BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:53 PM

Ebbie

She slept with two men.

None of the three were "GUILTY!!!!", but only one was the real father.

Nobody's blaming anyone more than anyone else for the conception. That is another argument for another day that you have brought up.

This is about who takes responsibility.

The real father escaped responsibility.

The non-father took responsibility. At that time he did a good thing by doing so.

Years later, the non-father decided he wanted to change his mind.

The context at this point was different though as it wasn't just about him any more, and that's why he's wrong to want to.

The mother knew the child ould have been fathered by either of them, but kept schtum.

Just as the non-father eventually figured it out, so the child probably will too.

It will be a source of a great deal of emotional turmoil.

The mother has that on her conscience.

None of it is the childs fault, and the child must not be punished or suffer any form of upheaval that might lead to problems later in life.

The non-father must therefore honour his commitment.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:42 PM

Mcgrath you haven't addressed my point.

I understand the point about the childs interests being served by not reversing commitments made.

I'm talking about the mother being honest back when she discovered she was pregnant.

At that early stage it would of course be to the advantage of the child that it not be embroiled in some ridiculous drama.

Commitments had yet to be made and responsibility had yet to be taken. The child had yet to become used to, or reliant upon anyone other than it's mother, having only experience of her womb.

And I am not making any wild assumption by any stretch of the imagination when I say that the mother would almost certainly have been aware that she had had sexual relations with another man.

It follows that she would have been aware that the father might have been one of at least two men.


Bert.

The mother might have been a liar and a cheat, but it does not follow from that that the childs home environment is therefore damaging. The worst you can deduce fom that is that the child might grow up to be a liar and a cheat too.

Lying and cheating to a possible father do not equate to child abuse. Your response to McGrath is clearly based on an emotional impulse.


Dianavan

Interesting situation. Perhaps serving to confuse this issue a little, but valuable in that it demonstrates the strength of the system, where it won't allow a guy to do wrong by his kids and their mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:32 PM

"...affected the life of an innocent man."

A couple of thoughts come to mind. An "innocent" man, imo, and as alanabit implied, is one who has NOT slept with the woman. One who has, in the pertinent time frame, imo, left himself open to being nailed for support BECAUSE not only did the woman not use contraception, neither did he.

The day should be past when we blame a fertile woman more for getting pregnant than we blame a fertile man for getting her pregnant.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:15 PM

No I'm not joking, bert. I think that for a mother to ensure a decent life for a child is far far more important than telling the truth to a man who is ready to accept the child as their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:05 PM

Here's another example:

Father and mother split before the baby is born. He occasionally pays child support. When the child is thirteen, mother decides that the inconsistent 'hand-outs' aren't good enough and asks for a monthly amount so she can budget. He refuses.

She takes him to court. He denies paternity. The judge orders a paternity test. DNA proof positive. The judge throws the book at him. The award far exceeds what mother was asking for in the first place. He has to pay twice as much on a monthly basis plus establish a trust fund for post-secondary education.

Justice will never heal the wound her father inflicted when he denied paternity.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Bert
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 02:57 PM

when did being "a liar and a cheat" stop a mother being a good mother..." - YOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING. Wouldn't want a child of mine to be raised living a lie for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Alice
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 02:43 PM

Wolfgang, in the U.S. laws about paternity and child support vary from state to state.
Here is a book called Paternity and American Law.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:27 PM

Why make up these fantasies about someone we don't know? Wolfgang's scenario just doesn't give enough information to make those kind of judgements.

And in any case, when did being "a liar and a cheat" stop a mother being a good mother in the things that actually matter to her child?

If being honest to "both prospective fathers" would have been to the disadvantage of her child, it would have been the wrong thing to do.   The interests of a child outweigh anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Bert
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:18 PM

If the rights of the child are being considered, then surely she should be taken from an environment where her care provider is a liar and a cheat.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 09:37 AM

"After all, she might well have thought he was the Dad."

This is the one point where I disagree with you McGrath, she had sexual relations with another man and was obviously not careful enough to ensure that she didn't get pregnant.

She was without a doubt aware of the possibility that it might be someone elses child.

