Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I was reading an article a coworker showed me. The gist of it was that one in 15 children are NOT genetically the children of the person they call Dad. While some of them may be through assisted reproduction or the husband/boyfriend all ready knows, the vast majority of the time the man thinks he is the genetic father.

There are also petitions in a few states trying to make DNA tests at birth a mandatory thing, possibly with waiver stating that the mother's partner all ready knows they aren't the biological father. After some careful consideration, I'm going to have to agree with this. Blood samples are all ready taken, DNA tests are becoming much quicker/easier/cheaper, and it could vastly improve the speed and accuracy of family courts when it comes to custody and support.

Thoughts from the Dakka Community?

So...for every birth, there'd be a 'yeah, I know you SAID you didn't cheat on me, honey, but just in case..." test?

Pass.

Where exactly did this article come from?

One in fifteen couples don't break up at the child's birth because the Dad found out that the Mother was cheating - yeah, about that....

I think it should be done, saves a lot of complication and pain later especially once money is changing hands. Sadly, there are people who deceive their partners about paternity, and some who are simply mistaken. Also, it's a hell of a thing to demand a paternity test of your partner, but also the world is full of people who mistakenly trusted their partner.

If paternity tests were compulsory, it would cut out a lot of the difficulty surrounding these cases and prevent injustices from the start.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think it should be done, saves a lot of complication and pain later especially once money is changing hands. Sadly, there are people who deceive their partners about paternity, and some who are simply mistaken. Also, it's a hell of a thing to demand a paternity test of your partner, but also the world is full of people who mistakenly trusted their partner.

If paternity tests were compulsory, it would cut out a lot of the difficulty surrounding these cases and prevent injustices from the start.

This was what I was thinking. I also think that state laws should be changed so that a husband that has been cheated on does NOT have to pay child support for a child that isn't his.

If hospitals wanted to offer it as part of their standard "oh so you're having a parasite" package, that's something else. Whoever is paying for it can go ahead and get it. Just because its getting cheaper doesn't mean its cheap. Nothing in medical care is cheap. Whose going to pay to paternity test literally every baby born in the country? I don't really see how it's the state's business to mandate going into someone's blood to rule out or expose a second parties hypothetical transgressions for the convenience of yet another third party who wants peace of mind and is too timid to approach the second party about it themselves.

I can see both sides. I'm not sure where I stand.

As an aside, I wonder if this would affect abortion rates?

 LordofHats wrote:
If hospitals wanted to offer it as part of their standard "oh so you're having a parasite" package, that's something else. Whoever is paying for it can go ahead and get it. Just because its getting cheaper doesn't mean its cheap. Nothing in medical care is cheap. Whose going to pay to paternity test literally every baby born in the country? I don't really see how it's the state's business to mandate going into someone's blood to rule out or expose a second parties hypothetical transgressions for the convenience of yet another third party who wants peace of mind and is too timid to approach the second party about it themselves.

The state all ready has a history of diving into someone's personal records to prevent a possible abuse of a third party. This isn't exactly a radical concept. There are literally THOUSANDS of men paying child support for children that are not theirs. Many times they are still paying even when they KNOW they are not they father. In some cases they haven't even met the mother. Some pencil pusher thinks, " Well, the father is supposed to be John Smith, who is the first John Smith in the phone book, I'll just say it's him." If the article I read is even remotely accurate, that's one in 15 births that could be effected. Probably a pretty decent public policy maker.

If even a few of these kind of situations are prevented it would be worth it. Especially so if fathers were given a voluntary opt-out to testing. If they want to accept a child that might not be theirs, that is their right.

In the off chance I got a girl pregnant I would have a test done anyways, I don't trust any living being...let alone women.

Tbh I wouldn't mind seeing it be mandatory, at all.

This is a really authoritarian law. As others have said, DNA tests actually, for now, are something that needs two months to be done and they aren't really THAT cheap.

