Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a classic swindle. You frame it as a search of the mother. The test is between the child and the father. It has nothing to do with the mother except by implication. Is he the father or not? The mother is not tested. She contributes nothing.
I am doing no such thing. Mandatory -- and therefore often involuntary -- testing is a violation of the Constitutional rights of the person being tested, regardless of who it is.
I am doing no such thing. Mandatory -- and therefore often involuntary -- testing is a violation of the Constitutional rights of the person being tested, regardless of who it is.
A blood test or a wristband is not a violation of constitutional rights. My drivers license identifies me.
If a woman wants to divorce and a man does not, or the other way around, the courts can certainly force that.
If a man wants a paternity test and a woman does not, the courts can certainly force that. What I am saying is that where neither party wants a test or a legal proceeding, the courts don't force it, nor should they.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
You are assuming that these men want to be non-custodial.
The overwhelming majority of custody cases are amicably resolved in a way that gives the mother physical custody. In contested custody cases (which are a small proportion of all custody cases), men are actually more likely than women to win. In any event, whatever your hypothetical men want, the fact remains that non-custodial parents usually get the better end of the deal in both financial and labor terms.
A blood test or a wristband is not a violation of constitutional rights. My drivers license identifies me.
A blood test is not the same as a wristband -- and without a solid legal reason specific to the party who is forced to undergo the blood test against his will (or against the will of his guardian), a blood test clearly violates the Constitution. The US Constitution, that is. I don't know about the UK.
That's the possible dad's fault. He just has to deal with it. He shouldn't have done the nasty with a woman who was going through "a really wild phase."
Funny, I say the same thing to men who want to get out of child support and say things like, "But we used a condom," "But I told her I don't want a kid," and "But she said she'd get an abortion--why is it legal for her to change her mind?"
A subpoena shows up at your house. A woman claims you are the father of her child, but you never slept with her. Maybe you don't even know her. This is due to a mistake, a prank, the cruel machinations of a disturbed woman, whatever. You can't prove you didn't sleep with her, so you have to be tested or go to jail. Worse, your wife is angry and doesn't believe that you never slept with the other woman (you still can't prove you didn't), and so she files for divorce.
Quite frankly I agree with you. All men should have a discussion at some point during the early stages of the relationship about their standards & expectations and what happens if/when the woman doesn't measure up. One of my bullet points is I ever get married I'll have to get a prenup and if a child is born a paternity test will be required. So long as they're reasonable statements and (more importantly) delivered correctly, no reasonable person will take issue with them.
If a woman barks about a prenup or paternity test and tries to pull the trust card then you know you generally cannot trust them since they want you to trust but not verify. That violates the new social bargain between genders. It used to be understood that an any children born to a married couple were automatically that of the husbands. To reinforce this point, back in that system those kids were essentially considered to be his property and as such automatically went to him in the case of divorce. Things have changed drastically since those days and the new social rules are changing in response, hence trust but verify. This is one of the unintended consequences women will have to deal with in growing numbers as time marches on.
Uhm, this is confusing. So what you are saying is you wouldn't mind your wife having a kid with some other guy as long as that kid was considered your property and you got to keep him in the divorce? Oo-kay.
As for the prenup, it's just an ego booster. That's what everyone says about how a reasonable woman is just supposed to sign whatever is put in front of her -- until their fiance hires an attorney and presents her own draft of the prenup Then all of a sudden it's like "Waaaa, the prenup is perfect the way I drafted it, why don't you trust me? Why would you go out and hire a LAWYER? Whaaaa! "
Well, think of it this way: most non-custodial parents (who are mostly men) who really are biological parents of their children, pay only a small portion of the costs of raising those children, do no child care, but get to make decisions that the mother alone has to deal with.
Awesome! Glad to see you support shared parenting laws that would force 50/50 custody in the absence of mitigating factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
If a man wants a paternity test and a woman does not, the courts can certainly force that. What I am saying is that where neither party wants a test or a legal proceeding, the courts don't force it, nor should they.
Absolutely they should! Kids have the right to know the people they call mom and dad are actually theirs. More than that the parents should know as well at a bare minimum. What happens when something medical happens and bloodlines are critical? Hmm..?
