Another Paternity Fraud case.(30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men.)

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/23/2002 | By Kathy Boccella

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Legally, the courts will side the way of your argument.

Well, that's where I think that you are hearing a little more "me me me" than is actually going on here. The courts do not side with "my" side of the argument. As is illustrated above, they force the faithful man to subsidize his unfaithful wife. I could be wrong, but I believe that is what has ETH outraged.

After all -- Charity is a Moral Good;
...but Forced Charity is neither charity, nor a moral good.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

All the same, Merry Christ-mas season and my best to you and yours. God bless

[xrp]

No, I'm of Caucasian descent. I'm colorblind to race though, but not political blind. Anyone who is a conservative who believes in working hard, keeping what they earn for themselves and helping out their neighbor (and strangers) is a brother of mine.

I guess I could be a lady killer (my female friends tell me this) but I am pretty turned off by the rather fussy (polite word for another term used to describe women) women of the Atlanta metro area.

[SC Swamp Fox]

I know that you and I have agreed to disagree, but...

Legally, the courts will side the way of your argument.

But they haven't been! That is our problem!

The law currently makes the husband responsible for any child conceived during the marriage, regardless of paternity as determined by DNA testing. We want those laws changed, that is our whole point.

Morally, nothing will have changed. If it wasn't for these boneheaded laws turning men into nothing more than a welfare check dispenser, maybe more men would be willing to step up, and do the right thing with these children.

I think we agree, on the morals of this issue. The question is, what should the LAW be?

[Morrigan]

A man should not be forced to pay for a child that is not biologically his, so the law should be changed.

But the law should not be changed to require mandatory DNA tests because that is wrong. This is a society of "innocent until proven guilty" and to go against that is bucking that ideology.

If the father suspects the child may not be his, he should be allowed to request a DNA test--and as far as I know, one is allowed to do this, at least in my state. My husband did it to me.

This was back about five years ago, before we were married. He cheated on me and then left me for his ex. A week after he left, I discovered I was pregnant. At first, he didn't believe me. Then, he decided (upon prompting from his ex) that he didn't care. I gave birth to our firstborn son without him there. He didn't even see his own son until he was two months old.

His ex pressured him into making me take a DNA test. This really hurt me, and to this day, I have not gotten over it. I loved him with all my heart, and he stomped on that when he cheated and left me alone and pregnant. The worst part about it was that he would think I would have cheated myself--but, as is often the case, the real cheaters are the ones doing the accusing.

I will never forget the humiliation. Opening my mouth for the cotton swab, then helping the nurse swab my son.

It was a bad bit of business, but it did have a happy ending. We eventually worked out our problems, got married, and have a new beautiful baby girl. He was present for THAT birth. And there was no DNA test--there was no need for one.

Not all women do awful things like lying about the paternity of their children. It is wrong to punish the majority of women that KNOW who the father of their children is. For men to suggest that mandatory DNA testing should be practiced means they are thinking with their emotions (which is a thing I have seen many people opposed to on this thread).

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

For men to suggest that mandatory DNA testing should be practiced means they are thinking with their emotions (which is a thing I have seen many people opposed to on this thread).

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins.... H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Consider yourself the victor, okay?<<<

It's still hypocritical of you NOT to crusade for the release of rapists from prison, for the child's sake. I mean in paternity fraud cases, you put the kid's well-being over that of the NONbiological father. At least you saw fit to admit you're wrong though.

[waterstraat]

It seems hard to believe, but over and over again, when paterity tests are made, it is consistently 30%, whether married or not.

[SC Swamp Fox]

A man should not be forced to pay for a child that is not biologically his, so the law should be changed.

Thank you, Morrigan.

If the father suspects the child may not be his, he should be allowed to request a DNA test--and as far as I know, one is allowed to do this, at least in my state. My husband did it to me.