All of that for a marginal biological fear: That your son don't have your genetic material in their DNA. (If you are the one that has raised and educated him, it is your son)
I can totally see it as a voluntary thing that by law Hospitals are obligated to offer , but not a mandatory thing to actually do.

I don't know. There's issues, but there's issues with the way it works now. I'd be pretty edgy about the scope in which that the DNA samples can be used BEYOND the paternity test, because we all know how that goes.

I'll be honest; it does sound like something concocted expressly to vilify women. I'd be immediately suspicious of the study and want to check it sources/methodology etc. Other things to be suspicious of; the coworker who brought this up & people trying to pass legislation to make such tests mandatory.

But if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about! That's what they say isn't it? I think that's what they say.

 cuda1179 wrote:
The state all ready has a history of diving into someone's personal records to prevent a possible abuse of a third party. This isn't exactly a radical concept.

Personal records are not part of your very being, and for a private citizen to enter the records of another you usually have to go through court. Even spouses have this protection for many records, and there's plenty of people out there who have kids before they're married.

There are literally THOUSANDS of men paying child support for children that are not theirs.

Sounds like something laying somewhere between a court issue and a stupidity issue. "But it's not my kid" is a classic SOB story. Take it to Dr. Phil! I don't buy that this is as common as you claim. Lacking the original article, it sounds like a number someone pulled from their ass to support a conclusion.

If even a few of these kind of situations are prevented it would be worth it.

???

Yes... Every single person gets paternity tested at birth, which will probably cost a small fortune, just to prevent a handful of unfortunate incidents later down the road where a guy feels railroaded. Totally worth it. What if the woman wants to opt out? After all, it's her personal life that's being put into question from moment one, and maybe she doesn't want doctors digging through it. If it becomes an issue later, it's easy enough to do the test then which really just goes back to the cost issue of why are we wasting time and money doing this for everyone when it becomes an issue for 1 in 15 (a number I still don't buy).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
But if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about! That's what they say isn't it? I think that's what they say.

"Just take the test Shirley!"

"I'm beginning to think you don't trust me..."

"You cheating bitch!"



Honestly I'm looking at this in the same way I'm looking at prenubs. Everyone should get one, because if you're too immature/too untrusting to admit to one another "maybe in 20 years we'll feel differently and this will stop working" you're likely too immature/untrusting to be getting married at all. This is a interpersonal issue where I don't think the state has any business being. While child support and custody cases can get bitter, it's usually because two people were together when they really shouldn't have been and the state can't really fix that. It can only pick up the pieces as an arbitrator/mediator.

 LordofHats wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
The state all ready has a history of diving into someone's personal records to prevent a possible abuse of a third party. This isn't exactly a radical concept.

Personal records are not part of your very being, and for a private citizen to enter the records of another you usually have to go through court. Even spouses have this protection for many records, and there's plenty of people out there who have kids before they're married.

There are literally THOUSANDS of men paying child support for children that are not theirs.

Sounds like something laying somewhere between a court issue and a stupidity issue. "But it's not my kid" is a classic SOB story. Take it to Dr. Phil! I don't buy that this is as common as you claim. Lacking the original article, it sounds like a number someone pulled from their ass to support a conclusion.

If even a few of these kind of situations are prevented it would be worth it.

???

Yes... Every single person gets paternity tested at birth, which will probably cost a small fortune, just to prevent a handful of unfortunate incidents later down the road where a guy feels railroaded. Totally worth it. What if the woman wants to opt out? After all, it's her personal life that's being put into question from moment one, and maybe she doesn't want doctors digging through it. If it becomes an issue later, it's easy enough to do the test then which really just goes back to the cost issue of why are we wasting time and money doing this for everyone when it becomes an issue for 1 in 15 (a number I still don't buy).

P

Well, many of these tests don't even need the full DNA screening. A simple blood test can weed out some of this. Two o-type parents can't have a child with a type of A, B, or AB. No further testing needed. That can literally be done in minutes for almost no physical cost.

