I can see the argument if the child was raised by the supposed father, I can see how it would be devastating for a kid to suddenly be cut off from the person they know to be their Dad. Not sure I agree with the argument but I see the logic.

The Dad paying money to Mom and BioDad makes NO SENSE however. If they're all living together as one biofamily, then the BioDad is assuming the Dad role anyways, and should assume it fully, including supporting his kid. Seems like other Dad must have had a god awful lawyer.

Nicolek, what you are missing here is the accountability of the mom who lied about who the father was so she could cash in on the highest wage earner. There should be mandatory sentencing and the child should automatically go to either the biodad or to the state.

Of course, like Amy says, why in the hell is there is not mandatory DNA testing at birth?

While I do agree that there needs to be better protection for men who are victims of paternity fraud, I don't agree with the idea of mandatory DNA testing at birth. That feels like it's a slippery slope into violating the rights of peoples privacy. It's basically assuming guilt before any evidence of illicit behaviour is even clear on the mom's part.

We all seem to agree here that we shouldn't have our 4th ammendment rights violated by the TSA just because we are flying right? So how would mandatory DNA testing on every child born in the state of CA be any different? I oppose having the paternity of my (hypothetial) child tested just because I got pregnant. Getting pregnant is NOT evidence of an affair. Just like flying is NOT evidence that I am a terrorist. That's a gross invastion of my privacy and highly presumptuos to boot. If the person I claim is the father has any questions about the paternity however, he should be allowed to request a paternity test at anytime and be allowed legal action should the results reveal he is not the father.

@Sabrina at June 3, 2011 5:18 AM
_________

I do think you have a good point. I think we can find a happy medium. I don't think paternity tests should be required. I do, however, think the prospective father should have the right to a paternity test before being legally mandated to provide support. Meaning, while there is no legal mandate to test, that a woman cannot extract money from the man on the basis of her word alone, unless he agrees because he wants to be the father regardless of biology (as is my case, my girls are adopted, so if we ever divorced I'd pay child support on the basis that I legally agreed to be the father).

I agree that it is a potential violation of privacy, but I also think it is a violation of one's rights to have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars over decades on the basis of her word alone. I doubt women would like their ex-husbands to have that much power either.

Trust, I think that what you propose is a fair solution. If she wants the money, she has to prove the kid belongs to him. And legal agreements to pay support regardless of DNA, such as yours, are fair too as that's what you agreed too when you adopted your girls. I don't think that's the problem for most people as those terms seem reasonable.

I think the courts need to abolish these "best interest of the child" rulings too. That seems to be where a lot of the issues are coming from. For instance, the bio-dad is a slacker with no job, and the other guy has a decent job with benefits. The woman pinned it on white collar guy and even after DNA testing proved the child wasn't his, the courts will often STILL order him to pay child support because it's in the best interest of the child. Why bother DNA testing them if the courts aren't going to honor the results anyway? That is where the law needs to change.

I am not in favor of a law requiring the test, but I would encourage my son to have it done for each and every child. Until the law changes 'at birth' is the time to resolve any questions.

"There should be mandatory sentencing and the child should automatically go to either the biodad or to the state."

WHile I don't agree with a man being duped, you are punishing the child for the sins of the mother. "Sorry kid, your mom's a bitch, off to foster care you go" is an absurd suggestion. I do think a man should have the right to get paternity testing before being made pay child support. But the state isn't going to go for that, since if the man doesn't pay, the state will in a lot of cases. I have to say, if it's a choice between a man who was married to this woman paying for her kid, and me paying for it, I think the man should have to. You married poorly to a lying cheater, the rest of us shouldn't have to subsidize your mistake.

Pros and cons aside, the concept of automatic paternity testing at birth is a fascinating one. Numerous studies (early ones based on blood type with control for when the milkman had the same blood type as the putative father, later with more accurate DNA testing) have shown that the average across a wide range of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds for a child to be a cuckoo in the nest is something like 1 in 10. Apparently the Amish are a bit more restrained and their rate is more like 1 in 20.

