNA tests for various conditions anyway. That won’t automatically provide paternity testing, but it’ll become a lot cheaper than the $200 people are talking about now; and (if it’s not blocked by the courts) I’d expect it’ll just end up a checkbox on a form, along with tendencies toward diabetes or epilepsy.
When we found out that a man in our family had been cuckolded, I asked my husband point blank if he wanted to test our kids.
The woman in question here was (we thought) extremely devout, so it was shocking in more ways than one, and I wouldn’t have blamed him one bit for thinking, “If she could do this, then what about her?”
He thought I’d lost my mind to offer such a thing and turned me down. And that was that. I agree with Cane that for the vast majority of men (93%), this should not be something to bring into your marriage and undermine it that way. If you do feel a need to test the children, I don’t think the wife should be told unless there is a problem with the results.
Another thing: DNA testing for the sake of sussing out genetic flaws will increasingly take place in the womb. (That has its own dark implications, but that’s another topic.) So there won’t be the issue of the “father” and child being bonded, or a newborn child being dependent on him. As soon as a woman realizes she’s pregnant, DNA will be taken (unless the parents object) to scan for problems. If a man at that point asks for a paternity test (or if tracing the child’s genes to the parents becomes a necessary part of the testing), it’ll be a lot harder for people to claim the man should suck it up and stick around for the kid’s sake than if the testing were done after birth.
autopilot:
I’d commend to your reading one of Nova’s columns:
http://veritaslounge.com/2013/02/06/interlude-keeping-the-red-pill-down/
Also, in Dalrock’s archives, search for “Interviewing a Prospective Wife” and review Dal’s two articles.
Having kids is a deeply personal decision. The most important decision one can make in that regard is selecting their mother. She must be a woman of outstanding character who is deeply in love with you and wants to have your babies so bad she can’t stand it.
Gay marriage and artificial conception methods will make the issue of paternity testing redundant, with the legal definition of father and legal guardian being fused with or replaced by ‘parent’, it legally becomes obsolete.
The rights of the child and the rights of gays will supersede the rights of the biological father, as to do otherwise would be discriminatory.
The act of holding out to be a parent will override all biological consequences, it has happened in France and it will not be long before it spreads.
Cail – “As soon as a woman realizes she’s pregnant…”
Which reminds me of an aside to the issue of cuckoldry.
Some years ago, a law was being proposed to require that husbands be notified if their wives were seeking abortions (I can’t be sure, but I believe Rick Santorum was involved); and was being debated on a Fox News program I happened upon.
Anyway, I was rather shocked when the supposedly hard-right conservative women ALL objected, offering up the rather pathetic argument that there might be the slimmest of possibilities that some abusive husband might try to force his wife to have a child against her will.
However, after some rumination about their unexpected hostility towards the bill, it finally dawned on me that their real concern, which they knew they dare not say out loud, was that there are many wives who wish to abort in secret because they either know, or suspect that it is not their husbands. It was actually one of my first realizations of the phenomena which has come to be termed as “team Woman”. They were otherwise opposed to abortion in general, but realized that some women had a “special need” not only to abort, but to keep the pregnancy secret from their husbands.
Sorry about the tangent. Please resume the discussion.
In fact, throughout the West, the trend is in the opposite direction, legally speaking –> outlawing paternity testing either completely (e.g., France) or requiring the mother’s consent for it (e.g., Germany), on the basis that this is the interest of the children. The US is much more libertarian than either of those countries, of course
The legal system of Germany and of France is based on the Napoleonic Legal System in which the citizen is only permitted to do those acts that the state permits. In the UK, and the USA the citizen is permitted to do any acts that the state by statue law does not expressly prohibit.
This is the worrying backdrop to government actions in both countries.
So, when you get right down to it, when all the equities of the situation are considered, we are headed toward outlawing unilateral paternity testing, simply because the “best interests of the child” will demand it. The child needs financial support, and the state cannot make all children wards; that just cannot be done. Most mothers cannot provide that financial support by themselves, without help.
My guess is that if a lot of guys start testing and decoupling from the kids (or trying to), we’ll see these same laws at least being proposed. They are not a secret to those who, ahem, take an interest in such things (which is a small, select group).
One question I have is how this would be viewed constitutionally: there is supreme court case law that a child has a fundamental right to know who his parents are and to have family relations with them free from governmental interference. There is also case law saying parents have a fundamental right to relations with their children: to live with them, support them and raise them in the way they see fit, free from unreasonable (there’s that word) gov’t interference.
Does a man have a 14th amendment substantive due process right to avoid financial obligations to a child when it’s shown the child isn’t his? What about 5th amendment rights against being deprived of “**** property without due process of law”? I’ve got to believe these challenges have been made and probably swatted away, on the ground that the man’s right to refuse having his name put on the BC was his “due process” or his waiving due process.
The issue is that the federal courts in general do not get involved in family court cases where the decisions relate to what to do in the case of divorce — in terms of the substance of it. Much of what happens in the state family law courts obviously violates (or should certainly be seen as violating) various provisions of the U.S/ Constitution, but the federal courts have a long practice of not interfering because (1) it would really muck-up proceedings that they don’t want to muck up that much and want instead to streamline rather than making more complicated (that’s the whole trend of family law on divorce for the past 50+years) and (2) state courts are courts of equity, where these strict rules don’t apply, and the fundamental idea is “fairness” as determined by the court taking all circumstances into account. Equity is inherently a very situational analysis, and putting constitutional constraints in there in any meaningful way would really change the entire system, so it isn’t done.
Baskerville goes into the various Constitutional problems with what happens in the family courts today — but there really isn’t a solution to that, either. In America, you can be deprived of most of your property, your domicile, your relationship with your children, and substantial parts of your income all without any meaningful constitutional protections that apply in any other case where the state “takes” stuff from you like that, even in a conventional civil case. Just how it is. Constitution isn’t for divorces.
ay marriage and artificial conception methods will make the issue of paternity testing redundant, with the legal definition of father and legal guardian being fused with or replaced by ‘parent’, it legally becomes obsolete.
The rights of the child and the rights of gays will supersede the rights of the biological father, as to do otherwise would be discriminatory.
The act of holding out to be a parent will override all biological consequences, it has happened in France and it will not be long before it spreads.
There’s this too — thanks for mentioning it. I knew there was something else I was forgetting about the BC approach — it’s gay marriage.
This is absolutely right. The BCs are already being changed in this way in some states I think (NY, I think?), and that is another trend. There will be “mother” and “parent” or just two slots (or more — there are people looking for there to be more than two) with each as “parent”, which effectively makes biological paternity irrelevant for the birth cert.
The idea that a man could be held legally liable for a child that was not biologically his (and that he did not subsequently assent to) is another perfect example of the tortured jurisprudence at work in the family courts, which essentially operate from a ‘deep pockets’ mentality. No sane man would knowingly agree to such given the horrible fallout that is likely to be visited upon him down the road. Hitting up the duped father is the least equitable solution from a legal and societal standpont insofar as he did the least wrong of and interested party in the process, kid(s) aside. While the wife and lover are most culpable (in that order because she is the gatekeeper) so is society for now emplacing and maintaining the proper strictures on the illicit behavior that produced the child. This is tantamount to requiring the owner of a Lexus legally parked on his own private property to pay for medical and ongoing care bills of a drunk who crashes his beater car into said Lexus.
