Another Paternity Fraud case.(30% of Paternity tests prove children fathered by other men.)

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12/23/2002 | By Kathy Boccella

[BuddhaBoy]

It seems hard to believe, but over and over again, when paterity tests are made, it is consistently 30%, whether married or not.

Stunning, isn't it?

Thirty percent! I think that is amazing. DNA testing should be part of every birth, period. If a few women get caught setting up a man with more money than the one who knocked her up, so what.

Thirty percent, means that this is a pretty rampant and regular practice among SOME women. Men AND women need to be protected from this form of fraud.

[Morrigan]

It being mandatory is even more humiliating. It is like saying all women are sluts and do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. That just isn't true.

[BuddhaBoy]

Oh, Nonsense.

Children need to know who their parents are for health reasons. It is only like saying that parents need to tell the truth.

You cant lie on a Drivers' Licence application without it being a felony, but you can lie on a Birth Certificate and get a bonue?

Give me a break.

[Morrigan]

Of course it should be a felony for lying on a birth certificate. Don't twist my words.

If the father wants to request a DNA test, he should be granted one. It should not be mandatory. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. If a man has suspicion, or just wants a DNA test for reassurance, he should have one. Women should not be forced to have a DNA test by law, that's all I am saying.

[knak]

I read your reply about your personal experience with the subject and have to say I have never been in your shoes. But to say that mandatory testing would make all women feel like sluts I think is wrong too. I think it would cause a stronger bond immediatly in the family.

Hi BB, good to see you're keeping up with your cause.

[Morrigan]

I see your point, but strong bonds are built on trust. To make DNA tests mandatory is eliminating that trust. See my above post. If a man wants a DNA test, fine. He should be entitled to one. But I feel that it is wrong to require DNA tests by law.

[knak]

I see your point, but strong bonds are built on trust. To make DNA tests mandatory is eliminating that trust.

If they were mandatory, everyone would be doing it and it would not be eliminating trust. It would be strengthening the law, mainly for paternity cases. It may make some women a bit more responsible. It would virtually eliminate the problem of children finding out by mom later in life that she lied to them. That's got to be a tough pill to swallow.

[knak]

By the way, (it's none of my business but you brought it up). How'd the ex-wife take the news? Bet you would've loved to have been a fly on the wall.

[BuddhaBoy]

Guilt or innocence is not the point. When a child is born, BOTH parents have a right to know if or if not they are the biological parent.

It doesnt matter though, because although you dont agree, this is going to happen. There will be mandatory testing, and probably because WOMEN will demand it, after discovering that men are not going to marry them otherwise.

[Morrigan]

Yeah, you're right, that must be a tough pill to swallow. And I do sympathize with the people that happens to. I just think that mandatory testing isn't right. Personally, I don't think it would ever become a law, anyway. The cost alone would be astronomical--and who would pick up the tab? However, I do believe that if people need one for peace of mind, that is fine.

Headed to bed for now....have a Happy New Year!:)

[Morrigan]

Heh heh. It went over like a ton of.....well, you know what. Especially when he and I worked out our problems and wound up getting back together (although they had already broken up at that point).

[knak]

Good. Happy New Year!

[Morrigan]

Maybe you are right, but I doubt it. Men will still marry women whether there is a DNA test or not, women don't always care to get married, and some partners are true to each other. There are a lot of dynamics involved in a relationship. And women aren't always the cheaters, as I well know:)

[RGSpincich]

That's what you risk when you marry a girl that is willing to sleep with you before marriage.

Yeah. Buyer beware. Just like purchasing property, do your homework, have her inspected and check her title. Once you close the deal all the defects belong to you.

[A.J.Armitage]

Fine, op. Side with the one who thinks its okay to break a 14 year bond with an innocent child who has done nothing.

Sounds to me like he's siding with the Bible.

[Brytani]

In California a man can be named the father of a child, have a letter sent to any address and without a DNA test be legally named as the father. Even after he proves he is not bio-dad the state still makes him paid.

A quick search in any search engine will give source after source on this fact. Even the liberal LA Times picked up on the story.

Mandatory DNA testing would prevent hundreds of men from being falsely accused and then forced to pay support for years for a child that isn't theirs. Remember also, a person in prison can use DNA tests to prove their innocence, why do we give "fathers" less rights then convicted criminals?

[Brytani]

"Good point, but it does take two to tango...:"

While it takes two to tango, only 1 out of 3 have any rights after the fact.

1. A woman can have an abortion when she does not want a child to interfeer with her life. A man can not walk away or stop a woman from having an abortion even if he is willing to take on the responsibility of the child.

2. A woman can name a man as the father of her child and in some state, that word is taken as fact, without benefit of a DNA test. Later on, if the "father" proves he is not bio-dad, too late, too bad. (see Calfornia for this)

3. According to the US Census that tracks child support payments, women are more likely to default on child support payments and are less likely to even be ordered to pay support then men. When was the last time you heard the media refer to "deadbeat moms".

I can go on and on about the unfairness of child custody, support payments, lack of DNA testing, "duped dads" etc. It all boils down to one fact, we have allowed the legal profession to destroy the family, encouraged bad behavior by women, encouraged single motherhood and made marriage in this society trivial. We are all paying for this.

[sneakypete]

The law is simple, womens' rights and mens' responsibilities".

Yup,that pretty much sums it up. No way are the courts going to tell the women to be responsible for THEIR mistakes.

Having said that,I think these guys are following the wrong tactics. They would probably do better if they were to sue their ex-wives for emotional distress and suffering. You don't have to be King Solomon to see what it would do to you to find out the teenage child you have loved and cared for all their lives weren't your children.

[sneakypete]

There's no difference between being unfaithful to a current husband and being unfaithful to a future husband except the nature of the excuse.

Maybe not on your home planet,but here on Earth things are different.

[sneakypete]

New wives seem to expect the old children to be forgoteen.

That's because American women see two types of money in a relationship with a man. There is their money,and there is OUR money.