Mandatory Paternity Testing (straight, married, women, single)

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU

It should regulate it for the obvious reason that I stated (preventing exorbitant prices).

There is no precedent for this. The government doesn't regulate procedure prices to prevent exorbitant fees now, there is no reason why it would do that in the future. Constitutionally speaking, price regulation is extremely risky and hasn't been done on any appreciable scale since the Great Depression (and even then, the government had to battle its way through numerous lawsuits, with little success). If it does keep prices low by law, labs just will not do it -- and there is no way the government can force a lab to provide testing that it doesn't want to provide.

Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU

His beliefs have no context for my statement. Braunwyn's however do.

Braunwyn's comment was addressed to Nutz. It pointed out his hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU

The system already does that... it just doesn't mandate a paternity test to have the father placed on the birth certificate. If the father really wants to have his name on the certificate and she does does not... he can take the same path that is currently in place with such custody battles.

Actually, no. See, under your scheme, the presumption is that you are not the father, until it's proven that you are. Since you are not the father, you have no standing to bring any lawsuit for visitation, custody, or, the way I see it, even for a paternity test. Being presumed that you are the father gives you much broader access to courts with respect to the kid, including to disestablish your paternity. In fact, since you are presumed to be the father, quite frankly you don't even need to take the mother to court to obtain testing, as long as you still have access to the kid. As the presumptive, legal parent, you can just consent for your kid to give a DNA sample. However, if the kid's father is presumed to be unknown, the mother would be the only person to consent to the testing -- and the mere fact that the father needs the test because he wants his name on the birth certificate wouldn't be enough to override her guardianship of the kid. The government generally does not step in in loco parentis unless it's a matter of life and death.

[Nutz76]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

The flip side is the father cannot claim rights to the child in a divorce if his name isn't on the birth certificate. Personally, I'd be fine with no father listed on the birth certificate. That way, if there is a divorce, I can just take my kids and leave. No visitation schedule or anything and my next husband can be their father. (If we, as a matter of routine, fail to put a father's name on the birth certificate, we are making fathers replacable. Any man wiill do.)

Works for me.

In such a system if a man believes he's the father and wants to assert his rights as such then he can go to court and request a paternity test. I think that's already the case actually. A guy doesn't have to be named by the mother to elect to claim paternity. If they want to then they need to be tested and prove their claim. The entire idea of mandatory testing just flips this in reverse so when men are nominated by the mothers then they also need to be tested if the claim is to be acknowledged and legitimized.

All I'm looking for in terms of mandatory testing is that men cannot be held accountable for a child that may not be theirs merely because the mother says so. I think I offered a solid solution: no name be entered onto a child's birth certificate without a positive paternity test. If a woman wants claim a man is the father then a paternity test gets issued by the court. If a man wants to claim the child as his then a paternity test gets issued by the court. This seems like a great solution that prevents men and children getting caught up in a woman's lies all on her say so.

And yes, I do think we should go one step further that if the paternity is in question that the mother be required by law to disclose this. If she does not and the child is later found not to be the man's child then she should be charged with fraud or attempted fraud.

[RowingMunkeyCU]

Originally Posted by Redisca

There is no precedent for this. The government doesn't regulate procedure prices to prevent exorbitant fees now, there is no reason why it would do that in the future. Constitutionally speaking, price regulation is extremely risky and hasn't been done on any appreciable scale since the Great Depression (and even then, the government had to battle its way through numerous lawsuits, with little success). If it does keep prices low by law, labs just will not do it -- and there is no way the government can force a lab to provide testing that it doesn't want to provide.

Just because there is no precedent does not mean one cannot be set. How do you think they (legal precedent in general) came about in the first place? Price regulation still takes place... take for example the regulation of milk prices. Granted, it has been greatly contested, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it hasn't been effective. I'm not saying for labs to take a loss on the test, just to regulate the profit... dairy farmers haven't all just decided to go raise beef cattle instead. Labs wouldn't either. If they did decide to take such action (or rather inaction), the government is also able to put pressure on the labs until they comply (don't think it doesn't already happen).

Braunwyn's comment was addressed to Nutz. It pointed out his hypocrisy.

Sure, it points out his hypocrisy, but in the meantime she also implies (accidentally) that women are brainless.