It was extremely selfish of her not to be honest with both prospective fathers.

Why wasn't she considerate enough to either them or the child to ensure that the truth was known at the start.

So far you have been a flawless advocate ofthe rights of the child and I agree all the way on that. The mother doesn't need defending though. She knowingly created a minefield.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:10 PM

After all, she might well have thought he was the Dad.
.......................................

Of course it's not exactly a new situation - The Cherry Tree Carol:

And Mary spoke to Joseph, so meek and so mild,
"Joseph gather me some cherries, for I am with child,
Joseph gather me some cherries, for I am with child."

And Joseph flew in anger, in anger flew he,
"Let the father of the baby gather cherries for thee,
Let the father of the baby gather cherries for thee."

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:36 PM

I've been wasting time looking at some of this stuff. As someone observed, infinite, screwy variations of the facts exist in the real world. I was just reading a situation, and learned that contesting the declaration might take place significantly after the kid turns two (in some circumstances, where fraud on the nonparent signor might be one of them.) I also note that the California statute expressly states that nothing in the statute shall deprive the court of equitable authority (to do the right thing, where appropriate.)

Here's something also interesting: In attempting to improve paternity records, as a public benefit, the Legislature set up this voluntary declaration implementation scheme: Hospitals (if they have a contract with a local child agency), get paid ten bucks for each time they get the mom to sign, and have a "father" sign, a form (with lots of disclosures and fine print etc.)

In the situation I was reading, the mom said she was told she couldn't leave the hospital until she filled the form out. A name of a nice guy she knew, but with whom she had never had relations, "signed" the declaration, apparently, but the declaration failed to make it into the child agency's permanent files. The real dad, who initially said he wouldn't help pay for the kid, actually did help, and got involved with the kid for three years. But then he stopped paying. The child agency filed suit to make him keep paying. He said no, look, here's a declaration of paternity for someone else. The agency said: Look, fella, we've had genetic tests which show that you are the real father. He said: I know, that's not the point. The law says the voluntary declaration is more important than the genetic results.

I don't know how it turned out. All I know is the court of appeal told the lower court that it had better track down that declarant and find out what is going on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:00 PM

A puppy is for life not just for christmas!

And choosing to take responsibility for a child is at least as grave a decision.

Once you've done it, live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 06:47 PM

Lots of opinionating about what should happen, and it's all quite good; but the question was really what does happen.

I occasionally see "military news" in the US, and there have been recent cases in which US military persons stationed in Germany have been "involved with the natives." Paternity is a frequent issue.

The picture related here, by those advising US "victims/criminals" is that the situation in Germany is as Wolfgang described it. Once an admission of paternity is made, and a court has accepted it and has ruled "who's gonna pay," facts are irrelevant and there is no appeal. I can confirm that, quite recently, that has been the advice given by the US military to persons in, or intended to be in, Germany.

The situation in the US is much the same, but since each state determines (to some extent) how custody/paternity/support is handled, there is a lot of variation, so it's impossible to state much definitively as "that's how it is."

Once a "paternity" has been ruled on by any court, Federal Law allows the IRS to confiscate any moneys owed to the "responsible party" (tax refunds, etc.) anywhere in the US. Federal regulations also require most employers to honor a "garnishment for child support" issued by any state, regardless of where the earner is employed. This often happens (and can be "encouraged to happen - usually by the mother) by applying for new state aid "because the father fails to pay."

Federal agencies can, and often do support court orders for determination of paternity "across state lines" in cases where a "responsible person" has not been identified. (Rarely, this has been used to identify a mother of an abandoned child.) There is still some contention that a forced submission of DNA samples constitutes "self incrimination," but courts have ignored the argument and it seems unlikely to be successful anywhere. It appears to be rare for a court to order a test if a "responsible party" has already been determined, although it probably could happen in some jurisdictions here.

If any state, local, or Federal agency has made any payments in support of a child for whom a parent "could have paid," whether the parent is identified or is unidentified, any unidentified suspects can be ordered to submit to paternity testing, and moving anywhere else within the US doesn't generally escape the jurisdictional reach of the courts. Once a "parental responsibility" is established by any court, repayment of any amounts paid by "official agencies" usually is ordered. Local jurisdications may vary, but there generally are no "statutes of limitation" on collection of accumulated debts owed to a government agency.

