DNA Evidence: Enough to Exonerate Dads?

CNSNews ^ | 4/11/02 | Dianna Thompson

[mlmr]

This is not necessarily a biased legal system against men as it is an imperfect way to make sure children have two parents when born in a marriage.

[SauronOfMordor]

I'm sorry, but if you let a kid call you daddy for 10 years, you forfeit the right to start challenging paternity in my opinion.

OK. The non-biological father can continue the emotional connection to his kids. But he should not be under any LEGAL obligation to pay child-support, post-divorce, in excess of what he wants to pay for kids that are not biologically his.

If the ex-wife wants him to pay child support for a non-biological son or daughter, then she's just going to have to stop mucking with the dad's visitation rights, etc, so that he stays emotionally close and willing to support. Which will be helpful all around

[mlmr]

Not if he is married to the mother. Pick your wives wisely, young men!

[mlmr]

Ha, no, I work with messed up fatherless children.

[freeeee]

Pick your wives wisely, young men!

Nah, I think I'll just cohabitate. Too much potential for fraudulent liability in marriage.

You thought you'd have your cake and eat it too?

[mlmr]

No, what I am saying is that Mom and Dad in a marriage have responsibility for the children born in that marriage. Hey, sometimes life is unfair, sometimes people make poor choices. The child still comes first.

[memcindoe]

Then what exactly are you claiming is the 'legal responsibility' of the husband? Your position seems very unclear; if the wife has a baby fathered by a man other than her husband, exactly what is it that you feel the husband is required to do? I would find it extremely difficult to refrain from resenting that child, if I were the husband, and were made to feel responsible for a child I never sired by a woman who wasn't faithful. Would that be a good environment for the child? Maybe that's OK in your world, but it wouldn't fly in mine.

[Cu Roi]

This is not necessarily a biased legal system against men as it is an imperfect way to make sure children have two parents when born in a marriage.

The children do have two parents: the wife and the guy she cheated with. The solution is simple: if that guy was good enough to have a child by, he is good enough to serve as the child's father. This is not a complicated concept.

[mlmr]

I disagree. Marriages are made stronger when when the moral framework is strong and permits no other party legal access within the marriage. A marriage should be sacrostat.

[CA Conservative]

The problem with your theory is that it presumes that by requiring the non-biological father to support the child financially, it will somehow preserve the father-child relationship. Rather, what it will probably do is engender resentment of the child by the man, doing more harm to the child, and contempt by the man for the legal system.

The only benefit for what you propose is financial. To suggest that this is the emotional benefit of the child is fallacious at best, and deceitful at worst.

In other words, you're either just plain wrong, or you are deliberately lying.

[mlmr]

I disagree, because it leaves the child hanging.

[Blake#1]

We may disagree on "family". My family is a man and a woman with children or children in the future. The man and the woman have made a public committment (religious) to stay together forever. This last part is the foundation of the nation. Any violation of that "committment" is a traitoress act against the family and the nation. A husband or wife that "strays" is a traitor and deserves punishment. The degree of punishment should reflect the committment of the citizens to save the nation. I would not object to death as punishment.

The case here is the wife is the "traitor" and should be punished accordingly. To punish the husband is national suicide.

[steve-b]

Don't bother. No matter how slowly and carefully it is explained that letting adulterers off the hook leads directly to a Happy Hunting Ground for cads like Bill Clinton, the logic will slide off mlmr's invincible ignorance like fried eggs sliding off a no-stick pan.

[beowolf]

As the fact that father hood is more than a sperm donation,

This was true until even Dr. Laura started calling men merely 'sperm donors'.

[freeeee]

Marriages are made stronger when when the moral framework is strong and permits no other party legal access within the marriage.

That is precisely what you're doing: allowing a man other than the husband legal access to childbirth within the marriage.

[mlmr]

I dont have any cake to eat. Pick moral women. Cohabitate if you wish and leave little fatherless ones all over so the state can poorly rehabilitate them or warehouse them. THat is the the world today.

[steve-b]

No, what I am saying is that Mom and Dad in a marriage have responsibility for the children born in that marriage.

Oh, I agree absolutely.

Mom and Dad are responsible for the children born in that marriage. If the marriage is of the traditional monogamous type, that includes those children, and only those children, sired by Dad and borne by Mom. If the marriage is of a more open variety by mutual consent of Mom and Dad, then the standard broadens to some degree, up to and including your free-for-all level.