That being said, a non-biological father should carefully consider all of the potential harm that may come to the child from him bowing out of the picture. It is actually right and honorable for him to contribute to raising the child – he just should not be compelled legally to do so, nor should he ever be compelled to financially support such a child pursuant to a divorce.
You get the behaviour you reward.
@Elspeth
Just to be clear so you (and others) know with what you are agreeing: What should not bring brought into the marriage is undue suspicion. If suspicion is there, due or not, get the paternity test. The tests don’t cause mistrust, and whatever woman says so is covering for her own sin of pride.
Again, it gets back to the principle of the family belonging to the father; a principle to which the majority commenters of the Orthosphere tithe mint and dill to, but of which their (stated) practice is empty.
slwerner: Some years ago, a law was being proposed to require that husbands be notified if their wives were seeking abortions… I was rather shocked when the supposedly hard-right conservative women ALL objected, offering up the rather pathetic argument… it finally dawned on me that their real concern, which they knew they dare not say out loud, was that there are many wives who wish to abort in secret because they either know, or suspect that it is not their husbands
Have no doubt — the exact same reasoning applies to “hard-right conservative women” who offer pathetically ill-founded arguments against paternity testing.
anonymous (on another blog): “A righteous wife would proactively VOLUNTEER for paternity testing of her children. She’d GLADLY prove her love and fidelity by giving the gift of certainty to her husband.”
Elspeth: “When we found out that a man in our family had been cuckolded, I asked my husband point blank if he wanted to test our kids.”
Hear ye, o manospherians: THIS IS A RIGHTEOUS WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I find it amusing that horse breeders have more rights than fathers and more stringent DNA testing. Seems that the courts assume that horse genealogies are more important than those of humans.
The tests don’t cause mistrust, and whatever woman says so is covering for her own sin of pride.
No, the test don’t cause mistrust. Requests for a test reveal that there is mistrust. How can that not undermine a marriage?
This is why I think if a man insists on doing this, he should just test and leave the wife out of it unless there is evidence of cuckoldry. Pride or no, a faithful wife will be understandably upset and alarmed at the revelation that her husband thinks she has been unfaithful and worse, has allowed herself to become pregnant by a nonexistent lover.
I find it amusing that horse breeders have more rights than fathers and more stringent DNA testing. Seems that the courts assume that horse genealogies are more important than those of humans.
Or much less important.
The interesting thing about paternity testing is that the objections to it are nearly universal, coming from almost every political, ideological and worldview persuasion, and articulated in a myriad of ways ranging from medical ethics to political philosophy to sociological ideas about the family to jurisprudential concerns. This is a decidedly motley crew of opposition, because it is so broad-based. In that sense, because these are often people who agree on almost nothing else in the natural course of their lives, it seems likely to me that there is something else that they *do* have in common which is not being articulated (and which may, or rather, likely is, not even clearly known in an articulable sense by these people).
I think that common thing is the visceral understanding that this knowledge is a nuclear bomb thrown into the heart of an existing family, coupled with the general residual distaste for cuckolds and the underlying sentiment that in order for this to happen the guy must be hugely at fault and kind of has it coming, and the worst thing to do would be to do something that screws up the kid. Again, this isn’t articulated, but is an underlying sentiment that may even only be partially articulable, but which leads to people grasping for their favorite ideology, worldview or justification as to why this is a bad thing.
No, the test don’t cause mistrust. Requests for a test reveal that there is mistrust. How can that not undermine a marriage?
This is why I think if a man insists on doing this, he should just test and leave the wife out of it unless there is evidence of cuckoldry
Agreed. On the one hand, a wife volunteering for the test (as you did when a relative was cuckolded), is a noble act.
On the other hand, a husband ASKING for the test, would in most circumstances be extraordinarly offensive. If you have your suspicions, basesless or not, test quietly, and if the results are favorable, shut up and be grateful.
Novaseeker – The BCs are already being changed in this way in some states I think (NY, I think?), and that is another trend. There will be “mother” and “parent” or just two slots (or more — there are people looking for there to be more than two) with each as “parent”, which effectively makes biological paternity irrelevant for the birth cert.
Like this?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0213/three_parents.php3#.URrhCx37JFs
“A Miami-Dade circuit judge has approved a private adoption allowing three people – a gay man and a married lesbian couple – to be listed on the birth certificate of their 23-month-old daughter.”
This is an complementary reason for all parties to keep sex in marriage; not a coincidental one
That is not what is coincidence, which means your comment that
you’re generally arguing in bad faith, though I don’t believe you mean to.
also doesn’t compute.
Its not important….other hills.
Yes. And more of that to come is basically going to render biological paternity (but not really biological maternity) increasingly less important. This dovetails the trend of the devaluation of fatherhood and plays into it as well, but it also undermines paternity claims and the idea of the birth cert being a durable basis for them moving forward. Trends all point the other way.
@Elspeth
This is why I clarified, because it gets to the heart of the matter, for women.
We agree.
We disagree. A man might decide that discretion is the best way to go, but if he does not–no matter the results–his wife is obliged to handle that with grace. No, not “Pride or no,”. Pride it is because if the test is positive of his paternity:
– he has his own demons (perhaps an affair of his own, past misdeeds to work through, mental illness, etc.)
– he has a legitimate if unnamed reason to suspect her
– he has a bad influence in his life
– he’s simply going through a dark mental path
And he may well need to work that out with her help–as is her job. “Understandably upset and alarmed” is code for* “righteously angry”; which Christians should interpret as pride, because it is. She has no reason to be angry with him. He has done nothing to transgress her whatsoever; except to ask her in a different way if she is faithful. This is more of the “I don’t check his email or follow him in dark cars” nonsense. If women don’t like this they shouldn’t get married, because marriage means means these things. Your own family story bears witness against this nonsense: That man who was cuckolded should have been checking her email and phone records as a matter of course.
I’m sure all this “investigation” sounds paranoid, but we could turn it around and talk about all the ways men are lapsed in not understanding their women due to their lack of interest…and they are. Hell, the readers of Jezebel could enthusiastically join on in that. Which brings us right back to liberalism and pride being the source of “understandable upsets and alarms”. This “paranoia” is the flip-side of being so into each others business that her business is his business and his is hers, and they actually start to live as one. Traditionalists are stupid not because their principles are wrong (they are not), but because they fail to live in today. Liberal say that a lot, but they mean something very different from what I’m saying. They mean for everyone to exploit these new personal spaces personal use only. PRIVATE PROPERTY: KEEP OUT! The Trad challenge is to embrace technological advances like email and phone records and paternity tests the way we would a house, or a closet, or even an occupied bathroom. I generally stay out of Mrs. Caldo’s purse, but if I desire so there is no way I would view that as a transgression of her private space, and I would take a dim view if she did. WHAT PRIVATE SPACE? This is family.