It is also the law in many states that a husband is automatically responsible for child support, despite any DNA testing. Also, you can be on the hook if you aren't married and aren't the biological father as long as you have performed "fatherly duties" such as feeding the child, watched them, cohabitated, etc.

 cuda1179 wrote:
It is also the law in many states that a husband is automatically responsible for child support, despite any DNA testing. Also, you can be on the hook if you aren't married and aren't the biological father as long as you have performed "fatherly duties" such as feeding the child, watched them, cohabitated, etc.

Like I said. Sounds like something laying somewhere between a court issue and a stupidity issue. This wouldn't even have any effect on the later issue, only the former.

Invading the privacy of every single birth in the country is a terrible way to get around it.

 LordofHats wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
It is also the law in many states that a husband is automatically responsible for child support, despite any DNA testing. Also, you can be on the hook if you aren't married and aren't the biological father as long as you have performed "fatherly duties" such as feeding the child, watched them, cohabitated, etc.

Like I said. Sounds like something laying somewhere between a court issue and a stupidity issue.

Invading the privacy of every single birth in the country is a terrible way to get around it.

I wouldn't necessarily say it was invading privacy if the only people that were told were the parents (or mother and not-father, as the case may be). Even then I'd argue that someone has a right to know that they are not a parent, especially as they should have informed consent before agreeing to a child rearing situation.

I think it's one of the single stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

Putting aside the fact that you're expanding government to issue a dictate that serves no medical purpose, there are 4 million babies born in this country every year. If DNA testing is 99% accurate, congratulations: you've introduced 40,000 false results a year, every year. And I'm not talking about the tests themselves, I'm talking about the labs, which have had plenty of high profile mistakes in more serious situation.

it's a national fiasco in search of a problem.

And that's assuming the premise is even true: What dank corner of the derposphere did these facts originate from? Where's the source article?

 cuda1179 wrote:
Even then I'd argue that someone has a right to know that they are not a parent, especially as they should have informed consent before agreeing to a child rearing situation.

Then they should pony up the $300 to get a paternity test done.

Can we see this article so we can consider it for ourselves, because I would like to know why it is important that we paternity test all live births when this issue is arising in 6.7%.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I wouldn't necessarily say it was invading privacy

It blatantly is. Worse so, it's mandating the invasion of everyone's privacy on the off chance something morally unacceptable but not illegal might have happened.

Even then I'd argue that someone has a right to know that they are not a parent, especially as they should have informed consent before agreeing to a child rearing situation.

Then ask for the test. You don't need the state to mandate it for everyone. Honestly if you're in a relationship and feel the need to ask in the first place, then there's probably already issues and the relationship isn't going to work out regardless of paternity. If you get nervous and break off the relationship, you'll end up in court where a paternity test can happen exactly where you'd end up however many years down the line when you got tired of soldering through a not working relationship. If you go forward with it one of two things will happen; either you raised the kid and everyone worked out at which point who the feth cares who the sperm donor was, or you raised the kid the relationship fell apart and the court tells you "you had all that time till the kid was born to make a choice and you made it time to live with it."

EDIT: Final edit to add epic Guardians reference

Trial lawyers will never advocate this to be mandatory.... ever.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Can we see this article so we can consider it for ourselves, because I would like to know why it is important that we paternity test all live births when this issue is arising in 6.7%.

You're the fourth person to ask. For someone so concerned about origins, he's being pretty cagey about where this came from :p

Why... Some fathers who are the father are just sperm doners. Or some mothers truely awful parents .

Sometimes the step parents or one who comes into picture when already born can be amazing partners and treat them every bit as a biological child, regardless of od they are or not.

Being biologically related means nothing.
Who raises the child does. Long as it good, well cared for and happy.
Biological or not mattered utterly feth all.

 jhe90 wrote:
Why... Some fathers who are the father are just sperm doners. Or some mothers truely awful parents .

Sometimes the step parents or one who comes into picture when already born can be amazing partners and treat them every bit as a biological child, regardless of od they are or not.