Actually, no. See, under your scheme, the presumption is that you are not the father, until it's proven that you are. Since you are not the father, you have no standing to bring any lawsuit for visitation, custody, or, the way I see it, even for a paternity test. Being presumed that you are the father gives you much broader access to courts with respect to the kid, including to disestablish your paternity. In fact, since you are presumed to be the father, quite frankly you don't even need to take the mother to court to obtain testing, as long as you still have access to the kid. As the presumptive, legal parent, you can just consent for your kid to give a DNA sample. However, if the kid's father is presumed to be unknown, the mother would be the only person to consent to the testing -- and the mere fact that the father needs the test because he wants his name on the birth certificate wouldn't be enough to override her guardianship of the kid. The government generally does not step in in loco parentis unless it's a matter of life and death.

While it may vary from state to state, in general, if a couple isn't married when a child is born (additional cases exist that take into account the timing of conception), the presumed father is not the legal father until further action is taken. If the mother does not wish for the presumed father to be declared the legal father (and he does wish to be declared the legal father) then they will be heading to court.

That process wouldn't change if they were to require a paternity test to name a father on the birth certificate.

Edit: Nutz covered the last bit of what I said.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

The flip side is the father cannot claim rights to the child in a divorce if his name isn't on the birth certificate. Personally, I'd be fine with no father listed on the birth certificate. That way, if there is a divorce, I can just take my kids and leave. No visitation schedule or anything and my next husband can be their father. (If we, as a matter of routine, fail to put a father's name on the birth certificate, we are making fathers replacable. Any man wiill do.)

Works for me.

That happens in a lot of cases anyway. Why am I not surprised that you would endorse this?

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU

Just because there is no precedent does not mean one cannot be set. How do you think they (legal precedent in general) came about in the first place?

I think legal precedent is established following rules that were in existence before. It's actually a very complex question. Suffice it to say, to claim that you set up a precedent by just starting to do something that's never been done before is extremely simplistic and wrong. There is a reason it's never been done before. And the reason is that it's mostly unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU

Price regulation still takes place... take for example the regulation of milk prices. Granted, it has been greatly contested, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that it hasn't been effective. I'm not saying for labs to take a loss on the test, just to regulate the profit... dairy farmers haven't all just decided to go raise beef cattle instead. Labs wouldn't either. If they did decide to take such action (or rather inaction), the government is also able to put pressure on the labs until they comply (don't think it doesn't already happen).

The regulation of dairy prices comes with subsidies -- as in, the government gives dairy farmers money. That money comes from taxpayers. That's how the government is able to get away with regulating dairy prices. I don't want the government to subsidize labs on this; I don't want my tax money going to pay for other people's insecurities, but mostly, to further erode Americans' privacy rights. Without subsidies, there is no way to force labs to perform testing when they can shift to more lucrative (and unregulated) procedures or to impose a regulatory scheme that the courts won't toss in about 10 seconds.

Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU

Sure, it points out his hypocrisy, but in the meantime she also implies (accidentally) that women are brainless.

She did no such thing. And I maintain that for someone who believes that women are brainless to demand that they take responsibility and to talk about them entering into contracts is the height of hypocrisy. So are his efforts to take advantage of people that he considers mentally deficient, then hold them responsible for the consequences.

Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU

While it may vary from state to state, in general, if a couple isn't married when a child is born (additional cases exist that take into account the timing of conception), the presumed father is not the legal father until further action is taken. If the mother does not wish for the presumed father to be declared the legal father (and he does wish to be declared the legal father) then they will be heading to court.

The fact remains that if there is no presumption of fatherhood, just getting the DNA test done will be a lot harder for the man than if he was presumed to be the father.

Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU

That process wouldn't change if they were to require a paternity test to name a father on the birth certificate.

In that case, pretty much every women who was self-supporting (which is the vast majority of women) would be well-advised not to consent for the kid to be DNA tested and keep the father as "unknown" on the birth certificate. (Trust me, having sole custody and no visitation for the guy saves a lot more money than the kid would get in child support in most cases, anyway.) That would lead to a myriad lawsuits between spouses, most of which would culminate in divorces.

[littleman123456]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

Me too. It would be like my having to take a lie detector test to prove I didn't rob a bank when I did nothing to make anyone suspect I robbed a bank. At least have some suspician that I did something before you start demanding I prove m innocence.

oh so true

[ColdRedRain]

rates that already exists, in fields that are the "seller's market" (such as autism-related services),

Off topic, but I have to agree. Autism related stuff sells like hotcakes these days. It's time parents stop buying autism related stuff to make their children's lives "easier" and instead prepare their children for the real world by teaching them social and coping skills that ordinarially wouldn't come naturally to those of us with Autism.

