Mamma's baby, Poppa's maybe not: Paternity fraud

I said it was simple but of course I know its not really.
1. Best interests of the child
2. best interests of the custodial
3. best intrests of the noncustodial.

Boomer I think you try too hard to cover all the bases with one rule.

I if a kid has a male role model in his life and that person is a suitable person is a willing parent and provider than I cant see any decent judge ruling for a bio who hasnt previously been "on the scene".

0 Replies

For the first time in my life, I am completely speechless. There are so many ramifications of this issue, that right now, I have no idea as to where to start to sort this out. I will think about it, and return.

Where is King Solomon when you need him?

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

For the first time in my life, I am completely speechless. There are so many ramifications of this issue, that right now, I have no idea as to where to start to sort this out. I will think about it, and return.

Where is King Solomon when you need him?

Screwing one of his hundreds of concubines in heaven, I suppose...and making babies.

Wonder how many were actually his?

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

a couple separate. The wife has majority custody. The wife requests child support. The state performs a DNA test as a matter of course.

If he is not the biological father he does'nt have to pay child financial support. If he wishes to he may continue to provide parenting support.

I think its pretty simple

So do I. Where should the continued support come from? From the biological father of course.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I think that if two people are married and agree to have children, then where is the fraud if the husband is not the biological father? He wanted to be with his wife and they both wanted kids, right?

The fraud is because it is implicit in the comcept of marriage that the child would be HIS biological off-spring. For many of us, the marriage vows includes a line in there about "...to forsake all others...".

I don't think you'll find many relationships where a guy expects his wife to go out and get knocked up by someone else - and in the few casses where that might happen, the guy is usually aware of what she is doing.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

My question: shouldn't the name that appears on the birth certificate carry some kind of legal weight?

This is the problem that the proposed laws are attempting to deal with. If the man's name on the birth certificate is the woman's spouse then there is no DNA test, no chance to prove you aren't the father, etc.. The total legal presumption is that the male spouse IS the father - no questions asked. The problam with this is that, within a marriage, the man has absolutely no choice in the matter.

If the man's name on the certificate ISN'T the spouse then he has the opportunity to have a DNA test and prove that he isn't the father.

The simple answer (to me anyway) seems to be that there should be mandatory DNA testing performed on every child born and paternity proven. If the man finds that the child his wiife just gave birth to isn't his then he'd have the opportunity to decide if he wants to make an emotional investment in the child or if he wants to give her the heave-ho. Set a time limit of 6 months for him to file for divorce or whatever. There would also be no crushing impact on a 5 or 10 year old who's parents divorce and they find their "father" ripped away from them.

Let the biological father shell out the child support. If you don't want to pay then you don't play...

0 Replies

fishin'- So far, your idea makes the most sense to me. The only way that it would work though, would be if it was a matter of routine, and ALL babies and fathers were tested. If it were an option, I could imagine a lot of emotional scenarios where mothers were upset that their husbands even considered that the child might not be his.

Another thing. Who would pay for the test? The parents? The health insurance companies? Would DNA testing become part of maternity benefits in health insurance plans?

I found a site that offers DNA testing for 99 bucks, so it looks like the testing is not inordinately expensive.

http://www.gtldna.com/

Then there is another possibility. If a father did not want to have his DNA tested, he could sign a waiver that he is the legal father of the child, no matter what. I don't know how that would play out if a biological father came along later, and sued for custody.

This is one complicated issue!

0 Replies

Phoenix - I would make it a mandatory test. It should be run the day the child is born just like lots of other tests are. I wouldn't give the parents any option in this. That would eliminate the possibility of any "You don't trust me!" comments from the mothers.

I wouldn't even offer any possibility of a waiver. If it's out there it becomes a test. Then you open the door for manipulative women who would use the "If you really loved me you'd just sign the waiver..." line. 6 years later the guy finds out that he never should have trusted her.

The same DNA test could be used to look for any congenital diseases/conditions. I'd think insurance companies would be happy to pay for it. Insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny anyone coverage based on the results but it could get a lot of infants immediate care that they otherwise might not get for a few years when it might be to late to reverse or control a condition.

0 Replies

That makes sense to me. I bet it would be extremely difficult to make sure it happens -- universal hearing screening is a no-brainer that went into effect many years ago and still is far, far from "universal." So I don't know about the practical aspects, but as a concept, I like it.