If 10% of babies were shown to have an unexpected father - at birth - what would this do to people's image of marriage? Hospitals would have to open divorce clinics next door to the maternity wards...

I agree that a man should absolutely have the right to a paternity test before being ordered to pay child support. I also think that women who deliberatly commit paternity fraud should have the same type (or worse) legal ramifications as "deadbeat dads."

Sabrina while I agree with you that pregnacy is not proof of an affiar, women arent necessarily going to admit to an affir if they wind up pregnant.

Just yesterday in the radio, some morning station call up a person and offers them free flowers to send to anyonthey want as a test for a caller who rang the show.

This married woman wanted to test her new boyfriend of TWO WEEKS, he sent her the hypothetical flowers, she broke down in tears declared her love and told of her plans to leave her husband for him. He said no, that she was just on of a few girls he was seeing, she accused him of cheating on her, and decided not to leave her husband after all as she had no one else to take care of her finacially.

My point is alot of people are assholes, men and women, even the ones who seem like nice people, or even are nice people, are going to hope that their husband is the father. Denial is a powerful thing.

The argument behind makeing a DNA test madatory is that the guy doesnt have to be the 'paranoid asshole' for asking for one, if it is mandatory

I read an aricle back when the first sets of data from the human gemone project started coming out. I think they estimated something like 30% of children were not realted to the person they believed to be their father

Quite frankly I think people should have a DNA profile done jst so they know which dieseases they are more prone to, and so parents can compare their prophiles to see if their kids will be born with muscular distropy or systic fibrosis

So Sabrina has a good point, in that calls for mandatory testing at birth are largely a reaction to the state laws that provide a very limited window for challenging paternity. Usually, by the time the husband realizes that there may be a problem, that window has long since closed. And I quote from Sabrina here: "Why bother DNA testing them if the courts aren't going to honor the results anyway? That is where the law needs to change." Absolutely; the law needs to make up its mind. Either biological paternity matters, or it doesn't. The courts, and the mothers suing for support, cannot have it both ways.

I am a little tired of the parroting of supposed high rates of fraudulent paternity with no real scientific references. So I did a quick google. (No time for a serious study, so cut me some slack here.)

I found this in a Cecil Adams column which quotes a survey of 67 non-paternity studies carried out by Kermyt Anderson in 2007.
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/8308/to-have-and-to-cuckold The studies are divided into three groups according to confidence of paternity: high-confidence, low-confidence and no indication of confidence.

Paternity-dispute testing tends to show non-paternity, because the men who are testing are already suspicious. Even so, over two thirds of these low-confidence men are actually the fathers - the fraud rate (or wishful thinking rate) on the part of wives/lovers was 29.8%

Men who trust their wives don't bother testing - the rate of fraud for these high-confidence men is 1.7%.

Other scientific estimates of the overall non-paternity rate are given as 1-4%.

Incidentally, high-confidence and low-confidence refers strictly to the individual's degree of certainty that he is the father. This has nothing to do with self-confidence.

Ok then. Perhaps DNA testing should be done at the point of divorce...but by that time the child could be so old that the courts would not care. And really, after being a father, even if you are duped, would you not consider the child your own after 10 years of being with him??? Think of the emotional ties, all of the pictures, the memories.

At this point the responsibility and accountability should rest on the mother, who lied about who the father was. What is the penalty for lying to your spouse and your child for 10 years?

So, the only real possibility is to test at birth. If it is not the fathers child he can then divorce without parental responsibility, and there are no emotional ties (or alot less). So, what is the problem with this?

Seriously, get over all the BS about violating peoples privacy. It is a simple test. What about all of the other tests that are done at birth? Are those an invasion of privacy as well?

It comes down to trust Sabrina. You seem to feel that if you were married (hypothetically) and you had a child (hypothetically), that the father should trust that he is the real biodad? Why should the responsibility be on the dad to have to think about whether or not the child is his or not?

I don't know one single guy among all of my friends who ever thought "Gee, what a beautiful child, I wonder if its mine or not? Hey hon, how about we get a paternity test done?" Give me a break. That will never happen.