I know, I know: it sounds dreadful to liberal ears, and so we should wonder what sort of mouth are connected to such ears. I say that as a fellow captive of our times. It takes a long time to climb back out of the rabbit hole.
Now I’ve gone and spent another post.
*I nearly put “almost always code for…” but I just don’t believe it it ever otherwise.
@Elspeth
Women HAVE to grow a backbone, when it comes to mens rights
Women HAVE TO ACCEPT A MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHO HIS CHILDREN ARE
A marriage based on the self centred arrogance of some chick isnt a marriage, its a sham
Women basically use the same old tired excuses, everytime basic mens rights come up
Women ARENT the victims here, PATERNITY TESTING IS ABOUT MEN
THIS is what women cant handle,
As usual Elspeth tries to white-wash the importance of the issue & make women out to be victims …
The vast MAJORITY of women today are sluts, fact
MAKING Paternity tests A HUGE issue,so huge they should be mandatory
If a chick cant understand the right of men to know who theyre children are, women DONT HAVE THE RIGHT to bear our children
The MAIN reason white-washing feminists like alte & elspeth dont want men to talk about paternity testing
Paternity tests are THE most important form of slut shaming today
Paternity tests are GROUND ZERO for slut shaming today
Which is why women like elspeth & alte dont want men to demand paternity tests from women
They cant stand the thought of MEN holding chicks responsible for their actions
Remember elspeth & alte ROUTINELY censor & ban men from their site
Women in the manosphere are a freaking joke …
This is why you make it mandatory. It becomes an accepted part of the birth documentation process. If you want to have this implemented you sell it as just confirming that documentation is correct. You ask the mother who dad is, then you confirm it. If she doesn’t know, or you can’t confirm “unknown” goes on the birth certificate. Women will bitch, let them, Its a legal document. It has to be accurate.
The best and most effective way around all of this is to remove women from the equation. Women vote and will never vote responsibility on themselves ever. women would rather see civilization destroyed than be held accountable for anything. Fathers mean nothing other than a place to send a bill in western society because women voted for it to be that way.
A male pill removes women from the equation. She can say and do what ever she wants it ain’t mine. imagine a cock carouseler heading to church for a chump and the chump in an effort to keep his pure christian man front is on the pill saving himself for marriage. Good luck slut solves that problem Booch had that Caldo Cane addressed as bullshit. Once again a simple issue paternaty fraud because it in some way involves honesty or some accountability of a womans action turns in to the long drawn out dsicussion.
Take every point made and even off topic article and go over the action with a male pill available. A player screwing some married slut could say for instance ” yeah bitch cuckold your husband with these blanks.”
Heads up to Dalrock:
My next post will contain many links to cite my assertions about the use of DNA,please see to it-that it gets out of moderation as soon as possible.
I’ve kept an eye on these concepts for a few years now.
The first concept I have no citation right at hand,that 12 States have it illegal for a father to conduct a DNA test,it would be a bodily assault to take the sample and not admissible in court.
Now if the court can be persuaded to order the test,it’s not a violation and is admissible.
The female only thing goes here.Not for fathers.
Next post quite comprehensive,please clear.
The first concept is that existing databases can be swept w/o a warrant to look for perpetrators of crime,but they lower the number of markers so low as to obtain false results.
(broken link from free library.com)
2.That once convicted prisoners have no legal right to past DNA or future DNA testing for use of appeal or to prove innocence,SCOTUS has ruled:
(could post many citations,but one is enough to start a search of your own)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061801610.html
3.Johns caught buying sex and all misdemeanors in CA are DNA tested:
http://www.alternet.org/sex/153918/dna_ … um=twitter
4.DNA results are being destroyed before convicts can use them for appeal/innocence.
(broken link,perhaps the other free library link is also broken,use the search engine there,if you will)
5.House Votes to Expand National DNA Arrest Database
http://www.news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005458-38.html
6.Berkley asking incoming students for DNA
(no link)
7.National DNA warehouse bill passes
AAPS
April 28, 2008
Passing the House of Representatives on a voice vote, S. 1858 has been sent to President Bush for signature. The Newborn Genetic Screening bill was passed by the Senate last December.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1858
I think my last assertion indicates the govt is ALREADY testing every newborn,the information is denied to father.
Also it is well known most hospital have a policy NOT to tell fathers if the child is not his,for reasons already stated by others.
It’s a woman’s world!
There is no FI
(quackity quack,don’t talk back!)
More links:
State laws on newborn DNA testing
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7h8nEhtRK2MAZmNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1dDluajJuBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1NNRTEyOV8xNzA-/SIG=12vo24psf/EXP=1360757415/**http%3a//www.dnapolicy.org/resources/State_law_summaries_final_all_states.pdf
2,The govt has your newborns DNA
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7h8nEhtRK2MAbmNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1dnAwb3E5BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1NNRTEyOV8xNzA-/SIG=14h1pgcr4/EXP=1360757415/**http%3a//articles.cnn.com/2010-02-04/health/baby.dna.government_1_genetic-testing-dna-samples-genetic-diseases%3f_s=PM%3aHEALTH
3.”all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Homeland Security Department.”
http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=476
4.”Newborn screening debuted as a public health program in the United States in the early 1960s”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newborn_screening
5.”
Are Internet Genetic Testing Services Really Illegal?”
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/are-genetic-tes/
6.Claims newborns are screened and the blood samples kept,but DNA results not kept
http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x5456018/New-law-prevents-storage-of-newborn-blood-samples
In summary,it seems clear Govt feels the need and right to do these things already,but holds them from fathers pursing justice,and use DNA to convict men but with hold it
from men trying to use it to prove innocence.
FIN
Apologies for the 2 long links through yahoo search,I didn’t look at them before posting,could have been the direct links.
Also to note the two posts with many links and assertions have been made and are in moderation
As to the assertion that if a test is asked for that will sow mistrust in the marriage,the standard answer for all surveillance increases apply:
“Well-if you’re not doing something wrong,then you’ve nothing to hide,have you?”
It’s a great idea to try to limit cuckholdry and hold women accountable (gasp) what a concept.
Holding women accountable is not what we do as a society,especially if we can claim it’s for the good of the children.
(no one cares about men or their ‘rights’ )
Also,using DNA criteria for child support would throw a monkey wrench into the single mother industry,as new suitors pay as well as bio-dad (if he can be found)
I think it’s something that MUST be done,as I keep hearing women on the net saying openly they want thug sperm for ‘better genes’ and beta men to pay.
(alpha f**ks,beta bucks)
I don’t believe thugs have better DNA,but it’s something women believe,or claim to believe to justify promiscuity.
Given that women can justify atrocities with no remorse as a hamster rule,measures should be taken to protect men’s basic human rights to their own bio-offspring.
The actual rate of cuckholdry is unknown,but my best educated guess from reading many sources would be %5-%20.
The standard ten percent rule could also apply,ten percent of any demographic will be outliers to the norm in any given field.