Being biologically related means nothing.
Who raises the child does. Long as it good, well cared for and happy.
Biological or not mattered utterly feth all.

It can certainly mean a lot of things for the relationship of the parent. And it can mean a lot for the child as well. There are hereditary issues that they parents could not be planning for. Things like that. /devils advocate

 Thargrim wrote:
In the off chance I got a girl pregnant I would have a test done anyways, I don't trust any living being...let alone women.

Kind of sums up the thread in a nutshell

 djones520 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Why... Some fathers who are the father are just sperm doners. Or some mothers truely awful parents .

Sometimes the step parents or one who comes into picture when already born can be amazing partners and treat them every bit as a biological child, regardless of od they are or not.

Being biologically related means nothing.
Who raises the child does. Long as it good, well cared for and happy.
Biological or not mattered utterly feth all.

It can certainly mean a lot of things for the relationship of the parent. And it can mean a lot for the child as well. There are hereditary issues that they parents could not be planning for. Things like that. /devils advocate

True but on a medics point. Modern DNA mapping and testing is ever advancing. Eventually we will be able to detect any hereditary issues with a simple, blood bases DNA test and detect those markers that identify a risk trait or condition.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
when this issue is arising in 6.7%.

Presuming it is even arising at a rate of 6.7%. I did some brief digging around, and, I could not find anything about "1 in 15".

Mainly want I found was that hard numbers on these sort of things are really hard to obtain because proper, rigorous studies on such a topic are functionally impossible. The best studies suggest between 2 & 5% and even those rely on self-reporting. Numbers higher than that are usually apocryphal, and often cited by; well; people who want to sell you something, or recruit you to something.

 jhe90 wrote:
Why... Some fathers who are the father are just sperm doners. Or some mothers truely awful parents .

Sometimes the step parents or one who comes into picture when already born can be amazing partners and treat them every bit as a biological child, regardless of od they are or not.

Being biologically related means nothing.
Who raises the child does. Long as it good, well cared for and happy.
Biological or not mattered utterly feth all.

I don't think anyone disputes that step parents can be good, only that they should be step parents in full knowledge not misled or otherwise mistaken into thinking they are biological parents. You might say biological means feth all, but it's actually pretty important to many. Further, it's apparently the case that a man who starts paying for and raising a child he mistakenly believes is his own, becomes fully responsible for them even after the truth comes out. Few men deliberately put their name on a birth certificate to falsify it, if there's reason for doubt of parentage by either the mother or the father, they should be open about it and get a test, not just pretend otherwise and get names down on the certificate only for a financial and emotional disaster for the family years down the line. The biological father should be paying for the child, unless a step parent takes that responsibility in full knowledge.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.deseretnews.com/article/865610961/Unknowingly-raising-another-mans-child.amp

OP could you please PM me the article? Not a big fan of threads like this that come across as veeeery baity, especially when the OP refuses to pony up. So since a decent chunk of the "discussion" here is asking for the article, I'll lock it up until I see it. Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/11/childrensservices.uknews

So OP provided a link and I feel I should stick by what I said and we're off to the races again. However

If this thread devolves into bashing either men or women as general groups, or other users in specific, you better believe that users involved will be receiving long, long bans from the OT subforum, and potentially the forum at large

Well for one it says one in twenty-five not one in fifteen (much more believable number really), and also clarifies "may not be the father" rather than "is NOT the father" as OP put it. So yeah. Greatly titled article by the way. Nice bait and switch there Guardian That also drops the relevant number to maybe, and I think MAYBE is a really important word here, .04 (is that 4%? I've sucked at turning decimals into percentages before) of the male population. And maybe a stats heavy person can explain this, but how does the study go from 1% to 30% of men might not be the father, a massive range which tells me this is an extremely loose study we're dealing with, to 1 in 25?

However I don't think paternity is strictly the point of the article so much as the possibly massive social repercussions of the increasing accessibility to DNA testing, which honestly sounds like a way cooler conversation XD