Replies

There are many good reasons why DNA tests should not be the be-all and end-all of proof of paternity and obligations of paternal support.

Ok. Where's the list of reasons? And please confine it to items relevant to the issue at hand. Don't clutter it with references to situations where someone has acted as a father to a child for a significant period of time.

With all due respect, the situation where someone has acted as a father to a child for a significant amount of time >are< the main reason why we don't want DNA tests to be the alpha and omega of paternity determinations.

Protecting both parents, and children, with regard to long-standing established family relationships is a very important value. Should women be able to steal away a man's children, denying him not only custody, but visitation or any involvement, because SHE cheated on him years back? Should a man, in a fit of pique because his wife was untrue years back, be entitled to abandon his children and put the cost of their support on the state? Should grandparents be subject to the indignity of blood tests and allow total strangers with a closer biological tie to take away their grandchildren when the mother and apparent father are killed in a car accident?

When there is no family relationship and the only grounds on which paternity can be asserted are biological, then, in that case, of course, DNA is determative.

Where's the list of reasons? And please confine it to items relevant to the issue at hand. Don't clutter it with references to situations where someone has acted as a father to a child for a significant period of time.

Part of the reason, has been the ABA fighting with extreme vigilance to oppose use of DNA tests to eliminate somone as the father. This viligance is strong that involves not just the local california bar, but also from the national level, with and including threats against democrats to withold campaign donations. (this is a big deal for them, to put it nicely, they don't fight for causes with this kind of use of force normally).

To soft sell this to the public, they have slanted it. Now it becomes, what if somone, knows that this is not there child and yet has raised them for 15 years, and decides to up and leave, then what? or What if the mans wife cheated, had a child, but the husband forgave her, he could use the child not being his as leverage till the child is 18. What if the mother is the victim of a rape, and 5 years later there is a divorce?

If you notice, its alot of populism slants, and mention of the real father is always very limited or non-existant. The reality is, is that the real father should pay, and also be obligated to back pay child support since they weren't there in the first place. In other cases, if the man knows this isn't his child, he should then either acknowledge or not what his future obligations should be.