I know of one family with two sons,the one boys is clearly the fathers and is well mannered and intelligent,the other boy is known to be the son of a local bartender and he’s unruly and disruptive and overbearing to his younger brother,part of this may be due to his psycho-mothers preference for the ‘alpha’ child.
jus sayin
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/02/13 « Free Northerner
Regarding damage to the father-child relationship after separation, I think the current system shows no real desire to uphold that relationship anyhow. If anything, a man certain of his paternity might be more likely to support his children than a man who has any lingering doubts. As slwerner mentioned, an ex-wife can easily assert “you’re not even the real father” to hurt him, even if he really is the father. Having mandatory testing (either at birth, or at separation) would in most cases actually help to strengthen the bond between the father and the children, and increase the likelihood of his continued financial support, because paternity would be confirmed in most cases.
Where non-paternity is discovered, I think the government should have to cover the child support through tax if the man is not willing to pay voluntarily. As a taxpayer, I don’t like this situation, but I would rather it than innocent men (maybe including myself one day) being forced to support children not really his. Ultimately the government needs to take responsibility for its part in the destruction of families and make changes to correct it, even if some of those changes temporarily introduce new costs and problems. I am confident that MPT would eventually result in more family stability, not less; something undoubtedly in the best interest of children. Women would think twice about having affairs, and men would raise their paternal sons and daughters with full assurance that they are indeed his own.
As an aside, I don’t think it’s likely, but couldn’t a man deliberately inseminate his wife with another man’s semen? I can’t see it being particularly easy to pull off, but the implications for this discussion are interesting. If verified paternity placed extra risk on men in comparison to unverified paternity, I wonder if some men would try this approach, especially if they thought a future divorce was likely.
A long time ago, a commenter on HUS (Hambydammit) made the very accurate observation that according to the broad social consensus in the West, one of the dogmas we now take for granted, we cannot justify punishing a child for the actions of its mother. I believe this dogma is the fundamental problem behind this issue. It manifests in many ways. The broad social opposition to paternity testing, mandatory or not, is just one of them. Another is the similar opposition to the idea of punishing adulteresses in any way. „Any talk of punishing women for adultery in divorce court will dry up the minute some kid has to wear old shoes to school because daddy doesn’t have to pay child support”, as he correctly observed.
The social consensus is that as long as a mother isn’t completely batshit and/or a drug addict or something like that, she must be enabled to stay with and care for her children, because, you know, it should all be about the „interests of the children”, and for that reason she shouldn’t be punished, should she? She’s the primary caregiver after all, isn’t she? And the dogma itself, of course, is just one manifestation of the Feminine Imperative. It’s just one way to ensure that women always have the Pussy Pass at hand.
There’s no chance of actually helping cuckolded men and cheated husbands as long as this dogma is allowed to stand. There are two ways to do that. One is to hasten the collapse of this rotten civilization through any means. Once it perishes, its dogmas will perish as well. Another way is to purge the rottenness by resurrecting the rule of collective responsibility, as practised in medieval Russia and numerous other cultures as well. According to this ancient rule, those bonded by blood are responsible for each other and must share the same fate. No free pass for anyone.
Nobody has said it, so I will: if a woman gets herself sperminated by some alpha deadbeat who won’t ever recognize his spawn as his own, she has to face the consequences and pay the price, period. And yes, her child must pay the price as well, because it carries bad genes – the genes of a slut and a deadbeat. His father is a deadbeat because he has bad genes, and therefore his offspring are worthless thugspawn. They’re all the enemies of human civilization, and if they refuse to adapt and accept their lot, civilization must jettison them all. Let’s just be clear about that. She should have thought about all this before spreading her legs for that alpha thug, plain and simple. That’s the rule all honorable beta men have to live by. No beta bucks for alpha fucks and thugspawn! None! Neither through mandatory child support nor taxpayer money for ’single moms’.
“In all likelihood, of course, the children you think are yours really are. David Collard talked about this on my site awhile back. He wrote:
I just wanted to say that it is not true, as some people suggest for whatever reason, that the rate of non-paternity (cuckoldry) is particularly high. It is certainly not the 10 per cent figure often given. A more likely figure is one or two per cent:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/paternity-most-assured/”
If you bother to read the article he cited, you’ll see that it’s non-scientific BS.
UK Fred puts it very well at 4.48pm where, in terms, he observes that – unlike the Europeans – the U.S.A. and the U.K. have Common Law systems, and where thus, unless otherwise specifically prohibited, everything is permitted – which is why I have an antipathy to so-called Rights based Law; and why I am opposed to the concept of Men’s Rights – and indeed of everyone elses. I would have thought (I am a little rusty on Matrimonial Law these days) that in England, if a Woman alleged that a man is the Father of her Child and thus seeks financial support from the man for the Child and the man denies that he is the Father, that a Court would be minded to order that a D.N.A. test be taken so as to determine the true Paternity – at least that is what I would be minded to do were it my Court. The position with regard to Marriage is however slightly different, in that by reason of Marriage the man makes himself responsible for ‘Children of the Family’ to use the term of art, and that includes any children the Woman might have brought to the Marriage. Cuckoldry is thus and always has been an immaterial consideration. When my friendly acquaintance thus married a Phillipino woman who has four children (and for all I know by four different men) he became responsible not only for her but for her brood as well, at least he would have done had she been allowed permanent residence in this country, which I sincerely trust for my friend’s sake – and the taxpayers- she did not.
I will send my exhorbitent fee note for this excellent advice to Anonymous Reader and he can send me a virtual cheque.
sunshinemary says:
“As a good little Libertarian, I can’t get behind mandatory testing. That’s why I think Dalrock’s solution is pretty reasonable although it will never be implemented. Also, men should be able to request a DNA test without the woman’s consent in my opinion.”
It’s from way back, but I didn’t see my point already made (sorry if I missed it).
This doesn’t need to be at odds with Libertarianism, as long as you also favour science.
It doesn’t have to be testing of every child. We simply turn birth certificates into science-based documents instead of faith-based ones. We have evidence of the mother of the child. She just birthed it. She goes on the certificate by default. But there is no hard evidence of the father. Yes, the husband is the probable father, but we can make it that if a father is to be named, science must demonstrate that he is the father – with a paternity test.
As long as women call the shots no action will be taken. Fathers will continue to be marginalized. And if possible it is going to get worse than it is now.
This is the truth:
oqps.ie/biological-father.htm
irishhealth.com/article.html?id=13318
Höllenhund
Looks like an irish woman would be a great catch for a masochistic man. Or a masochistic man would do himself right finding an irish woman. some of the expatters might have to keep that on the great place for chicks list.
As usual Elspeth tries to white-wash the importance of the issue & make women out to be victims …
False. I have expressed very clearly that I have no objection to paternity testing if a man wishes to have it. What I said was that unproven suspicion is damaging to a marriage. I stand by that.
The MAIN reason white-washing feminists like alte & elspeth dont want men to talk about paternity testing. Paternity tests are THE most important form of slut shaming today
More falsehood. See above. Please don’t forget that I have actually volunteered to have my own children tested for my husband’s peace of mind. It was my idea, not his.
Additionally, Alte and I do not walk in lockstep agreement on this. I think she makes some valid points worth considering, but I would not condemn a man to life with a woman who broke faith in this way because I do not believe that the Bible condemns him to it.