There is probably more consistency between US states now than in the past, since many states were forced to almost completely rewrite their statutes in response to the Federal "Dead-beat Fathers" legislation of a few years back. As is customary, the Fed couldn't order the states to write new laws, but it could, and did, extort fairly uniform compliance by threatening withholding of Medicare/Medicade contributions (the Fed share of the Fed program that states are required to administer and mostly pay for) if they didn't.

Not a legal opinion (IANAL); just my own observations.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,Janie
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:00 PM

What Kevin says!

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 04:53 PM

"It is quite different when some lying, cheating bitch cons him into thinking that the child is his."

My point 'zactly!

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Bert
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 04:36 PM

As I said earlier, give him custody and let the jerk Mother and Father pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 04:05 PM

Thing is that this isn't really an argunent about which point of view is right or wrong.

They are both right.

1. It is true that the child needs stability, consistency and doesn't need to be damaged by massive emotional upheaval.

2. It is also true that the mother has done somethng very cruel, selfish and irresponsible, the consequences of which have seriously affected the life of an innocent man.

Plus, as the child gets older, a bit wiser and a bit more observant, they will probably figure out that something is amiss, so the consequences may inevitably affect them too to some extent, though hopefully not during their formative years - especially not during puberty and such vulnerable emotional times.

The problem is that a decision must be made about what should or shouldn't be allowed to carry on, and though it must indeed be tough for the adoptive absent father (sigh) to come to terms with, he must accept that he is a fundamental foundation stone in the childs upbringing.

As has been said indirectly before, does he cease to love the child just because he discovers that the child wasn't created from his sperm?

Whatever the motivation, he made a promise to a child and that child relies on that promise being kept. If we were Lions, then maybe he could kill the child and eat it, favouring his own genetic issue, but he isn't and we aren't. We have consciously come out of the jungle. We are humans. We respect the rights and needs of children.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Bert
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:17 PM

It's one thing when a man willingly accepts another child. It is quite different when some lying, cheating bitch cons him into thinking that the child is his.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: alanabit
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 01:50 PM

Presumably any man who is named as the father of a child has slept with the mother. So the fact remains that he has been willing to become a father (or run the risk of becoming one) in the first place. If he has then gone on to play the role of father to the child, he has then had the benefit of both the sex and the affection of the child. What possible excuse can he have for not paying? At the end of the day, the man has had his sex, his child and the slings and arrows of outrageous biological (mis)/fortunes are no excuse for him to damage the family, which has chosen him.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 11:39 AM

Going beyond the facts given in Wolfgang's scenario again, bert - we don't know if he knows anything about the kid or the pregnancy. We don't know if he knew she was married. We don't know if she was married for that matter. We don't know if she wanted anything more to do with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Bert
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 11:30 AM

Not a deadbeat? He goes around screwing married women and then forgets them! Perhaps you have a better name for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:55 AM

You've fleshed out that scenario rather, Bert. No information that tells you it's a "deadbeat" father. He might have no idea he's the father. She might have no idea whose the father, for that matter.

As for his relationship with his daughter - the only reason he's got any visitation rights is because he is the legal father. Take that away and he'd got no rights at all. He loses his daughter. She loses his father.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Bert
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:04 PM

He doesn't have to hurt the child or even tell her. The visitation could go on as before. Just let the REAL (deadbeat) Father pay up.

I've got a daughter here who is not my real that is biological daughter. But you'd never know it, we have that special relationship that only exists between Father and Daughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:53 PM

A lot of worked up hate there.

I can imagine plenty of circumstances where a woman might quite reasonably feel at the time that the best option, for the child as well as herself, was to accept as the father the man who "gets the idea he is the father of the child". From Wolfgang's scenario it would seem probable enough that in fact she'd have have thought he likely was the father.

And he got a daughter out of it. So what if it turned out years later that the child that saw him as her father wasn't his biological daughter?