The responsibility should be with the bio mother to truthfully say who the father is, not the other way around. Geez, take some accountability for your actions already...and if it is proven it is not his, the "dad" should have no oblication.

Where I used to live the law was (probably still is) that to get free money from the state for a child, the child had to have a legal father that the state would go after. If the supposed father was shown to not be the father (in the legal window) then he would not be the legal father either. The mother would then have to find a legal father before receiving benefits...and I believe actual show the person is likely the father or have the father agree to it. If she had only named one guy originally (not something like, it is probably mike, but there is a slight chance it is John or Henry) she has to pay for the tests - at least that is my understanding.

SO just because a accused father was shown to not be the father does not mean everyone would end up paying.

"Seriously, get over all the BS about violating peoples privacy."
No.
If my husband wants to have a DNA test of our kid, that's fine, but it's not the government's business. The only reason the state needs to be involved at all is if we're divorcing (or were never married) and WE get the state involved.

Wrong. It IS the State's business if there is a divorce. Child support is mandated and collected through the state, so if there is some question of paternity then it IS the state's responsibility to determine who the father is. And if the soon-to-be ex-husband demands a paternity test, the state can (and should)force DNA testing if there is a question of fraud.

Sure, you're right if there is not a CONTESTED divorce, but in a contested divorce through the court system the state sure as hell does have the ability impinge on your rights...

If you're being sued for child support, you should be entitled to a paternity test. If you're married and have a suspicion, you should be be entitled to a paternity test. If you have been divorced for 10 years and start hearing rumors about the paternity of "your" child, you should be entitled to a paternity test- But the point is, it should be something that the parents request, not something that government or hospitals automatically do.

...And it's not just the privacy of the parents we're talking about here. Why would I want the state having a sample of my baby's DNA unless I consent to it?

Exactly ahw.

mike wrote: "Seriously, get over all the BS about violating peoples privacy."

Or you could get over this attitude that the governments job is to take care of us.
You seem to be all about govt intervention in every aspect of our lives to make sure that no on is lying, cheating, or hurting someone else. You can make all the laws you want; People are still going to be dishonest and harm others. The only thing the govt should be doing is making it possible to punish those that do.

mike wrote:"What about all of the other tests that are done at birth? Are those an invasion of privacy as well?"

Not the parents privacy. And the parents get to decide what tests are performed on thier baby. Those general health tests performed on the baby are done to ensure the health of the baby so they can release it into the care of it's parents. Not to make sure mommy wasn't schleping the postman. And they are done with the CONSENT of the parents. Big difference.

mike wrote:"At this point the responsibility and accountability should rest on the mother, who lied about who the father was. What is the penalty for lying to your spouse and your child for 10 years?"

We all agree on that. Which is why we are advocating that the man be allowed to request a test if there is doubt, no matter the age of the child, and the laws be changed to punish the mother who lied for 10 years.

mike wrote:"It comes down to trust Sabrina. You seem to feel that if you were married (hypothetically) and you had a child (hypothetically), that the father should trust that he is the real biodad?"

My husband should absolutely trust that my hpothetical child is his because I am his wife. Until I give him reason to doubt my faithfulness, that's good enough. You seem to think that all married women are having affairs so we should automatically have to prove that we havent been immediatly upon the birth of our child. Besides, even if I was having an affair, the child could still be my husbands so what does the DNA prove in that case? Because you know, it's just can't be possible for me to get impregnated by my husband while also having an affair with another man.

And since we are talking about trust, what about men having affairs? No DNA test on the baby *I* carried is going to prove that. Then what? Do we have to start testing EVERY woman that gets pregnant and keep the DNA on file somewhere just to make sure she isn't pinning it on the wrong guy? That also means we have to keep DNA files of every man on the plant on file too. Ridiculous. Where does it stop?

mike sore: "Geez, take some accountability for your actions already"

The men could also take some accountability for sleeping with a woman without using protection. I am not blaming victims of paternity fraud here but if you have sex with a woman without using a condom, you should very well expect that you could get her pregnant. It's simple biology. If you have doubts, be pro active and clear that shit up by paying for a DNA test before you get attached to the kid.