Which is why women like elspeth & alte dont want men to demand paternity tests from women
You really should read the comments thoroughly before going on rants like this. Nothing you are saying I’ve said here even remotely resembles anything I’ve said. What you’re doing is conflating Alte’s comments with mine. The writers at TC are not a hive mind. We are individuals with differing points of view on some issues.
Remember elspeth & alte ROUTINELY censor & ban men from their site
We have hardly reserved banishment for men only. More falsehood masquerading as truth. Using CAPS doesn’t increase your credibility.one bit. A lie is still a lie, even in CAPS.
Novaseeker:
“The interesting thing about paternity testing is that the objections to it are nearly universal, coming from almost every political, ideological and worldview persuasion, and articulated in a myriad of ways ranging from medical ethics to political philosophy to sociological ideas about the family to jurisprudential concerns. This is a decidedly motley crew of opposition, because it is so broad-based. In that sense, because these are often people who agree on almost nothing else in the natural course of their lives, it seems likely to me that there is something else that they *do* have in common which is not being articulated (and which may, or rather, likely is, not even clearly known in an articulable sense by these people).”
If I may be so bold to bring it up, this rather aptly describes what the Feminine Imperative looks like.
@Höllenhund
That fits with the findings referenced here. Those men who are suspicious enough to order a paternity test tend to have good reason for suspicion, and are not the father roughly 1/3 of the time. For men who are confident they are the father they also tend to be right, and are not the father roughly 2% of the time.
Yes, the suspicion vs non-suspicion rates differ substantially, which isn’t that surprising. We’ll never know what the blended rate is (i.e., the total rate, taking into account the suspicious testers, the unsuspicious testers, and the non-testers in total, whether suspicious or not). Likely less than 10%.
There are a couple of points which have not been made so far.
The first is that we are all presuming that DNA testing is accurate. There was a case reported in the UK in which a DNA test came back to say the husband could not be the father of the child, and a divorce ensued, together with the ex-husband refusing to pay any maintenance for the child. Some years later, for a reason which I cannot remember, the child (by now an adult) had the test re-done to prove the ex-husband was indeed the father. By this stage, the relationship between the man and both his ex-wife and his offspring had broken completely. An error caused an unnecessary divorce and left the child without a father. Does this mean we need to test two samples in two different laboratories to be sure that we get it right?
The second point is that no-one has said who will pay for the testing. In the UK, the NHS will not wish to pay for it, as they are already trying to reclaim costs for all sorts of services from third parties. In the US if it is claimable on the insurance, then premiums will go up. While I agree that making the testing routine will bring the price down by encouraging more entrants into the market, it will always have a significant cost, especially for poorer families. I do not have an answer to this question of payment, but I do expect that it will come up again and again.
Couple of thoughts, Fred. The first is that you’re right. Thee are no such things as “fool proof” results. So yes, it’s possible that given the magnitude of the situation, a test in more than one laboratory might be in order, especially when a divorce proceeding is begun based on some finding of cuckoldry.
As I have watched this unfold before, I think in most cases the testing is probably accurate. When the results prove that the husband isn’t the genetic father, the wife’s reaction is a good gauge of what to do next. In the case we witnessed, the wife didn’t argue the results. In the case you referenced, it seems that another test should have been demanded by the courts.
In the US, insurance doesn’t cover paternity testing. I don’t think that it should at this point. $200 or so is a small price to pay for something so important if a man feels that strongly that something is wrong. Men who are far from rich manage to find the money for the test when they are truly suspicious. I’ve seen them do it.
Elspeth – “Thee are no such things as “fool proof” results. So yes, it’s possible that given the magnitude of the situation, a test in more than one laboratory might be in order, especially when a divorce proceeding is begun based on some finding of cuckoldry.”
The primary issue here is to use accredited labs with full chain-of-custody protocols. the tests themselves have become so good, that a finding of non-paternity is a virtual assurance that the child’s DNA cannot have come from the father. The potential for a wrong result lies almost exclusively with sample mix-ups.
Clearly, there is a significant amount of misunderstanding of how different types of DNA testing is done, how results are handled, what data is kept and stored (and for what purposes), and what constitutes court-admissible DNA evidence.
As one coming from a scientific background, it’s hard for me to assess what it is that some people are not understanding. But, in the hope of shedding some light on the specific matter of paternity testing, I think this is a good primer for the layman:
http://www.prophase-genetics.com/understanding_paternity_testing.html
From 16 to 25 loci compared = indisputable proof.
There are arguments for mandatory paternity testing that have nothing to do with fraud.
Pretty much every baby born in a hospital is blood-typed at birth. It’s an important, possibly life-saving, piece of information to have. There are other key medical indicators that are taken (height, weight, etc), routine screening for treatable conditions (bilirubin levels), and common prophylactic treatments done (immunizations). My state mandates screening for 35 conditions for ‘genetic, endocrine and metabolic disorders which could lead to slow growth, blindness, mental retardation, and possibly death’.
We are approaching a time where screening for known genetic markers will be inexpensive and routine. Having the correct medical history for both parents is important to screen for inheritable conditions. The only reason paternity would not be included in this screening is to protect women who are committing fraud. (Google “paternity genetic counseling ethics”).
Husbands being suspicious of their wives fidelity is not a new problem. I know I’m stating the obvious but that is what this conversation is about at its heart. That we have DNA tests now is merely an added complication. That Christians debate ways in which to use the secular machinery of the state is also an added complication. Both cloud the issue at hand.
The Old Testament deals with this very thing, Numbers chapter 5 starting at verse 11.
It’s the adultery test. Stated without detail, a jealous husband brings the wife to a priest. Assuming the accused wife continues to claim her innocence, the priest has the accused wife drink the some prepared water while also reciting a conditional curse. If she is guilty then she stops having children, she becomes barren. If she is innocent she is kept fertile.
Funnily enough an echo of this test is in the book of Revelation. Namely the bowl/vial judgements. The output of the wine press of the wrath of God is placed into those seven bowls. Not only is the wrath poured out onto the earth but also,
“chap. 16 verse 19 … and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.”
Once again UKFred (I am not his sock puppet) makes an excellent point. Not so long ago we all believed that Finger-Prints had the infallibility of Cardinal Ratzinger pronouncing on the Virgin Birth, but now we know that is far from the case. Even leaving aside Human Error of all sorts, (consider the very strange goings-on in the tests for the DNA of Madeleine McCann) I have wondered whether, in time, DNA tests will equally be percieved as not necessarily reliable.
As UKFred also indicates Tests cost money: if my rendition of the Law in England is correct, then the test would be outside the NHS; that is to say it would be for the woman to produce a valid, privately-obtained test result in support of her assertions in support of a claim for support for the child. This, of course, may well be picked up by The Legal Aid Board if as is frequently the case the woman is impecunious – I don’t believe there is anything comparable in the U.S.A. [?]. I do not see its relevance within Marriage (as I indicated) and for the reasons stated.
Elspeth (February 12, 2013 at 4:36 pm) “If you do feel a need to test the children, I don’t think the wife should be told unless there is a problem with the results”
So the status quo is maintained and everyone maintains the sentiment that men demanding a test to verify their identity are in the wrong, not the woman making a fuss over it being in the wrong. Countless thousands of men continue to get duped.
