Should paternity be tested at birth?

[Oni]

Should paternity be tested at birth? Or a declaration of the father made at the time and a DNA test given to prove or disprove?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20051227.html

Men on the board please read and post up your opinions. Ladies, I'd like to hear your opinions too.

[alaska cajun]

Yes but only if requested.

[Drake]

As a male, I agree that a DNA test should be given. One should not be forced to pay for a child that is not there own.

Then what happens when the Dr. is like "I'm sorry, your DNA isn't a match" That opens up a whole nother series of events.

[jim schmidt]

And the divorce rate rises by 15%.

[HUTSCBR]

Would you rather be divorced or deceived?

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by HUTSCBR

Would you rather be divorced or deceived?

Is that the only possible choices?

[Rascus]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

Is that the only possible choices?

What other choices would you like to choose from?

I think that judgement was not fair at all. For her to willfully withhold the fact that he was not the babys father should prevent him from any further payment of child support. Who would pay support to a child that is not even theirs? I wouldn't.

I think their logic is flawed as well saying you have a 1yr grace period to prove that. Now all guys in Florida will have that on their minds. Which will backfire on their current relationship with their wife because most women would get quite upset if the husband goes "Hey sweetie, listen, I know little johnny is about to turn one but I want to go do a DNA test first so I'm not screwed later" I bet that will go over well at the dinner table.

Now I don't think he should seek a refund of the money but he definitly should be exluded from further payments. Another aspect that goes against the guy is how do you prove that the women "willfully" deceived the husband? Good luck withthat.

[AnKleBiTer]

I think that can only be determined on a per case basis. If you are in a loving monogamous relationship, there should really be no doubt about the paternity of a child. If there are indicators to substantiate the possibility of infidelity then by all means YES!
It's tragic that there is no longer faith in relationships that people assume the worse at every turn. Unless you are confronted with direct evidence or there is a history of unfaithfulness why question it?

{I hope this isn't the case for most relationships...obviously there were problems with this couple that is why thye were divorced. I think it's terrible that she lied but it's the child I feel most sorry for. Children are unwitting pawns in the battle of parents.}

[jiandersen76]

If you need a paternity test at the time of delivery to answer any questions you may have, you shouldn't be married in the first place.

I like the fact that this prick raises the child for 3 years (before the divorce) then walks away and does not want to support him/her. Must be a heartless bastard to turn his back on the child that knows only him as dad.

Paternity does not constitute fatherhood.

[AnKleBiTer]

Originally Posted by jiandersen76

If you need a paternity test at the time of delivery to answer any questions you may have, you shouldn't be married in the first place.

I like the fact that this prick raises the child for 3 years (before the divorce) then walks away and does not want to support him/her. Must be a heartless bastard to turn his back on the child that knows only him as dad.

Paternity does not constitute fatherhood.

Good point!!!

[hozhead]

Originally Posted by jiandersen76

Paternity does not constitute fatherhood.

But a bitchy ex-wife who now decides to throw in your face the fact that you're paying her $1200 a month to raise a child she conceived while cheating on you will surely sour any relationship and make the guy less inclinded to continue down that path.

[hozhead]

Originally Posted by alaska cajun

Yes but only if requested.

I agree with this in principle but have to disagree in practical consideration.


If EVERY child born is given a paternity test, no couple ever has to discuss why one of them would like the test to be performed. With the one year limit listed in the case write-up, it really opens the door for people to be deceived until its too late (like the Parker guy in the case).
It is certainly reasonable to be trusting of the person you've married and plan to stay with. Its also important to consider just how many times people get screwed over for trusting someone they love.

[alaska cajun]

Originally Posted by AnKleBiTer

It's tragic that there is no longer faith in relationships that people assume the worse at every turn.

The mind,like the body,becomes what one feeds it.

Unless one takes the precaution to filter out the negitive that we are fed in this country,then that is what one believes,that is what one becomes(at least in their mind)

[OFFICER737]

women keep their stuff to their guy and wouldn't need these.

[Rascus]

While it is easy to see Richard's side of the story here, let's not forget another party's side: As the Parker court noted, disestablishment of paternity might satisfy Richard, but would likely also trigger "the psychological devastation that the child will undoubtedly experience from losing the only father he or she has ever known."

This is such BS here. Either way the kid's fucked. The dad or so he thought after finding out he wasn't the father may completely ignore the kid and not want anything to do with them. So the only way to make the kid not experience "psychological devastation" is to have the guy who's been lied too keep putting a financial strain on himself to support a kid that's not even his. The kid is also going to be confused because "mommie" should have been honest up front.

The courts ruling on that pretense alone was so blind. They were not looking at the overall interest of the party.

Hope this goes to the Supreme Court.