 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Wolfgang Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:37 PM I'm interested both in your personal opinions and in information how this problem is dealt with in your countries. Lest you get a wrong idea: It's not a personal problem for me. (German) Scenario: Woman gets child, one man gets the idea he is the father of the child. He acknowledges being the father and so officially he is and pays. Additional information (his doctor telling him that his sperm count is extremely low, rumours about a love affair of the mother of the kid at the time of conception, relatives shaking their heads in disbelief about the lack of similarity,...) makes him doubt his fatherhood at a later time. Often, at this time, he is no longer with the mother of the child who has custody rights. But he pays for the child. At this moment, he thinks how good it were (for his finances) if another man had to pay. He asks for a paternity test. His former friend/wife who has the custody rights says no to that for she is the only one to decide what is best for the child. The man goes to a lawyer who tells him that in Germany it is nearly impossible to sue for a paternity test against the will of the child (which is devined by the mother). At the next visit of the child the father gives her a chewing gum which she chews and spits later into the bin. The hopeful non-father fetches the used gum from the bin and a few days later he knows his hopes of unfatherhood are fulfilled. Paternity is impossible. He walks again to his lawer who tells him that knowing definitely from a surrepetitious test is not a valid reason to damand an official paternity test against the will of the mother. In addition to that he may even be punished for making the test. He asks in disbelief: One would believe me when I say I made a surrepetious test and punish me for that but one would not admit the test result as an indication of doubt about the parenthood? Yes, says the lawyer. One case has now reached our highest court: A man had acknowledged paternity. Later he was told by his doctor that his probability of fathering a child was a mere 10%. With that knowledge he asked for a paternity test which was not granted by a court. 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. (End of scenario and case) (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? How are your countries dealing with this? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Amos Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:50 PM What a tangled web!! The important distinction, of course, is between the validity of fact as viewed scientifically, and the system of agreements evolved among citizens to optimize the survival of offspring. If, as you say, the adjudication of the child's best interest is firmly entrusted by law with the mother, then his request goes against that agreement even if it may be motivated, for example, by her suspicion that the actual father could not be located or turn out to be a poor provider, or an embarassment to her. Such a test might be seen as violating a right not to incriminate oneself. I suspect this story, if played out in the U.S. would get just as tangled up as it seems to have gotten in Germany. Just an opinion.\ A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: John MacKenzie Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:57 PM I would refuse to pay any more towards the upkeep of the child, and ask them to prove I was the father if they wanted me to resume payments. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST,Janie Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:00 PM I think I am correct in saying that in all States in the USA, once an individual has signed on as a legal parent, it is not legally possible to 'bastardize' the child. If a married woman has an affair and has a child by another man, her spouse is still the legal father. Once paternity is legally established, it is not changeable even if later it is shown the man is not the biological parent. Men should understand this when they voluntarily sign paternity papers that establish them as the legal father of a child. Parental 'rights' may be relinquished or terminated. But that simply means the parent who has been established by law do longer has rights. They are still deemed to be a parent. At least I think that is how it works. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Ebbie Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:04 PM Somewhere I read that the reason that the 'state' is not interested in entertaining the niceties is that all it concerns itself with is that the child is receiving support. It matters not to the state from whom. For that same reason, if a woman has a child by one man while still legally married to another man, her husband is the legal father and must pay. Better the bird in the hand, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: jeffp Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:10 PM The solution is obvious -- kill the mother and the child. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Emma B Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:15 PM I had a difficult situation when acting as "Guardian ad Litem" during an adoption application by a divorcée and her new husband. The first husband refused to believe that the child, although born during the marriage, was his but, in law, his permission was an absolute requirement whatever the actual paternity! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST,lox Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:47 PM Wolfgang. I can't comment on the USA or Germany with any experience, but I can comment on the approach of the British courts to childcare having had extensive experience of their attitudes. Not just to my situation but taht of various other people who I know. Having said that, I have no experience of financial wranglings specifically, but I am aware that the court tends to be a fairly blunt instrument when it comes to kids. The court will always try to act "in the interest of the child" as prescribed by european law. The court will always choose the road that offers the child the most stability and consistency as upheaval is considered to be about the worst source of stress for a child barring actual abuse. Once a childs welfare can be seen as having been dependant on an individual for any perod of time, the court would probably be reluctant to take away from the child what it has been used to. If the "father" has acknowledged responsibility at the start, and not asked for a paternity test at that point, then he will most likely be seen to have made a commitment to that child regardless of biological or genetic factors. It wouldn't (by legal definitions) be seen as "in the interest of the child" for the father to, on the one hand, stop paying and on the other hand, undermine the childs confidence in it's identity. ____________________ And now for my views and personal rationale:- Of course this is completely shit if you are the guy in question. It's not fair. The real father should be liable. What a sad unfortunate frustrating humiliating situation to find yourself in. I count my lucky stars yet again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:05 PM I'd totally agree with the way Lox said the courts here would see it. Interests of the child come first and last. And the man has left it too late to contest paternity. Hell, the man has the child to visit him, and she thinks he's her father. Gives her a sweet to chew, and then uses that to try and repudiate her and impoverish her. He sounds a right bastard to me. Maybe if he can prove the child's natural father is someone really loaded like Mick Jagger or Bill Gates there'd be a case for trying to make him cough up. But the mother would, probably have considered that option already and rejected it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: MBSLynne Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:17 PM Ok...I see the injustice of him having to pay for a child which is not his, but if this child has reached an age to be chewing gum and he has been its 'father' all this time, how can he just cast the child off as not his? How hurtful to the child who presumably has believed this man to be it's father! How heartless of the man who has had this small life in his keeping. A father is not necessarily biological. Love Lynne |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: John MacKenzie Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:22 PM Can you imagine how betrayed you'd feel Kevin, if the mother assured you that it was your child, and you being honourable had agreed to fork out for the child albeit the marriage/relationship had failed. Only to find out that she betrayed you during the relationship, and that she'd screwed around with someone else, before screwing YOU, for the money? I think I'd be more than a little incandescent with rage. I totally understand his reaction. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Bert Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:22 PM As Ebbie says, the courts don't care who the father is as long as they can get some poor mug to pay up. |
|
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 |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 04:11 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: GUEST, ... Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:15 PM If your insurance adviser offers you chewing gum - Beware ... |
|
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,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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: katlaughing Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:46 PM Priceless Thieme, Art!! LMAO! |
|
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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: GUEST,Janie Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:00 PM What Kevin says! Janie |
|
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,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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:49 PM "Mcgrath you haven't addressed my point." I'm not sure what the point was - the thing is, throughout history mothers in a situation like this, where they have a child conceived from someone other than their partner, have kept quiet about this, and the child has grown up accepted as the son or daughter of the partner. I think that is how it should be, because it has seemed likely in most cases to be the best solution for the child, and for the adult to be. And I think that probably still applies today, in spite of all the changes in society. Honesty is a good thing. But there are other things which are more important. Here are links to four songs involving (and impliocitly approving of) this deception, and I'm sure there are many more: Elma Turl Johnny Be Fair Shame and Scandal Madam La Marquise |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST,lox Date: 02 Dec 06 - 05:00 PM "After all, she might well have thought he was the Dad." My point: She knew it could just as easily have been somebody else ... She was wrong not to be honest at the time of discovering she was pregnant ... To understand why, go back up. I've been pretty clear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST,lox Date: 02 Dec 06 - 05:02 PM "Honesty is a good thing. But there are other things which are more important" Like this? ... "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" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Dec 06 - 05:12 PM And perhaps she'd agree her mother had done what she saw as the best she could for her, in the circumstances, and respect her for it. Does anyone get through life without "a great deal of emotional turmoil"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST,lox Date: 02 Dec 06 - 05:29 PM "Does anyone get through life without "a great deal of emotional turmoil"? " I wondered if you'd say that or not. I didn't think you would though as up till that point you had demonstrated what appeared to be a good understanding of what "the interests of the child" meant. The key factors for CAFCASS (the british courts child welfare office) and the eggheads responsible for the same