It's the state's business because the state keeps records of live birth. The current standards are a legal mish-mash, better to replace them with a DNA test. I don't think that there's a privacy argument here, actually.

DNA testing is cheap and widely available

Is it really that cheap? I know that a blood test (the kind which can disprove paternity but not establish it) is, but I've heard that the cost of a full DNA test runs to five figures. Haven't done any actual research, so that could be totally wrong.

The tests done at the hospital are done with the parents consent.
I know people who've had home births, and don't have ANY of the hospital's tests.
I do not want the hospital or the state taking or keeping samples of my child's DNA for any reason- whether it be record keeping or research- without my consent. My husband wouldn't either.

If you think your wife or girlfriend is trying to pull a fast one on you and you're too big of a pussy to get a paternity test, that's your problem. You can buy the cheek swabs at Walgreens now, for god's sake.

The only thing that's the states business regarding my hypothetical is the gender, where, when, and to whom the child was born for social security, census, and tax purposes. Other than that, the DNA and paternity of the child is NOT the states business unless of the parents want it to be or in cases of divorce.

I meant to type "child" after hypothetical... jeez...

I'm also in favor of men who think a child might be theirs being able to get a paternity test. It should go both ways- a test to absolve someone of their parental responsibility OR grant parental rights.
But mandatory DNA testing as a matter of routine? No. That would absolutely be government overreach.

furthermore: Not everyone goes through the state to determine child support. Some people *gasp* have amicable seperations and figure it out on their own. It's uncommon, but it happens.

"Paternity-dispute testing tends to show non-paternity, because the men who are testing are already suspicious."

This seems like an obvious assumption, but I question it, and here's why. As I've written here before, my wife is an area manager for one of the big medical lab companies. Well over half of their paternity-testing business consists of prison inmates who are being tested for paternity (via search warrant) because a mother named them as the father at their child's birth. I'm told by her that no-match results on these tests are quite rare. No-match in cases where the father or the child requests the test are more common, but that is less than half of the tests that they run. I have no idea if it's the same for other labs; it could depend a lot on where they do most of their paternity testing business.

So when compiling these paternity-testing stats, the result could depend a lot on which lab or labs the data was obtained from.

The only time this should be a question is when someone is asking for money, this shouldn't have anything to do with who is parenting... that's a separate issue.

The reason it shouldn't be the presumptive father's problem to respond to anything, is HE IS NOT THE ONE ASKING FOR MONEY, so why should he have to prove anything? The legal windows are a BIG problem, when the woman can point the finger at any guy and say it's him. What if he is in another state, or has moved? Courts are notorious for trying to serve papers to someone, they don't answer in 30 day, well, he's the guy.

Only THEN do they start digging to find the guy so that they can get their money, and the legal window to fight is over. Guys have gone to jail for this crap, and sometimes they have never even met the woman.

If you are demanding money, you should PROVE you are entitled to it.

"Ok then. Perhaps DNA testing should be done at the point of divorce...but by that time the child could be so old that the courts would not care. And really, after being a father, even if you are duped, would you not consider the child your own after 10 years of being with him???"

This goes back to Sabrina's point about the law allowing the courts to be inconsistent. Either biological paternity takes precedence, or presumption of paternity via marriage takes precedence, one or the other. Courts should not be permitted to decide one case one way and the next case the other way. (I might make one exception for when the child is old enough to decide for themselves.) Additionally, whichever way it goes, parental rights must be coupled to parental responsibility. We cannot have any more cases where a man is stripped of parental rights due to not being the biological father, but is still held financially responsible via marriage to the child's mother.

"But the state isn't going to go for that, since if the man doesn't pay, the state will in a lot of cases. I have to say, if it's a choice between a man who was married to this woman paying for her kid, and me paying for it, I think the man should have to. You married poorly to a lying cheater, the rest of us shouldn't have to subsidize your mistake.