I can't see how finding out something like that could in any way interfere with how you felt about the child. It might make you feel different toward the mother, but then that relationship is over anyway apparently in this scenario. How could anyone want to get back at the mother badly enough to hurt their own child?

Well, true enough some men are like that. Right bastards they are too.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:46 PM

Priceless Thieme, Art!! LMAO!

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:45 PM

I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever been a lawyer, but I have heard of several cases.
In California it had been the law that if a man is married to the woman having the child he is the presumed father and is responsible for the support of the child, even if it is later proved that he is not the biological father. That has been challenged, I believe, but I think it is still the law.
Conversely, there was a man who impregnated a girlfriend who while legally married, was separated from her husband. She eventually returned to her husband and told the inseminater to pound salt (or perhaps something else...how crude of me!) when he wanted visitation with the child. She was upheld in court; if the ruling held on appeal, I do not know.
As related in some posting(s) above, in many jurisdictions if a man admits to paternity and is later proved not...he is still on the hook as if he were the daddy, the reasoning being that it is in the best interest of the child to have his financial and physical (one hopes) support as the 'father'. It also saves the taxpayer from supporting the child.
I'm sure there are other permutations of this problem. DNA, the evolving concept of marriage and family, and men's rights orgs. murky up the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Bert
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:09 PM

He should get custody and "the Mother" and the real (deadbeat) Dad should have to pay ALL the expenses for raising the child plus extra for any little luxuries that the poor kid deserves.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Grab
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 06:41 PM

Got to depend on the age of the kid. If they're old enough to know that guy as "daddy" (which they are if they can chew gum), then removing yourself that way is pure poison.

But if he was still paying any form of maintenance to that bitch of an ex, then she should kiss goodbye to that.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:18 PM

Not as shit as what the skank of a mother has done. Besides, who said anything about love, one way or the other? What's love, but a second hand emotion?

"Legally, any other point of view doesn't stand"
Good thing that laws can be changed eh

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Bert
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:16 PM

The cheating, lying bitch of a Mother should be declared unfit to raise a child. The poor brat would be better off in care of the state or with the pseudo-Father.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:05 PM

You're ignoring that the court doesn't give a flying monkey turd for either or any parent.

They wish to protect stability and continuity for the child.

It obviously stands all over the western world as the correct way to prioritize.

It is of course deeply unfair how the mother has treated the non-father/father, and how the biological father has got off scott free.

But none of that is the childs fault, and the court won't do anything that might damage the child.

Legally, any other point of view doesn't stand, and it is, I think, absolutely justifiable from that perspective.

"sorry mate - I'm not your real dad - all those years were a fraud - I'm off and I'm taking my money and love with me."

That would be pretty shit don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Bert
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:43 PM

If he gets a good lawyer would he perhaps stand a chance of suing the Mother (or as Clinton puts it 'conniving skank') for fraud?

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST, ...
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:15 PM

If your insurance adviser offers you chewing gum - Beware ...

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:11 PM

Honour schmonour...

"And the child deserves the right"
But then you say in your next breath
"Life isn't always fair."

So which is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:09 PM

And the child deserves the right that you don't get out. And in a clash of rights, the child comes first.

Of course that's talking in terms of honour and suchlike, rather than the legal stuff, which might or might not see things differently.

Life isn't always fair. Big deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:02 PM

"If you've accepted a child as your own"...

... under false pretences, you deserve the right to get out.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:02 PM

In the far southern part of this state---Illinois---here in the USA, the the pappy can be determined quite easily.

The woman has a PAP test to find out who the pappy is...

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:56 PM

If there is a clash between the interests of a child and the interests of an adult, the child comes first every time.

Being a father isn't just a matter of biology. If you've accepted a child as your own, and they have accepted you as their father, you are their father, with a father's responsibilities.

Life's rough sometimes, you just live with it. "Be a mensch", as the saying goes.

As for the scenario Wolfgang gave, it's not just that the test is "surreptitious", it involves a man who is trusted as a father by the child taking advantage of that trust, in order to cause her harm. For someone to benefit from doing that would be grotesque.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:44 PM

Except you'd be setting up a triangle situation, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:36 PM

well, if I were trying to make a 'fair' ruling, I would say the two men should split the costs: the real father because he IS...the other because he 'might' have been, and has acted as father for a number of years.