approach being applied in the US and Europe, beyond ensuring a roof and food and no risk to the childs safety, have to do with the childs emotional development. Having a strong stable and honest family history are essentiial parts of growing up psychologically stable and confident enough to function in the world. Even as an adult, discovering that your upbringing was based on a lie can massively undermine all that stuff with serious consequences. It was not essential that the mother make the non-father liable for the daughters upbringing, so it hardly constitutes doing the "best she could for her, in the circumstances". Which incidentally are about as wild assumptions as it is possible to make. 1. that the daughter would react like that and 2. that that was the mothers thinking. I thought you were keen to stop people making assumptions and to stick to the information given. hmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST,lox Date: 02 Dec 06 - 05:46 PM "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." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:38 PM Having a strong stable and honest family history are essential parts of growing up... I'd say desirable rather than essential - and I'd put "strong and stable" a long way ahead of "honest" (much closer to "essential" than "honest", which is well towards the "desirable" end). And "strong and stable" could be grounds for a mother deciding to keep quiet about any lingering doubts she might have about the child's paternity. As many thousands of mothers over the ages have done when this situation has arisen. As the old saying goes "It's a wise child that knows its own father". My point is - in keeping with what I'd said in that last bit lox quoted - we just don't have the information to make these kind of judgements about the mother whether or not this would have been a wrong decision, in this particular case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:58 PM "we just don't have the information to make these kind of judgements about the mother" But we do - we know that either of two men could have been the father, and she knew it, yet she allowed the one who wasn't to bear the responsibility. "And "strong and stable" could be grounds for a mother deciding to keep quiet about any lingering doubts she might have about the child's paternity" At the point of discovering that she is pregnant there is no relationship between the child and either possible father. "Strong and stable" doesn't apply at that point. Also, by being underhand she lays the ground for "weak and unstable". She takes risks. "As many thousands of mothers over the ages have done when this situation has arisen." Because something has happened with frequency in history, that does not make it justifiable. Men have been murdering, stealing, etc etc for thousands of years. According to your construct, that is therefore justifiable and defensible. "It's a wise child that knows its own father". Just which of many possible interpretations have you given to this phrase? She took a risk, and the risk was that things would be fine between the child and the father. Taking risks with kids, their futures and their happiness is completely unjustifiable. It looks like her risk has gone belly up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST,lox Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:59 PM That last post was me |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Dec 06 - 07:32 PM You're still assuming "we know" stuff we don't know. "Yet she allowed the one who wasn't to bear the responsibility." For all we know she could have believed he probably was the father. "At the point of discovering that she is pregnant there is no relationship between the child and either possible father." For all we know she were married at the time to the chewing-gum man. In fact Wolfgang specifically left this possibility open. "Taking risks with kids, their futures and their happiness is completely unjustifiable." Either way would have been likely to involve a risk. We don't know which risk would have seemed greater. "It's a wise child that knows its own father". The point I saw as relevant was, the saying is a reminder that this happens very often, and always has happened. And, unlike murder and stealing (in most cases), I'd see this kind of deception as, in principle, justifiable. That means, there are times when I think it would be the right thing to do. What's changed is that now there are DNA test which can reveal things that in former times would have stayed hidden. I'd see that as a very doubtful advance, from the point of view of children in this situation. And if the courts put barriers in the way of making use of this technology in ways that could harm children, good on them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Bert Date: 02 Dec 06 - 09:03 PM Fact 1: She fraudulently tricked the guy into believing he was the father when she KNEW there was a possibility that he wasn't. Fact 2: She perpetuated that fraud for years - at least until the child was old enough to chew gum. Fact 3: When the victim of her fraud tried to remedy his plight she obstructed his efforts to the extent that he had to resort to devious means to prove himself correct. Now if you believe that she is a good Mother then your moral standards must be different to mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: dianavan Date: 03 Dec 06 - 08:13 AM Fact 1 - may or not be true. Her best calculation, based on her due date was that he was the probable father. Fact 2 - The paternal realationship that had developed between the child and 'father' must have been the number of years it took to learn how to chew gum. Fact 3 - She may have obstructed his efforts in an attempt to protect the well-being of the child. Fact 4 - A willingness to accept the role of Father for a number of years, establishes paternal rights and responsibilities, regardless of the biological origin of the child. Fact 5 - A mother will do whatever it takes to provide for her child. It may have been in the child's best interest to perpetuate the deception. Regardless, he accepted the responsibility. He is now bound by more than law. He is bound by his relationship to that child. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Dec 06 - 10:26 AM Now if you believe that she is a good Mother then your moral standards must be different to mine. It seems so. As dianavan says there "A mother will do whatever it takes to provide for her child." That's the bottom line. And a father should do the same - including a non-biological father, once he has accepted responsibility, even if he was under a false impression at the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST Date: 03 Dec 06 - 10:36 AM When I was pregnant (some years ago) the due date was calculated on the basis of the information I provided, or you could look at a chart and work it out yourself. You didn't ask the doctors when the baby was due and then count back to find out which day you conceived. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Bert Date: 04 Dec 06 - 01:07 AM I do see your point here guys. You say... "A mother will do whatever it takes to provide for her child." That's the bottom line. And from the Mother and child's point of view that is valid. But that doesn't help the poor defrauded guy any. And I'm sick and tired of the Father getting the shitty end of the stick when it comes to custody and access. And then HE'S the one who gets the blame if he complains. The state doesn't care in the least who pays as long is it isn't them. And they know that if they don't get the nearest poor sap to pay the the conniving bitch will go on the ear'ole and (heaven forbid) THEY will have to pay. REMEMBER when the state becomes more important than the individual you have fascism. ----------------------- You say... "A mother will do whatever it takes to provide for her child." That's the bottom line. And so will a Father, until the state takes away custody and gives it to a lying, cheating wife. If I know anything about the relationship between a father and a daughter, I wouldn't mind betting, that the Father in this story would just love to have custody of his daughter and would not complain a bit about the cost of raising her on his own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: dianavan Date: 04 Dec 06 - 01:43 AM Bert - This wasn't about custody, it was about whether or not a father who had accepted paternity without question and who acted in the role of father for several years, should be made to pay support after realizing he was not the biological father. Custody issues are separate and not part of the original question. Your bitterness clouds the issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Dec 06 - 04:58 AM ... should be made to pay support after realizing he was not the biological father. Actually, paraphrasing loosely, the original question was whether he ...could be made to pay support after realizing he was not the biological father. But moralizing is a lot more interesting, and quite a lot easier than discussing legalities. Having known a couple or six of people involved in somewhat similar situations in the US, my impression is that it's "conventional opinion" that the law is unresponsive. The instances I've seen have been "settled" by the parties involved in spite of legalities, rather than by seeking out courts and asking them to do it all. While the resolutions in those cases likely were a lot different than a judge would have ruled "had to be done," it's sort of to be expected that life's like that, and usually it will go on. In the cases I've observed, the children have done well enough, both mothers and fathers survived, the good guys remained good, and the assholes were still assholes; but that's how it is sometimes. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST,lox Date: 04 Dec 06 - 09:22 AM The legalities have been covered. The father WOULD pay. Looks like it's that way in UK, USA and Germany too. The rest is just us debating the rights and wrongs. I think it's interesting though otherwise I wouldn't have got so involved. I do feel like I inhabit a middle ground in thisargument though that is very hard to make room for as points of view seem to be very polarised. I understand that it is a very emotive issue, I have been through it myself. I have sole custody of my child and the mother pays maintenance. Iput my childs interests first every time. If in La La land it were possible for me to ensnare a non mother to take responsibility, especially in light of the real mother being such a flake, I still wouldn't do it. I would be lying to my child and undermining my relationship with her. Issues surrounding trust and relationships would most likely surface for her in later life with the result that she could fnd it harder than most to find any lasting happiness or stability in her own life as an adult. Whatever it takes to make sure my daughter has the best start. That means not creating unnecessary obstacles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 Dec 06 - 08:41 PM I'm not sure that the legal situation was very clearly resolved, but it probably isn't amenable to much further exploration here. As one corporate executive once told me: "Legal is what your lawyer can get you out of." I believe he spoke from extensive experience. A weakness in some of the moralizing lies with those who wish to decide whether the the genetic father should have been revealed by the mother. A recent custody case here suggests: "... and if she traded sex for her crack/meth/etc, would he be a good candidate to take part in raising the child?" i.e. without prior knowledge of all the parties involved, few sound moral recommendations really can be made, and most opinions really need a lot of attached "if"s and "when"s and identification of prerequisite assumptions. I really didn't intend to interrupt the conversation though. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Dec 06 - 08:59 PM With a slight adjustment the old fairground cry is relevant here: "You makes your choice and then you pays your money." I think John's right here - there are so many unknowns that making moral judgements just isn't possible. Wolfgang's scenario put in a few "facts", and left everything else open. There's always a natural tendency to fill in the spaces when that happens - rather in the way the old Mars watchers used to fill in the dots and actually see canals; and they'd get very cross indeed when people doubted they'd really seen what they drew. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Bert Date: 04 Dec 06 - 09:53 PM ...There's always a natural tendency to fill in the spaces when that happens... You're right there. And I'll admit that I am biased in this case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Wolfgang Date: 05 Dec 06 - 12:09 PM It was interesting to read all the opinions. I can understand both, man and woman, and don't see why one of them has to be condemned. People go the courts for justice and they get a verdict. In some situations, there is no way that hurts nobody. As a reaction, the German minister of justice has said she will ask the parliament to pass a law that will make it easier for men than it still is to legally question the paternity. On the other side, surrepetitious tests should be punished harsher. I think the old idea that each child has been fathered by the husband as long as it is conceived during a marriage. Pater semper incertus was a pre-DNA idea that has led to lawmaking that is not really appropriate for much longer. Paternity could be tested routinely at birth for instance. The idea to stop paying does not work in Germany BTW. The money for the kid is usually taken directly from your salary before you see it, so you just have no chance not to pay. That such cases come up is due (beside DNA developments) to a (one or two decades old) move by the German legislator to treat out-of-wedlock children just like "legitimate" children. Out-of-wedlock children now have the right to inherit from a biological father they may not have seen all their lives. That has led to another case BTW: A (out-of-wedlock) daughter suing her mother to tell her the biological father(s). Mother say no, that's private and noone else's business. Dauther say her mother is preventing her rights to inherit from the biological father. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST,CrazyEddie Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:36 AM That has led to another case BTW: A (out-of-wedlock) daughter suing her mother to tell her the biological father(s). Mother say no, that's private and noone else's business. Dauther say her mother is preventing her rights to inherit from the biological father. Sooner or later there will be a similar case where the child has some illness or condition & will argue the need to know for reasons of genetics/ hereditary illness. Or where a paternal half-sibling might make a suitable bone-marrow or organ donor. I think that one will be harder to resist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST, Topsie Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:05 AM There is also the possibility of unknowingly having children with a half-brother or half-sister. This has always been a risk of course, with mothers either not disclosing or not knowing who the real father was, and more recently with anonymous sperm donors (some of whom have fathered many more children than most promiscuous males would manage). But if there is any doubt, the correct information could be important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:27 PM There is also the possibility of unknowingly having children with a half-brother or half-sister. Which was the issue in those songs I linked to earlier at 02 Dec 06 - 04:49 PM. Clearly there are situations where checking out the biological facts are justifiable. But I don't think repudiating parental responsibility late in the day, once it has been accepted, is one of them. Even if it was based on a misconception. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: GUEST,lox Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:21 PM I'm not sure misconception was the problem ... ... I'll get my coat ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:57 PM Surely the point is that the gentleman thought it was. In both ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Lox Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:13 PM Not in both ways surely ... ... I'll flush and go ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: HuwG Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:04 PM In Britain until recently, wronged fathers (usually those denied access to their children after a relationship had broken down, but for all I know also those who wondered whether they truly were the fathers of those children for whose treats they were forking out) had another option; dress up as Batman and climb the front of Buckingham Palace. The campaign group, "Fathers for Justice", scaled back these antics about a year ago, after it was recognised to be counter-productive. **** I recall seeing a programme on the subject (of disputed parentage) about two years ago. In most of the instances (perhaps deliberately selected by the programme makers), the putative fathers and children only became aware of their lack of blood relationship only when the children were in their early adulthood and both acknowledged a parental bond based on years of close contact, regardless of paternity. Sometimes the children chose to maintain ties with the honourable non-father and sever ties with the mother. No doubt, cases exist which would be much more difficult to resolve. **** As far as I am aware, it is still grounds in English law for a marriage to be annulled, rather than terminated by divorce, if it can be proved that at the time of marriage the woman was aware that she was pregnant by another man. I do not know how many, if indeed any, such annulments are granted nowadays by the courts. Given the change in ways of living today compared with the ages when this law was laid down or derived from customary practice, I doubt whether there are many men who remain chaste during courtship or engagement, making this an unlikely event. It is a saying in Britain, where much law derives from legal precedent in the courts rather than legislation, that "Hard cases make