Could be a topic to discuss with a long-term partner before trying for children.
We could also eliminate a lot of this mess by requiring proof of parentage before granting legal claims on state/federal documents. In other words, require a paternity test before letting someone’s name be entered on a birth certificate.
Pingback: - On lamenting distrust between Christian husbands and wives | The Woman and the Dragon
@Athor Pel
Great comment.
Opus. Perhaps, perhaps not. It is interesting though that nobody ever brings up the 100% certainty threshold when it’s a woman whose interest is at stake. Same goes for the sudden concern over costs and benefits.
@theAndyCC
I don’t think that was Elspeth’s point. I think she is saying that as a man if you want to order a test, do so and don’t feel the need to clear it with your wife. If it comes back with you as the father then there is no need to bring it up with her.
@Dalrock
I don’t think that was Elspeth’s point either, but I do think theAndyCC has grokked the sentiment that informs the whole discussion–including Elspeth’s statements.
Did you read Numbers 5, that Athor Pel mentioned? Totally different paradigm than the today. Unsure she’s been faithful? Take her to the temple, have her drink a potion of temple dirt water. That’s the test part; not the punishment.
There is not a whit about if the man’s suspicions are proven unfounded. Nor is there mention of a test for husbands. Jealousy is a virtue of authority, it seems.
Additional thought: If she hides the affair well-enough to not be discovered, but not enough to deflect suspicion, he can get her tested. If she fails, she is cursed to to barren, but is not killed. Even a modicum of modesty is honorable.
@Cane Caldo
I had read that in Numbers the other day, and was thinking about it during the discussion. I agree that the sentiment is 180 from the modern one. I think Elspeth is just trying to be practical, which is my own take on it. At any rate, even my “practical” solution would be a huge stretch. But I do think there would be great value in formally declaring paternity fraud to be a felony, even if the courts couldn’t actually find the stones to enforce it.
I’m glad you understood what I was getting at Dalrock. It had nothing to do with making the husband out to be a villain and everything with mitigating the damage to the marriage should the husband’s suspicions prove unfounded.
As Cane noted up thread, sometimes a person’s suspicions are borne of issues wholly unrelated to their spouse.
“Please don’t forget that I have actually volunteered to have my own children tested for my husband’s peace of mind. It was my idea, not his.”
Elspeth keeps repeating this, while assuming that no one will notice that she actually did nothing for her husband. Trying to extort martyr points is not even close to giving peace of mind.
If her husband had taken her up on this, it would have been no different than if he had asked for a test in the absence of any self-serving holy-pretending by Elspeth. He would have still been doing the same damage to emotional bonds that existed in the relationship.
A woman who actually wanted to give her husband peace of mind would have had the test done, and then given the results to him.
@Elspeth
I understand that you’re not trying to make the husband a villain. What I don’t think you’re seeing is that–provided there is no misattributed paternity–the damage is caused by the woman’s pride; not the man’s test. Now, there could be other damage as well if the man is suspicious because of his own misdeeds or foolish thoughts. It remains that if the revelation of the test by itself is enough to cause damage to the marriage it is the woman’s pride at fault.
We are called to bear one another’s burdens. In particular wives have been given special charisms in this regard, if they will just call upon them. In practice, this would look like the wife not making a scene or hardening her heart if she has been faithful. It would sound like her responding, “What can I do to earn your trust, husband?” She should recognize that it is not her problem, and therefore not a reflection on her. This should manifest in her as a nurse-like manner; to help him with the other problems he might have.
People lose their minds when we talk about these things, and the first part of the mind to go is the Christian Response Center of the brain. Of course a man with a faithful wife should not suspect her of adultery, but he gets sick like all the rest of us. The proper response of a healthy Christian to a sick Christian is NOT to get offended. If she does: that is on her, not him.
Let me try this a different way: I’m a sympathy-puker: if someone vomits, and I see it, I will too. That is not a problem with the puker, but me.
Since in most jurisdictions, a man can have a paternity test done without involving the woman, a woman who cared enough about her husband to want to give him peace of mind, by having the test done and then giving him the results, would also be helping the relationship in which she had shown herself worthy of trust.
This is because, otherwise, the two options are 1) for the tiny involuntary subconscious doubts to remain, or 2) for the man to decide to have such a test done, by first consciously acknowledging that, irrespective of what is or isn’t true for most women, it is possible that his woman, in this relationship, is being a slut.
CC
Any chance you’d consider expanding slightly on your 9:39 comment as a post on your blog? I think there is some really instructive advice for women in there which will be lost like a grain of sand in this long comment thread.
Lemuel of Masa on February 12, 2013 at 3:25 pm —
[Excellent summary of the law protecting the guilty inadvertently — we hope, anyway — by making paternity testing and pre-nups optional, whereas making them mandatory would make the demand that of the impersonal law, and not “offending the dignity of a woman”] deleted.
Concur in every word.
Post of the thread.
Is Dalrock’s idea really such a good one?
A friend of mine has two children. Everyone says (behind his back) that he is almost certainly not the Father of the eldest. He is however a devoted Dad and his children are devoted to him. Would it really have been better for him to learn that the first was not his (which might have prevented there being a second); and I rather revel in the fact that I might be the illegitimate son of the Late Lord ****** – though sadly illegitimacy seems to be a bar to my inheriting the now-defunct title. I once met a woman who told me that her family had been in service at Sandringham and that her Father was the illegitimate offspring of one of The Royals; showed me some newspapre cuttings.
I am without issue, but I do not think that I would be well-pleased if some stranger were to approach me assuring me that I am his recently discovered Father. Sometimes it is better to let sleeping-dogs lie. It also occurs to me, as I write this, that D.N.A. testing would further erode the distinction between legitimacy and illegitimacy, and I think the distinction important as a support to Marriage.
Elspeth keeps repeating this, while assuming that no one will notice that she actually did nothing for her husband. Trying to extort martyr points is not even close to giving peace of mind.
If her husband had taken her up on this, it would have been no different than if he had asked for a test in the absence of any self-serving holy-pretending by Elspeth. He would have still been doing the same damage to emotional bonds that existed in the relationship.
A woman who actually wanted to give her husband peace of mind would have had the test done, and then given the results to him.
This entire comment is a fail. Your vitriol has undermined your ability to reason. How, please tell, am I supposed to accomplish this feat you suggest?
As a Christian housewife in subjection to her husband, I need my husband’s consent, genetic material, and financing (substantial for testing 5 children, I might add). He declined all three.
It’s getting absurd now.
The whole fight by feminists over the Lilly Ledbetter Act was so the statute of limitations would start when the person who claimed to have suffered discrimination discovered they were wronged vs. when the supposed discrimination actually occurred. Obama and the Harridans celebrated this victory and Ledbetter is talked about like a female icon. A funny thing though, these same people are claiming that the statute of limitations for paternity fraud should begin when a child is born not when the fraud was discovered. IMHO there should be no statute of limitations on paternity fraud. Furthermore, the longer the crime goes undetected, the more the child and the husband are harmed. There should be crippling fines, awards for emotional damages and compound interest added to the pot awarded to the wronged party. Make it financially sting and you will see a sharp drop in Paternity Fraud.