Posted by: momof4 at June 3, 2011 6:40 AM"

Sigh and this is why paternity fraud will continue on for the forseeable future. The state is the one who promoted the welfare programs for single moms/kids. If the state wants to support them, they (all we taxpayers, even if we didn't vote for it sadly) should pick up the bill when there is fraud. Otherwise, you and society are promoting fraud, something that quite often ends up with people in jail. Oh, but this fraud is a-ok because its for the children. Subsidize mistakes? Why subsidize single moms at all then?

"Married poorly"? I could say the same thing to mothers who can't get support from deadbeat dads or the kids who's legal dad was duped. Oh, I'm sorry kid your mom is a slut and your dad isn't your bio-dad. Why should the duped "dad" have to subsidize a crime commited upon him?

Like healthcare, get the government out of the child support/family law business. They won't of course, as the state makes cash from child support and power from the control factors.

Besides, all of my arguments against this I think my most compelling is....
Do we really want to put the government in charge of something like this? I mean, they can't even get the DMV or USPS right.

Sabrina, exactly what is the govt in charge of? IF at birth, [which I don't care for as overkill] than the hospital performs the test with the other childhood tests. If it's a match, then OK, if not then not. The govt isn't involved other than mandating it... they don't have to keep records.

the better one is when child support or aid is applied for if a match, then a match, else, no support, and possible legal action for defrauding.

Other than mandating a match, the govt. doesn't have to do much...

Some people *gasp* have amicable seperations and figure it out on their own. It's uncommon, but it happens.

Posted by: ahw

Not any more, after all if the state doesnt moniter the transfer they cant charge fees.

My little brothers father had to pay a little over 225 a month, my mother got about 215, every month 10 bucks would disappear into various fees.

Neither one of them involved the state, it unilaterally took over in order to boilster(sp?) is "collection" statistics

That's not true everywhere, luj, not in Colo. unless one party demands it, usually after they don't get paid. but ahw, I think it's rarer than you think.

Why are all of you usually rather rational and anti-daddy-gov't people all of a sudden okay with the government having the DNA profile of every person in the country, basically? What exactly do you think they're going to do with that info? These people, who think it's fine to have fingers inserted into flyer's vaginas, are going to take that most personal of info about you and everyone else, and they are going to fuck you over with it.

Not long ago it was discovered Texas was keeping newborns bloodspot cards for research. So don't even fool yourself into thinking they'll test you and toss it.

Luj, if people get DNA profiles via gov't, then the gov't is going to be telling people "Don't hire him, he's a ticking timebomb" pretty soon. Or, since they're taking over medical care, they simply won't spend on you if your DNA shows any issues at all. You cool with that? YOu cool with being completely unable to get life insurance because of what the gov't DNA profile on you says? I'm not. Not at all.

I dont think the government should have any access at all to the info. Nor should insurance companies.

DNA tests for simple paternity dont take as long as he in deapth ines for genetic disease markers

Should be a fairly simple process these days, look at the blood types, if they dont match say something, if they do run a test for paternity only and mail/phone in the results to the parents and despose of the smaples

It is only a matter of time, just like outlawing all cell phone use while driving. Glenn Sacks and the great things they are doing will eventually convince a repub congress to mandate DNA testing at birth.

Sabrina said: "The men could also take some accountability for sleeping with a woman without using protection. I am not blaming victims of paternity fraud here but if you have sex with a woman without using a condom, you should very well expect that you could get her pregnant."

Are you serious in giving men all the blame for having unsafe sex that causes pregnancy? Are most men having sex with women who can't talk, move, see, or who don't have a brain to think on their own? Are you serious? Unbelievable comment.

I think any time a guy wants one, he should be allowed a paternity test. In a case where he is being asked to pay support, he should have the choice to either assume the kid is his and commit to supporting it, or have the test first. That way if he's already raised the kid for ten years and wishes to continue to do so, even if it's not his, he can. Or, if it turns out it's not his, he's off the hook. And we DEFINITELY need some serious form of punishment for those women who flat-out lie about it.

Great comment Daghain. I think that pretty well sums it up.