bad law", in other words that a judgement based on an impossibly convoluted situation is bad news if the courts must subsequently take it as binding precedent. **** And finally, remember that paternity might be a matter of opinion, but maternity is undeniable fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: dianavan Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:41 AM "And finally, remember that paternity might be a matter of opinion, but maternity is undeniable fact." Exactly! That is the best argument for a matrilineal as opposed to a patrilineal social system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:22 AM Follow-up: Our highest constitutional court has decided the concrete case a few minutes ago. Surrepetitious paternity tests may not be used as evidence in court. But the (not in reality, only in the view of jurists) father who had sued can be happy nonetheless, for the court has also ruled that within one year the legislator has to pass a law making open paternity tests against the will of the mother more easy. Not today, but in a year or two he’ll get what he wants: He will not have to pay any longer and the mother of the kid will have to sue the real father if she wants to get money. I applaud both parts of the ruling. I was uncomfortable with any surrepetitious DNA test so I am glad about that part. But I am also uncomfortable with the present legal situation in which a father once he has been declared the official father has close to no right to correct such a parenthood decision with later new information. In the concrete case, the father was at the doctor, when the doctor told him he most probably would never be able to father a child for lack of sperms. But I am father already the man told the doctor. The doctor shook his head and said it was still remotely possible, but not in any way likely. With that result the man went to the mother of the kid and asked her and she refused to say anything and stonewalled. With the expert opinion of his doc he went to a court and asked for an open paternity test with the aim to contest the original parenthood decision. The court ruled that according to the old law (that has to be amended now) the expert opinion of his doc that his chances of parenthood were very low were not strong enough doubts to rule for a DNA test. BTW, he and the mother did separate when the daughter was 2 years old. She’s 12 years old now and still sees her “father” every couple of weeks. He’d like to see her more often but the mother does not agree to more frequent visits. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Bill D Date: 13 Feb 07 - 08:54 AM These are such troubling cases to decide. As technology in such things as DNA becomes more advanced, the complexities of what should be done increase exponentially. Paternity tests, stem cell research, cloning, organ donation.....all have potential to give us more options and choices, but each one allows wide ranges of decision making and opinion. I fear the courts will see many more cases where they have to make awkward decisions about what's 'fair'. I am not sure the legislature can write laws that will adequately address both 'legal' and 'right'. I suppose that in this case, the father's 'rights' will eventually be clarified, but whether it really will benefit the child is hard to predict.....sometimes too much information can be a burden. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:37 AM The legal defeat of this father is in fact a victory. That's how this decision is commented. The court could have said surrepetitious tests are unconstitutional and nothing more (because that was all that was asked). But the court went much farther and stated our constitution gives a father "the right to know whether a child is his child or not" and that therefore a child (which in reality means: the mother) has to agree to an open paternity test. The position of fathers has been strengthened a lot by this decision. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:38 AM I canm't rerally see how those changes Wolfganmg welcomes would be likely to benefit the children in such cases. I think that is the only thing that really should concern a court or a legislature. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: dianavan Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:49 AM Now that it has been established that he is not the father, how will this effect the 'daughter'? If the 'father' does not have to pay support because he is not his biological father, will his visitation rights end? Who is to decide what is best for the emotional well-being of the child? While I disagree with the deception of the mother, I think that once a man (whether step-father or father) assumes the role of father, there is an emotional responsibility for the child. I can only imagine how devastated the 12 year old 'daughter' must be. Mom was wrong to lie about paternity but 'dad' was wrong to ask the courts to end his obligation to pay child support for a child he had accepted as his own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Donuel Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:34 AM In the US this matter is the sole dominion of the Jerry Springer Show. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: dianavan Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:41 AM Yes, Donuel, you are absolutely right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:48 AM Presumably the change in the law imposed by the court will mean that women or children will also be able to demand DNA tests of men who dispute paternity. Now that might be in the interests of some children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: alanabit Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:15 PM I thought that had effectively always been the case anyway. DNA testing is apparently more precise than blood testing. However, for some time now, blood tests have been able to ascertain that in many cases, men could not have been the father. I think it would indeed be in the interests of some children if some women could demand DNA testing. I still feel pretty uneasy about men