The reason your (now) husband could insist on a DNA test is because you were not married at the time. In most states, if you had requested public assistance, the state would have insisted that you name someone as the father so that they could try to re-coup the costs associated with prenatal care, labor & delivery, and aid to dependant children (welfare). If he challenged paternity, the state would have ordered a DNA test.

But the law should not be changed to require mandatory DNA tests

I agree, for a number of reasons.

[e_engineer]

DNA testing at birth is the way to go. Just mandate it, so the guy doesn't have to be the jerk to ask.

Paternity testing is not cheap. A quick google search found prices ranging from $240 to $500. As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for this for others, and I don't want to be forced into paying for this when I have no reason to doubt my wife.

[Brytani]

Goes to show just how far we've fallen as a society. 40 years ago a woman was shunned for having a child out of wedlock. It was unheard of to force good fathers out of the lives of their children.

Now single mothers are applauded and fully supported. Fathers are routinely thrown out of their children's lives. Look at our society, the reasons for the problems we face is quite obvious. Destroy the family, destroy society.

[Brytani]

You're already paying for it. Everytime a woman goes to and files for child support who's unmarried a DNA test is ordered (unless the man says he's the father) even if it takes 3,4,10 tests to find "Daddy" the tax payers pick up the tab.

[Morrigan]

The way it all went down was, I got a lawyer to sue for child support (which my son was entitled to, IMHO), and his lawyer requested a DNA test...so it was done. I may have been able to fight that, but I was okay with it--after all, I had nothing to hide.

[dogbyte12]

Paternity testing is not cheap. A quick google search found prices ranging from $240 to $500. As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for this for others, and I don't want to be forced into paying for this when I have no reason to doubt my wife.

This happens to be about the size of one month's welfare check as well. You are paying and paying for the real father not being produced at birth. Especially for people on public assistance, this is important. If they want subsidized medical care when giving birth, they need to give up the father's name, in case the dear boy actually does get a job in the future, and can help support the lad or lass instead of the state.

This $250 per child, will save more money than it costs.

[SC Swamp Fox]

re: 308

Well said.

[Morrigan]

I agree with you to an extent, but many men nowadays are irresponsible and immature, so they leave the women they impregnate to fend for themselves and their children. I think that women that DO provide for themselves and their kids on their own should be applauded...after all, I was prepared to do it. I could have gotten an abortion, but I am totally against that. I decided that, come hell or high water, whether my son's father was there or not, I was going to provide for us and give him the home he deserved...and I don't really see anything wrong with that.

And the money for the DNA test actually came out of Daddy's pocket--since he was the one that wanted it. As far as I know, the state and taxpayers only pick up the tab when welfare is involved....otherwise the cost of the paternity test is on the parents.

[SC Swamp Fox]

Oops. 308=311

[Brytani]

I know of no state that does not pick up the tab for paternity testing when the mother goes through the state to collect child support. Going through a private attorney is probably different. Still, I fully understand why a man would demand a DNA test when faced with support papers. After all, look how many men find out years later (and these are married men) that the child they though was theres is not.

As for irresponsibility, I find a woman who has sex with a man out-of-wedlock and then becomes pregnant is just as irresponsible as the man. Children fair much worse without the stability of a two parent family. To give them less then that is irresponsible.

Simply put, being prepared to care for a child is not the same as being prepared to have a child in a stable, secure marriage where the child has two parents to look up to and grow up with. I do not support or applaud women who get pregnant out of wedlock as they do a disservice to the child. I am thankful that there are many who make that irresponsible decision and do not expect the tax-payers to pay for their decision. I just find their actions to be selfish, self-serving and damaging to society in general.

[Morrigan]

Good point, but it does take two to tango...:)

I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with women that are deserted and raise their children right on their own. One cannot see the future. I had no inkling my son's father was going to leave me. I expected that we would be married....which we were, eventually. I was on birth control when I got pregnant, so it isn't like I did it on purpose:) Sometimes accidents happen, and people need to be prepared to deal with them.

[BuddhaBoy]

If DNA testing were mandatory, you would not have had to be humiliated.