But given how courts think, I suspect the man is out of luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:19 PM

In the first post Wolfgang quoted, "A surrepetitious test (chewing gum) confirmed what he had already suspected. Paternity impossible. This sure knowledge may not be used and so he still has to pay."

I think it would be prudent if the person being held financially responsible for a child not his (due to his other half's fooling around) to refuse to pay and have the courts require a paternity test. He might spend a bit in jail, but later he'd have the option of suing the state for false imprisonment (?).

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:13 PM

Given how little we still know about genetics, I'll wait for further research thanks Bobad

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: bobad
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:11 PM

"No such test exists...."

There have been quite a few genes identified that are considered markers for increased risk of cancers, especially breast cancer. Among them are BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM and a couple of fairly recent ones CHEK2 and BRIP1. Much work is ongoing in this area and new one's are always being discovered.

Insurance companies often surreptitiously test for these if there is a history of cancer in an applicant's family.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:08 PM

As a general rule in California, someone who has stipulated to paternity lacks standing to bring the nonpaternity action. Once the stipulation is reduced to final judgment, the paternity issue is not subject to relitigation. DNA evidence is immaterial. The court would be uninterested in the surreptitious test, just as it would be disinterested in ordering tests.

There are some very limited exceptions. For example, if executed by a minor, the voluntary declaration creates only a rebuttable presumption of paternity until 60 days after both parents reach age 18. It may otherwise be nullified or set aside in a few circumstances, such as a court-ordered DNA test requested before the child's second birthday. However, the judge still can deny the set-aside by finding that it would not be in the child's best interest. This can be based on anything the judge desires, as long as it is explained. Factors include whether the nonfather has made it difficult to establish the biological father, or to get support from him, or whether it would just be a bummer for the kid. If the nonfather has no real contact with the kid, and a good substitute is available, it may be do-able.

I'm not sure about the surreptitious testing. I suspect that everything above matters much more. I suspect that, absent some testing law I don't know about, a "chewing gum test" could be used as a starting point to get the ball rolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:50 PM

"surrepetitious DNA tests (imagine the cup of coffee you had at a job interview is tested for your cancer risk)"

No such test exists....

I'd find someone to burn the mothers house down... Honestly, I'd fight having to pay for a kid that wasn't mine all the way to the "supreme court" if I had to... I wouldn't matter how long MOM had been lying to the kid about who it's father was.

"Impoverishing" the child isn't the non-fathers fault. Blame the 'mother' for being a conniving skank

If she's worried about her kid being hungry, she can go back to the guy who knocked her up in the first place, and beg and grovel for money from him. If he's smart he'll tell her to get lost and stay there.

Poor kid.... having such a useless tit of a mom.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: bobad
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:34 PM

"(3) A minor problem (for jurists): If someone spits out a chewing gum isn't she giving up at that moment all rights she had in relation to that gum?"

I suppose it can be contended that she relinquished her rights to the gum but not to her DNA.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: MMario
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:30 PM

Qouth Wolfgang:
1) I am in general against surrepetitious DNA tests (imagine the cup of coffee you had at a job interview is tested for your cancer risk), but I can understand the motivation of a doubting father.
(2) As a scientist, the idea of not using sure knowledge sounds nonsensical. (Some old psychological experiment would not be allowed today for ethical considerations, but the results are still in the books)
(3) A minor problem (for jurists): If someone spits out a chewing gum isn't she giving up at that moment all rights she had in relation to that gum?

regarding #1: ditto.

regarding #2: nonsensical perhaps - but ohmygawd! the courts already toss out so much "sure knowledge" for one reason or another it is ridiculous.

Regarding #3: Not if one normally expects the result of spitting the gum to be the disposal of said gum.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:29 PM

I imagine that the situation is almost identical in Germany as it comes down to EU law at the end of the day, though of course different countries may apply different interpretations.

Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:24 PM

Seems like the Mother of the child feels the same Bert!
G