[RowingMunkeyCU]

Originally Posted by Redisca

She did no such thing. And I maintain that for someone who believes that women are brainless to demand that they take responsibility and to talk about them entering into contracts is the height of hypocrisy. So are his efforts to take advantage of people that he considers mentally deficient, then hold them responsible for the consequences.

Just because he believes something does not make it true... it just makes his behavior morally questionable.

The fact remains that if there is no presumption of fatherhood, just getting the DNA test done will be a lot harder for the man than if he was presumed to be the father.

There would still be the presumption of fatherhood... just not the legal status behind it. Just as it is today.

In that case, pretty much every women who was self-supporting (which is the vast majority of women) would be well-advised not to consent for the kid to be DNA tested and keep the father as "unknown" on the birth certificate. (Trust me, having sole custody and no visitation for the guy saves a lot more money than the kid would get in child support in most cases, anyway.) That would lead to a myriad lawsuits between spouses, most of which would culminate in divorces.

I would beg to differ. Most (not all) women with children are not self-supporting. Raising a child is extremely expensive and time consuming. Given that the average household income is ~$50k... without assistance from parents and family, and any government assistance, there is simply no way that a single mother of average income can reasonably raise a child on her own.

If a legal mother and presumed father were in the situation to begin with where the mother wanted to forgo having the DNA test done... chances are the relationship is already on its way out. So the situation of lawsuits between spouses culminating in divorce would be a non-issue.

[Redisca]

Originally Posted by ColdRedRain

It's time parents stop buying autism related stuff to make their children's lives "easier" and instead prepare their children for the real world by teaching them social and coping skills that ordinarially wouldn't come naturally to those of us with Autism.

Social and coping skills is what I'm talking about. Given that autistic children require intensive one-on-one therapy, there is obviously a shortage of therapists out there. Personally, I think what they charge is reasonable, but reasonable doesn't mean "cheap". And they don't give a hoot what the government considers "reasonable and customary". The customary rates around the hotbeds of autism are about $100-$150 per hour. And as a parent, you either pay that amount or you can take a hike. At any given time, there are dozens of other candidates beating down the therapist's door ready to sell their kidneys if the therapist told them to. It would be the same in any situation where a large number of people desperately needed a service that, by its very nature, is provided on a private basis.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by 2mares

I have noticed a repetitive statement mostly by men in support of mandatory testing, a child has the right and needs to know with absolute certainty who their biological father is. But why? Why would it always be necessary especially if it would not be productive for the child.
Here are two situations:

My bro married his HS sweetheart who had a 3 month old. No one but her knows who this child’s Bio. father is but apparently he is trash. This child does not know as they had planned to tell but chickened out. The kid will be 18 soon. What would be the advantage for this kid to know his dad (my bro) is not his “real” father.

There is some doubt that my son’s child may not be his biologically. They were divorced when the child was conceived then she left again a yr. later (Jerry Springer deal). He was there at the premature birth, he has changed diapers, feeds, loves, plays ball, spend as much time as he can with him and pays CS for this child. Even if they don’t share DNA, my son does NOT want to know because no matter what, this is HIS child. What possible good would come of “proof” this isn’t his kid? What good would come of another man appearing in our lives possibly to disappear. What if my son lost parental rights now because they don’t share DNA? We would all be devastated. Do you really believe it would be best for these two children to be forced by the government to know who they thought and who they love as their dad is not their dad. What possible good could from this?

Excellent post.

Originally Posted by RowingMunkeyCU

I find Braunwyn's argument that Nutz76 being a 'PUA' bears any relevance to be rather amusing. If anything, her claim that "developing tools to pry those legs open" only serves to call women as gullible and brainless. A woman has her own brain, and is fully capable of making her own decision to sleep with a man or not... regardless of how talented a PUA that man is.

I don't believe I stated women are brainless. I simply pointed out that Nutz76 is a walking contradiction. If that wasn't clear to you, then I don't know what to tell you. It's a pretty simple point.

Having an unnamed father without a DNA test on the birth certificate is actually a pretty ingenious idea. It puts the situation back in the hands of the woman as to whether she wants insurance (read: child support) should their relationship go south. The only bit I would add to it is that the father can only be added to the birth certificate at the time it is originally created.

You can keep your bits in your relationship. Keep them out of mine.