[kaylar]

Do they still take footprints and handprints of newborns? I think they used to, to prevent mixups, as all newborns look pretty much alike. Could those prints even possibly be used to confirm identity of an older child or adult? And if so, who is keeping the print records?

That's a little far fetched, I know, and of course DNA is more reliable that a print. But this reminds me of a discussion that was running on FR re:men paying CS for children conceived in adultery. It was suggested that there be mandatory DNA testing of all newborns, but the father did not HAVE to see the results unless he wanted to. Hmmmmmm.....There's an angle that just might be exploitable....

[Poohbah]

Do they still take footprints and handprints of newborns? I think they used to, to prevent mixups, as all newborns look pretty much alike. Could those prints even possibly be used to confirm identity of an older child or adult? And if so, who is keeping the print records?

The separate states keep the records per their own laws.

And those prints have been used to confirm the identities of children abducted by their parents in custody disputes, IIRC. Not sure if they can ID an adult from them.

[Black Agnes]

DNA is *not* more reliable than a fingerprint. It's actually easy to duplicate DNA and if you like, plant it wherever you want. The 'kit', PCR, costs about $40. It copies small quantities of DNA like a xerox machine in order to get enough to sequence. It's used in biology labs all the time. This is a money making opportunity waiting to happen for some enterprising med-tech at a medical laboratory.