“That’s an entirely different question, and completely off the topic of what documentation should be sufficient to prove your child belongs to you.”
YOU SAID:
“You do realise they took children who were not pregnant, showing signs of abuse, or thrown out in the street.”
I SAID:
“If you had five children, and one of them had signs of abuse, do you think they would leave the other four?”
I think that my question is exactly on topic to your remark.
Yes, it was off-topic. In your previous response to my question about whether I need more than a birth certificate and marriage records, whether I would need DNA, you gave a specific list of transgressions which, if I was alleged to have done them, would require me to present DNA.
I corrected your perception that ALL of the kids seized met your criteria, and re-asked my question. That had nothing to do with the topic of why the kids were seized, it was noting that the question applied to people who did not meet your criteria.
You then responded with “If you had five children, and one of them had signs of abuse, do you think they would leave the other four?”
Which is completely off-topic. My original question had nothing to do with whether these kids should have been taken, it was about what proof you need that your kids are yours. Your first response said in some cases you would require DNA, so I noted that some kids didn’t meet your criteria and asked the question again.
Do you see now how, up to that point, we were still on the topic of “proof that the kids are yours”.
In my response I NEVER said anything about whether CPS should have taken the kids, I simply noted that some were taken who didn’t meet your criteria.
Therefore, your question in return, NOT about what evidence you need to prove parentage, but about whether the kids should be taken, was entirely off-topic.
But it is normal that no matter WHAT the question is, the pro-CPS folks always bring it back to “don’t you think the children needed to be saved”. I would guess because that is a comfortable question, and for some it allows them to feel superior, and to make up names and insults for those they are arguing with “Child Molester”, “Rape Enabler”, “FLDS defender”, “Polygamy Apologist”.
None of those make sense in response to a question about what proof a parent needs to have that their child is theirs. So you need to take the conversation back to “are you some nut who doesn’t think the kids needed to be saved?”