Frankly, gwynedd, it's not up to you to allow me or disallow me anything. That you don't want to argue those points is understandable, but it's not enough to eliminate them from the equation. One person's "looming social condundrums" (condundra?) are another person's cherished Constitutional liberties -- though of course I don't know what the situation is with that in the UK.
Hi Redisca,
Not if I need to participate. I don't need to address irrelevance. Its up to you to make an argument that identifying parents, something done every day from maternity to preschool, is not common or problematic. If I write on the log to pick up my son, it could track my location. You could argue that is a violation of my civil rights. It would be stupid, but you could. I'll ignore that too.
Quote:
The "simple test" you are talking about isn't designed to prevent accidental switching of babies -- wrist bands already do that, and they are much better suited to the purpose than a DNA test for reasons that I already stated above in my response to Julia. Rather, as many posters have demonstrated here, the purpose of paternity testing is utterly different, and the idea of mandatory testing is wrong for all the reasons I have enumerated.
Another trick. See how you change switching father to switching babies? Its a systematical gimmick. Its about identifying the father. That is the purpose.
That's clearly not a legal definition of a patient. A patient is someone who is receiving medical treatment. Having a tissue sample taken for purely legal purposes doesn't qualify.
Very well, I'll run down my list of qualifications for you. I am a litigator with nearly a decade of experience in two of the busiest jurisdictions in this country. (If you don't know what "litigation" is, please look it up. I'm not not going to explain it for you.) For the most part, I defend doctors and hospitals in medical malpractice suits, most of which allege, at least in part, a lack of informed consent; I also represent hospitals in state proceedings when the government seeks to either obtain records or perform tests without the consent of the patient. Therefore, I am well-versed in such issues as the doctor-patient relationship, the constitutionality of involuntary testing, all the aspects of informed consent, and the implications of procedures performed for legal, rather than medical, reasons. I am also a published author, with an article in a scholarly law journal which examines in detail the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in light of modern technological advancements, so I am thoroughly versed in those issues as well. (And no, I will not give the citation to the article just to prove that it exists. Judging by your posts, I doubt you have sufficient interest in legal issues to actually read it for its content, and thus the only effect of me citing to the article would be to reveal my identity, which I don't want to do for reasons that should be obvious.) With respect to divorce and child custody -- it's not my bread and butter, but I HAVE been involved in matrimonial and custody litigation at the appellate stage and on peripheral issues, so I am competent in that area as well. I've handled two major matrimonial litigations that were quite complicated. Incidentally, in both of those cases, I represented the husbands, and I've done very well for them.
And now, I would appreciate it if you reciprocate. What exactly are YOUR qualifications as a purported "expert" on this topic? I mean, other than the fact that you are a man and therefore superior by definition, or that you "care" about these issues. Regale us, if you will, with your actual credentials.
Isn't it given that I am the superior being as a man? (No... I'm not serious... lol) But neither did I purport myself to be an 'expert' in the topic with statements that I must be superior because I am a lawyer... I just merely contested the arguments riddled with fallacies and illogical arguments.
As to having been published in a journal... it is far from uncommon for anyone with a professional degree to have written an article or two for a scholarly journal. But I digress... we're getting too far from the issue.
The issue is this:
A man and wife are married. The man trusts his wife completely. She has a child. Years pass. The wife decides to divorce her husband and during the proceedings it is discovered that the child is not biologically related to the man. The man then has to make child support payments, minimally until the child is 18, even though he is not the father.
How do you protect the man? Since the reverse of this simply cannot occur... a man cannot have a child and have the wife think it is hers unknowingly... please don't attempt to reverse it. Ignore non-issues such as cost and DNA database storage.
The husband has no reason to ask for a paternity test at birth, yet is on the hook for child support for a non-biological child if he does not.
There are two possible solutions (paternity testing mandatory in each case):
1. Determine paternity at the time of the divorce, and change the laws to release him completely from having to pay any child support.
2. Determine paternity at the time of the birth.
The end result is basically the same, the non-biological father does not have to pay child support. The difference is how long he potentially has to spend parenting a child that is not his own. Would it not be more fair to the non-biological father to determine paternity at birth?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oo-kay.
Then all of a sudden it's like "Waaaa, the prenup is perfect the way I drafted it, why don't you trust me? Why would you go out and hire a LAWYER? Whaaaa! 