being allowed to evade their responsibilities, whether they are the biological fathers or not, just because a DNA test ruled them out of being the biological father. If three men sleep with a woman within a certain time span, none of them has the right to choose whether to be a father or not - especially if they have not used a condom. In those cases, the woman is the most likely to be able to assess who should be the father. The rights of the child and of the mother should always come before those of the man - whether he is the putative father or the biological one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: jeffp Date: 13 Feb 07 - 01:56 PM If three men sleep with a woman within a certain time span, none of them has the right to choose whether to be a father or not - especially if they have not used a condom. In those cases, the woman is the most likely to be able to assess who should be the father. Are you really saying that if a woman has sex with 3 men in one night and becomes pregnant as a result, she can choose which one of the men is the father, regardless of who is actually the father? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:22 PM Why not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: jeffp Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:35 PM It deprives the real father of his parenting rights, for one thing. It also creates a motivation on the part of the woman to go trolling for rich men to provide for a baby that may or may not be theirs. How about when a gas station is robbed we round up everybody who stopped in to buy gas and arrest one of them for the robbery? Same logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: alanabit Date: 13 Feb 07 - 03:05 PM Er Jeff, are you suggesting that the men do not have the option of confining Percy to his trousers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Feb 07 - 03:17 PM Robbing a gas station is not the same as stopping in to buy gas. There's no equivalent difference between the actions of the three men in the other case. The significant persion is the child, not any of the adults involved. At this stage the mother is the person who has to stand in for the child. Perhaps she picks out what seems like the best father for the child, perhaps she insists on DNA test to identify the biological father. I think that should be her decision. People have to live with the consequences of their actions and their inactions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: jeffp Date: 13 Feb 07 - 04:36 PM I'm stating, not suggesting, that only one is the father. This can be easily determined by DNA testing. To do otherwise is to deprive the child of his or her natural father and also to deprive the natural father of the filial relationship that both deserve. That is an insult to all children and parents. You might as well say that if a man sleeps with three women in the same night and one of them gets pregnant, he should be able to choose which one should raise the child. Also, does the fertility status of the putative father enter into it? Your argument is so ridiculous as to not deserve consideration. Just choose one of the likely suspects and let him pay for it all, regardless of the actual paternity. You're disgusting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: alanabit Date: 14 Feb 07 - 04:07 PM When the first man carries a child in his body for nine months, I guess he will get a different take on it. If you are going to sleep with women, especially without using a condom, you should accept the fact that you can become a father. Anything less is simply irresponsible. With respect Jeff, if the men are not committed, I feel strongly that the woman is entitled to pick the one whom she thinks is the best bet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Feb 07 - 04:25 PM alanabit has just written pretty well what I would have. I think that mechanically transposing rights and obligations between fathers and mothers in this kind of situation is wrong. As alanabit pointed out, men don't get pregnant, carry babies within them, and give birth. That's a significant difference. I note this time jeffp mentioned the right of a child to know her or his father, and that's a real right, I accept; but I think it's not a right which necessarily overrules everything at all stages of life. If a mother in this situation were to decide that one man would make a terrible father and another would be far better, I wouldn't be inclined to blame her for picking the more suitable one, and dispensing with the tests that would prove things one way or another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: Wolfgang Date: 14 Feb 07 - 04:46 PM The alanabit/McGrath idea makes no sense to me and is I think impractical. Here's why: If I* was one of several men having slept with a woman who became pregnant and she'd choose me as the "father" what would stop me from saying she has only invented our making love for the sake of my better job than the other guys. Usually man and woman are alone and without witnesses when they make love. It would be her word against mine and since she has a lot to win her motives may be in doubt. Any judge would opt for a paternity test and this way I'd get what I did wanted in the first place: a chance not to pay. That's why this idea never can work. I*: not me personally. I've longed to be a father for so long that I'd been glad about any such offer to play "father". Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: jeffp Date: 14 Feb 07 - 05:41 PM You get to do the time whether or not you do the crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Feb 07 - 06:11 PM Wolfgang - you have actually demonstrated why it actually might work out quite well. The likelihood is that the person who wanted to be a father would be the right father, while the person who didn't would be the wrong father, regardless of the biological facts. I seem to remember an analogous reworking of Solomon's judgement in a Bertolt Brecht Play. ................. I don't think we should get too hot and bothered about a case like this - what is something described as "a Spanish Case". |