Assuming that it (paternity testing) really became universal, it could also serve as a deterrent amongst that small percentage of women who are either knowingly deceiving the presumptive father.

I do have a few concerns. One is that a woman genuinely believes that a certain man is the father for whatever reason and decides to have the baby only because he'll be there to support her (not just financially). Then it turns out that he's not the biodad and he leaves...

Another is, DNA testing still isn't absolutely 100% accurate, is it? (Found this, explains some of why the answer is "no.") It shows greater or lesser likelihood but it's not always a slam dunk, I don't think (another site I found went into that aspect more -- "even if it's 99% likely, it doesn't mean you're really the dad" but seemed quackish, can investigate more if need be). So what of the people who get a wrong or inconclusive result, in either direction...?

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

The total legal presumption is that the male spouse IS the father - no questions asked. The problam with this is that, within a marriage, the man has absolutely no choice in the matter.

If the man's name on the certificate ISN'T the spouse then he has the opportunity to have a DNA test and prove that he isn't the father.

Isn't there any possibilty to change that?

Here, you can't get a DNA-test when you "just want to be sure".
However, family judges order a test, when e.g. you can prove (with witnesses) that you weren't together with the mother around the date of the procreation. that you are impotent, that you didn't have any sexual contact with the mother of the child ...

More/different is still in (parliamentary) discussion - the above is based on older law and decissions of the Federal Court from 2006.
We will get the new "genetic diagnostic law" some time finally.
(Main discussion was about if such test are allowed to be done secretely: no, because it's against our constituion.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Boomer I think you try too hard to cover all the bases with one rule.

In America's state courts the first rule made will typically be applied to all future cases. This is really something that has to be done on a case by case basis -- meaning there are no rules. It is really uncharted territory.

I'm also trying to play devil's advocate a bit by looking for holes in possible solutions.

I think fishin's plan is workable but I can see a lot of people saying that they believe DNA testing is an invasion of their privacy - a Constitutionally protected right. What then?

One Oregon law that I am well aquainted with is the little used Psychological Parent Provision which says that if you have relationship with a child in which you act as the child's parents and the child believes you to be his parent that you have the rights and responsibilites of a parent/child. You aren't a legal parent/child -- not until an adoption takes place -- but for all practical and emotional purposes you are a parent/child team.

Considering this law -- couldn't a "psychological parent" be held responsible for the child's care?

0 Replies

I favor manditory DNA testing as being in the best interests of all concerned.

I have a great deal of compassion for a man who can't afford a child of his own because he's paying for the cuckoo in the nest.

Of course the first Mr. Noddy was a good bit of a bully and used to amuse himself by loudly doubting the paternity of our children--usually when he wanted to spend a great deal of money on himself. The next day he'd allow as how he didn't really mean it, but I...they...I had made him so angry!

0 Replies

I think the problem there is if the person becomes a psychological parent under false pretenses. Like, woman has multiple partners, chooses the one she thinks will be the best parent and tells him he's the dad (even though she knows he isn't or strongly suspects), he accepts that (doesn't know there are other possible dads), is the caretaker for a while, and then finds out that he's not the biological dad.

I think these rules, whatever they are, should be child-centric -- what is in the best interests of the child. But I do worry about the resulting rules leaving space for men to be unfairly taken advantage of.

I read up a bit more about DNA testing and one stat was 28% inaccuracy -- if that was done universally, that would create a whole lot of chaos. Several places indicated that it's not 100%. It seems like it would have to be a lot more foolproof for that method to be viable, large-scale, even putting aside the constitutional issues. (They do blood testing at birth already, along with hearing screening, so not sure about the privacy angle, I see what you mean though.)

What I really like about fishin's idea is that it makes the determination when the baby is still teeny, though of course the repercussions could take a while to play out. Ideally it would be shortly after conception, probably, which I understand is possible but risky. But it would be great if a baby could be born into the family (bio or otherwise) that he or she will stay with for the rest of their lives.

0 Replies

There was an article just the other day about being able to avoid dna testing in utero, that you could test some (factors?) in the mother's blood. I'm not sure if I saved it, will look.

0 Replies

http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/tb/4991

The article is about detecting down's syndrome, but the methodology looks interesting. Perhaps it would be hard to get enough fetal dna in the mother's blood sample to test...