Mike,

I am NOT putting ALL the blame on the men in this situation. If you had read any of my previous comments you would actually know that. I think that women who commit paternity fraud should be punished and the current laws need to change to provide the victims (men in this case) more rights and legal protection.

My suggestion to men was just to be proactive about protecting yourself to limit your chances of being a paternity fraud victim, not placing blame. Since you were the one to bring up "accountability", I was just pointing out how men can also be jointly accountable for the intial pregnancy, not the fraud. Women do not hold the exclusive rights to premiscuous behaviour and birth control is not just the womens responsibility. If you didn't use protection while having sex with the woman who claims it's yours,(pulling out and her word that she can't get pregnant or is on the pill does not equate to protection) there is a possiblility that the baby is yours. Like I said, it's simple biology. If you don't want to be on the receiving end of that news thus opening yourself up to the possibility of having paternity fraud committed against you, put a condom on. Hold yourself accountable to YOUR behaviour prior to any babies coming into the picture and your chances of having a kid pinned on your are pretty slim.

Now, I am also mainly refering to men who are in a position of having multiple sexual partners. If the situation is such that the baby is a result of an affair, that's clearly a case where the women is a 100% wrong. And again, I support laws that would allow the man more rights should the fact come to light later during a child support dispute.

Dearly Beloved and I aren't going to have children, but if I was going to have a child with someone, I would insist on a paternity test (I'm a woman).

"I don't agree with the idea of mandatory DNA testing at birth. That feels like it's a slippery slope into violating the rights of peoples privacy."

Sabrina, whose privacy is being violated? The father is testing the paternity of his child, a minotr for whom he can make those decuisions, and the results are a comparison of his DNA and the child's. How is that violating anyone's privacy?

"I oppose having the paternity of my (hypothetial) child tested just because I got pregnant. "

The proposal is to allow your husband or boyfriend to check the paternity of his child, and to protect that right from all objections? What possible grounds are there to deny him that right?

" I was just pointing out how men can also be jointly accountable for the intial pregnancy, not the fraud."

Yes. But in this case, where he didn't sire the child, he is not the man responsible for that initial pregnancy, is he?

Sabrina, whose privacy is being violated? The father is testing the paternity of his child, a minotr for whom he can make those decuisions, and the results are a comparison of his DNA and the child's. How is that violating anyone's privacy?

Mine. If DNA tests become mandated by the govt, MY personal business (i.e. my hypothetical affair) becomes the govts business. It's not thier business. And the privacy minor child who *I* also have the right to make these decisions as the non disputed bio-mother. What concern is the paternity to anyone else but us?

"The proposal is to allow your husband or boyfriend to check the paternity of his child, and to protect that right from all objections? What possible grounds are there to deny him that right?"

My husband or boyfriend should have the right to question the paternity and request a test if they want one. At anytime. I don't object to that. I was objecting to someone else's suggestion that paternity testing become part of standard procedure at the childs birth mandated by the government. It should have NO government involvment unless there is a divorce or child support being requested from me and then the government involvement should be minimal. There are private doctors and clinics that can provide paternity tests for out of pocket cost to the person who requests the test. The father should also be allowed to request one at the hospital at the time of birth if he has doubts. If it comes back that he isn't the bio-father, then he should have protection against having to pay any support then or in the future and even pursue legal action against the mom if he finds out that his "son" isn't really his.

"Yes. But in this case, where he didn't sire the child, he is not the man responsible for that initial pregnancy, is he?"

Of course not, but he won't know that unless he gets the test. And even if he does find out that the DNA doesn't match, the court can still order him to pay child support. That's where the dilemma lies with the current laws and where I think it needs to change.

This is the kind of thing that si going on, and why there needs to be laws about this:
http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/06/03/true-story-woman-steals-ex-husbands-sperm-and-collects-almost-200000-in-back-child-support/

Here's there's more than enough to jail the woman on, starting with forgery. But the larger violation goes unaddressed.

Jim, that's just...wow... I don't even have words to express my disgust with that woman.