Opus,
Let each decide then. Though Dalrock’s plan is enacted at birth – that makes the bonding phase a little less of an issue. But your argument basically reads: Men cuckolded, women and children hardest hit. Even if Dalrock’s method isn’t perfect, it beats hollow that particular sentiment.
As an aside, my comment box on the blog is oddly cropped so that I only see the top half of each word. I’ve tried playing with the window size and I’ve never had a problem like this with Chrome before. Any ideas, anyone?
Let each decide then. Though Dalrock’s plan is enacted at birth – that makes the bonding phase a little less of an issue. But you’re argument basically reads: Men cuckholdend, women and children hardest hit. Even if Dalrock’s method isn’t perfect, it beats hollow that particular sentiment.
Above, exhibit A in the copy-paste game I’m playing with comments.
In my State of California, Prenuptial Agreements have been severely watered down to the point of being meaningless in part by using the claim that there is duress when the documents are signed. I believe, that in order to have a chance, the Pre-Nups must be signed at least 30 days prior to the wedding or they are considered null and void. The rationale behind this thinking is that it puts pressure on one party when the other (99% of the time the man) asks for one right before the wedding. I would argue that the exact same pressure occurs when a child is born. The idea that a man must make a massive decision with incomplete information on what should be the happiest and most exciting day of their lives is cruel and unreasonable.
@Opus
Sometimes it is better to let sleeping-dogs lie.
It is better than dogs don’t sleep in the first place.
I would be well-pleased if some stranger were to approach me assuring me that I am his recently discovered Father.
If mandatory testing was done at birth, there were no chance of this happening. And bad behaviors like cuckolding would be discouraged.
Would it really have been better for him to learn that the first was not his (which might have prevented there being a second)
Yes, of course. Asking the question is answering it. He could have find another woman who is not a treacherous liar and who was willing to have his children (I mean both of them) instead of having to spend his energy raising a son who is not his and instead of living in a lie all his life. There is no shortage of women willing to be mothers without cuckolding.
As a Christian housewife in subjection to her husband, I need my husband’s consent, genetic material, and financing (substantial for testing 5 children, I might add). He declined all three.
It’s getting absurd now.
I’m with you Elspeth. You righteously volunteered, he trusted you enough to refuse — which is his decision — and that should be the END of it.
Trust, but verify.
@Opus
Re: rights based common law/natural law
I think there is some confusion as to how Rights intersect with Family Law. A quick summary.
If a man went into the unclaimed wilderness/frontier, and dug ditches to drain the land, and uprooted trees and rocks and planted crops and built fences, he would have the right to that land. His right includes the right to transfer 100% of his claim to another person.
If a man owns a plot of land, and build a house on it, he has used up part of his life in order to build the house. He can not get that time back, but now he has ownership to that house. The right to that house includes the right to sell that house.
If a man paints a painting, he has rights to that painting. He can sell that painting. Then he no longer has any rights to that painting.
If a man owns a house and sells his claim to another man, they can record the deed (contact) at the courthouse if they choose. The court will force the original owner to keep his word.
Having a right to something includes the right to transfer (sell/or gift) that right to another person.
If a woman and man give their word, to transfer to the other their rights to reproduction, they can file that agreement at the courthouse. By agreeing to this, they are giving up part of their life. They can never get that time back, but now they have the rights to their family.
Perhaps slightly OT, but interesting that the New York _Times_ chose Valentine’s Day to publish this: When Divorce Is a Family Affair
If a man went into the unclaimed wilderness/frontier, and dug ditches to drain the land, and uprooted trees and rocks and planted crops and built fences, he would have the right to that land. His right includes the right to transfer 100% of his claim to another person.
The concept of “land” is a psychopathic fantasy. There is terrain, geography, call it what you wish. But imaginary boundaries excluding other humans can only be maintained by acts of violence, or the threat thereof.
As of, I dunno, yesterday, there is simply no such thing as “unclaimed wilderness”, and for all practical purposes there hasn’t been for a very very long time. Not since the Upper Paleolithic.
The current usurper of any particular tract may not approve of the uses which the previous occupants chose to put it, and justified their assaults by various value-judgements on the previous inhabitants, and deprecating their claims (as Eddie Izzard put it “Do you have a flag? We have a flag, so I think you’ll find that this is ours now”).
And the process continues.
To an industrial society, the patchwork of peasant farmsteads is greedy, wasteful litter, much as the homesteader viewed the “virgin (wandering-savage-infested) wilderness” (and how those hunters’ ancestors in turn viewed the “empty (neandertal/denisovan-infested) tundra” of Eurasia 🙂
Interferes with strip-mining for resources and infrastructure projects, should be consolidated for efficiency, either capitalist or communist fashion. Those lazy shit-kickers have to go. Give them some bits of paper and a hod-carrier’s job on the project.
Otherwise we might as well all give up, and admit that the only people with “rights” in land are a handful of inbred descendants of mediaeval warlords, and other thieves and murderers.
tl;dr
Land “rights” are a function of one’s willingness, and more importantly, capacity to inflict violence and intimidation on others. Nothing else. And the successful robbers do always tend to band together for mutual protection, calling themselves “nations”, “tribes”, “empires”.
Of course, anyone is entitled to the absolute ownership of that which he may have produced from the use of that territory, crops, buildings, artefacts, and so on. But if he can only do so by forcefully disbarring other, equally entitled people from using it to feed and provide for themselves, by some sort of imaginary right of precedence, then all talk of rights is just sanctimonious piss and wind, disguising the very real and constant violence required to “possess” land.
Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing. It just .. is. And should be acknowledged for what it is.
gdgm….
I traded some emails with Beverly Willet some time back because I admired her efforts, maybe a year or two ago, and then I let the contact drop off. Her stance against those like Vicki Larson who is debating in bad faith there is refreshing. Note how she says female suicides declined, yet failed to mention that male suicide after frivorce are more common than ever.
That is an interesting read.
A side note…as a nurse I’ve had to work shifts on the postpartum floor and I’ve seen several times where the mother-in-law (or the boyfriend’s mom) has approached the OB/GYN, fellow nurses, etc to ask for a paternity test because she doesn’t trust the woman who just delivered. It makes for an amusing day on the floor. The nurses will tell them that the hospitals don’t provide that service, which is true, but never tell them where to go for that service. When I’m asked however, I always tell them that they can get that service for FREE at the Health Department. It’s estimated that about 5-10% of the “fathers” at my hospital are not truly the father (although we can’t prove that).
And a Happy Valentines Day to all the Mandrosphere:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-b-barr/what-women-want-valentines-day_b_2623223.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=3505964,b=facebook
@Solomon, dammit, you need to provide a warning before you link to stuff like that. Kind of a some things can never be unseen warning.
gdgm, interesting thing to find in the NY Times. Perhaps the editors are actually concerned about the possibility of too many gay marriages ending in divorce, so they are willing to run comments like those of Willet?
If there was a disease, a germ or virus caused sickness, that does to children what divorce does to them, there’d be a national campaign to find a cure. Ditto for bastardy.