Here are the relevant paragraphs -

The test used the small amounts of fetal DNA that cross the placenta and circulate in the mother's blood plasma. The researchers discovered a way to distinguish maternal from fetal free DNA by measuring the ratio of alleles at the site of single nucleotide polymorphisms on different chromosomes.

Current screening tests for Down's syndrome, such as such as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, have a small but real risk of miscarriage. Amniocentesis is generally done at 15 to 18 weeks. Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) is done at 10 to 12 weeks.

"Development of non-invasive tests that yield diagnostic results would be a useful advancement in prenatal care," Dr. Dhallan and colleagues said. "Venipunctures are done routinely in clinical settings and present little risk to the mother and fetus."

Their results are promising and open a new era in prenatal diagnosis though they need to be replicated in a larger trial, according to an editorial by Alexandra Benachi, M.D., of the Université Paris-Descartes in Paris, and Jean-Marc Costa, Ph.D., of the Hôpital Américain de Paris in Neuilly, France.

Compared with amniocentesis or newborn reports from the clinical sites, the blood test results were accurate for 58 of 60 samples, including two correctly identified cases of trisomy 21. However, there was one false positive and one false negative.

end/quote

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

fishin wrote:
The total legal presumption is that the male spouse IS the father - no questions asked. The problam with this is that, within a marriage, the man has absolutely no choice in the matter.

If the man's name on the certificate ISN'T the spouse then he has the opportunity to have a DNA test and prove that he isn't the father.

Isn't there any possibilty to change that?

Here, you can't get a DNA-test when you "just want to be sure".
However, family judges order a test, when e.g. you can prove (with witnesses) that you weren't together with the mother around the date of the procreation. that you are impotent, that you didn't have any sexual contact with the mother of the child ...

Sure! The laws could be changed. That leaves us with the question of "What do we change them to??" The laws, no matter how well written are going to end up with a presumption one way or another and, IMO, the child support laws are going to default to that presumption.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I think that if two people are married and agree to have children, then where is the fraud if the husband is not the biological father? He wanted to be with his wife and they both wanted kids, right?

If your husband gets another woman pregnant, and then brings this child into your house to raise as your own... would you feel the same way?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I think that if two people are married and agree to have children, then where is the fraud if the husband is not the biological father? He wanted to be with his wife and they both wanted kids, right?

If your husband gets another woman pregnant, and then brings this child into your house to raise as your own... would you feel the same way?

That would be totally different situation - at least here - since the child's mother had to agree to an adoption.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I read up a bit more about DNA testing and one stat was 28% inaccuracy -- if that was done universally, that would create a whole lot of chaos. Several places indicated that it's not 100%. It seems like it would have to be a lot more foolproof for that method to be viable, large-scale, even putting aside the constitutional issues. (They do blood testing at birth already, along with hearing screening, so not sure about the privacy angle, I see what you mean though.)

I think there are a few ways of dealing with teh innaccuracies in DNA testing. The first is to realize that With DNA testing it is easier to prove a negative than a positive. i.e. it may not be possible to exclude someone as a father but it is fairly easy to detect if they shouldn't be included in the pool of posisbles.

Most labs, from my understanding, also check 8 to 10 markers. That could be increased to 15 or 20 or 40. The more makers required for a match the more accuarte the test becomes.

Some of the other issues mentioned in the article you linked earlier could be controlled for too. Tests could be sent to multiple labs and results could be compared for example. If 2 labs come back with positives and one with a negative then something is wrong and tests need to be re-done.

There is no reason tests can't be done to a 99.99% accuracy level right now. We have had reports in recent years that up to as many as 30% of the population wasn't fathered by the person they thought of as their biological parent. Testing would shrink that number quickly.

We should also remember that the guys that are getting hit with child support for kids that aren't their's are all using DNA evidence right now. The courts are accepting their evidence and recognizing that they aren't the biological father. They just decide that the facts aren't relevant and the "needs of the child" outweigh the facts.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Most labs, from my understanding, also check 8 to 10 markers. That could be increased to 15 or 20 or 40. The more makers required for a match the more accuarte the test becomes.

15 is the minimum here when ordered by courts - nearly all labs do more .... for about $220.

0 Replies

Mamma's baby, Poppa's maybe not: Paternity fraud

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know