BS: Surrepetitious paternity tests

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".

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 02:22 PM

Why not?

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: 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: 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: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:41 AM

Yes, Donuel, you are absolutely right.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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, 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,lox
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:59 PM

That last post was me

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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 05:02 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: 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: 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