@ Alexander
I see both false positives and false negatives as a problem and simply wanted everyone to stop presuming that the tests would always be not subject to human error. I agree with the respondent who stated that proper practice will make errors much less likely, but when humans are involved, it is never totally error-free. The matter of cost I raised because living not to far from a major social housing estate, I frequently hear of problems between men and women who are living on benefits and the men are casting doubt, sometimes not unreasonably, on the paternity of the child of their cohabitee.
Neither of those points suggests that I do not agree with the principle that DNA testing, including paternity testing should be available as a matter of routine and the best answer to who gets the results is both parents get the results. If such testing were to become routine, I would expect the cost to reduce because of an increase in the number of laboratories who would offer such testing. I would go so far as to say why should such testing not be routine, because we were invited to have an amniocentesis as a routine test when my wife was carrying our second child on the grounds that her age made a downs syndrome baby more likely, and the midwife was a little surprised when we refused because if we had been having a downs syndrome bay we would not have considered abortion.
I have discussed this topic with my wife and she is of the opinion that, had I asked for a paternity test she would have felt insulted, but then again, she has never given me any cause to suspect infidelity throughout our marriage.
The answer to the question here is Chastity belts.
Only the husband has the key.
There is no reason to object to that,now is there?
@Salomon
February 14, 2013 at 3:03 pm
http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-do-divorce-experts-say-women-want.html
From http://web.archive.org/web/20050829172359/http://www.nomarriage.com/paternity_test.shtml :
From the Guardian, 1998-07-14: “More than 25 years ago the consultant obstetrician E E Phillipp reported to a symposium on embryo transfer that blood tests on between 200 and 300 women in a town in the south-east of England revealed that 30 per cent of their children could not have been fathered by the men whose blood groups had also been sampled”.
From the Dallas Morning News 1999-10-31: “DNA Diagnostics Center … an industry leader, says 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified. Similar numbers come from the Texas attorney general’s office, which enforces child support: About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third”.
From the Sunday Times 2000-01-23: “David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man”.
From the Santa Barbara News-Press 2000-02-27: “For the population as a whole, “The generic number used by us is 10 percent,” said Dr. Bradley Popovich, vice president of the American College of Medical Genetics. [15 to 25 % has been determined from blood tests of parents and offspring in Canada and the US.]”
From The Age 2000-03-26: “About 3000 paternity tests are carried out a year in Australia. In about 20 per cent of cases the purported father is found to be unrelated to the child. This figure is estimated to be 10 per cent in the general community”.
From The REPORT Newsmagazine 2000-04-24: “The rate of wrongful paternity in “stable monogamous marriages,” according to the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, ranges from one in 10 with the first child to one in four with the fourth”.
From the Independent 2000-05-12: “… biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis … review of paternity studies also suggested frequent infidelity, with extra-pair paternity running between 1.4 per cent and 30 per cent in different communities”.
From The Globe and Mail 2000-05-20: “Anecdotal evidence suggests these numbers bear out in Canada as well…. Maxxam Analytics in Guelph, Ont., performs approximately two paternity tests a day. And according to Dr. Wayne Murray, head of the human DNA department, one out of four men who come in pointing a finger at their spouse is not the biological father of the child in question”.
From the Sunday Times 2000-06-11: “More than 250,000 tests a year are now conducted in America, and about 15,000 in Britain…. roughly 30% of men taking the tests discover that they are not the fathers of the children they regarded as their own. In the wider community, social scientists say up to 1 in 20 children are not the offspring of the man who believes himself to be their father”.
From the Observer 2000-09-03: “One study followed couples waiting for NHS fertility treatment, where the men were ‘azoospermic’, meaning they produced no sperm and were totally infertile. The researchers found that 25 per cent of the women became pregnant before fertility treatment started”.
From the American Association of Blood Banks – 2001-02-26: “The overall exclusion rate for 1999 was 28.2% for accredited labs. Exclusion rates for non-accredited US and foreign labs were slightly less at 22.7% and 20.6% respectively”.
> The answer to the question here is Chastity belts. (freebird)
Here! Here ! Glad to see the idea surface, considering how much gd discussion there is of “chivalry”.
The proper response to women lamenting the loss of chivalry is for any man in the vicinity to similarly lament the loss of chastity belts. Puts an end to an awful lot of subsequent bandwidth-wasting nonsense.
@Tam – I think it was Philip Slater, in The Pursuit of Loneliness, who said all a title search does is prove the land wasn’t stolen recently.
Chivalry died when women successfully pushed for forced equal access to all male spheres (chief of all are the military, men’s work, and the franchise, or right to vote) while retaining all their traditional legal and cultural advantages. The result may be seen in the difference between men letting women have scarce lifeboat spots on the Titanic — and pushing them out of the way when the Costa Concordia was going down. “Votes or boats”, I’ve seen this called.
Mandatory paternity testing will happen after the budget is balanced and Congress stops wasting our money. Which is to say, never.
Only fools wait for the government to take action and protect them. Men, take matters into your own hands.
Get your new baby paternity tested immediately on the down low. If the kid is yours, you KNOW for sure. If the kid isn’t yours stay silent. The down low positive result may or may not be admissible in court. Go out and hire the best, meanest lawyer you can. Weigh your options and work out your strategy. Then hit fast and hit hard.
You can thank me later.
Here is a video on youtube that presents cuckolding from a male perspective, and asks the all important question that is oft ignored, “But what about him?”
Btw awesome blog Dalrock, truly fantastic stuff!
Pingback: Your Body, Your Baby (Rational Interlude) | Alpha Is Assumed
I want to know we had a paternaty test done the results came there was 7 markers so I wanne know how many marker proof that the father is the dad of my child
This is a little late to the party, but it is on topic. If you don’t want to watch the whole thing, start at 7:09.
Unbelievable!
Totally sucks:
nightskyradio says:
February 12, 2013 at 2:33 pm
“I can already see this getting hijacked.
Jack marries Jill. Jill has a baby. Jill signs on Line 3. A year later, Jack finds out he isn’t the father. Jack takes Jill to court, where she is found guilty of a felony. Jill gets time in the slam. Jill doesn’t remember the name of the guy she had a drunken cuck-fuck with. Family court wonders who will take care of the child until Jill is released. Hey, Jack, the baby has already started to bond with you, so…
Sounds far-fetched. Stranger things happen in courts.”
You left this out:
“Only known parent is a jailed felon. The 12-month-old is thus put up for adoption to a stably-married hetero American citizen couple that is the same race as the jailed parent. The only exception is if a blood-relation close relative of the jailed parent wants to legally and permanently adopt (not just “take” or “foster”) the infant, and that relative must meet all the requirements for stranger adoptions.”
ukfred says:
February 14, 2013 at 4:05 pm
“I have discussed this topic with my wife and she is of the opinion that, had I asked for a paternity test she would have felt insulted, but then again, she has never given me any cause to suspect infidelity throughout our marriage.”
She is an American woman, raised in this misandrist culture that gives little moral or legal responsibility to women for malfeasance. That is PLENTY of cause to suspect her.