Check DNA of your children at birth?

[Cambridge]

It used to be that if a child was born to a married couple, it was presumptively the child of the husband. Not anymore.

California and a few other states now have a law that states that within six months of the birth you have a right to have the child’s DNA tested. If the test shows the child to be someone else’s, then the husband can deny paternity. The purpose of this law is to encourage DNA testing, as it is so very important nowadays in medical diagnosis.

A weird case occurred here in San Francisco a couple of years ago. Married woman gets pregnant by bf. Hubby thinks its his and does not have the paternity test within the required six months. Married woman leaves hubby and marries bf, real father of the little girl. Now ex-hubby dutifully plays part of dad, seeing the little girl on weekends and holidays and paying $1,000/mo. in child support. One day, mother arbitrarily refuses to let him see the girl anymore. He petitions the court and mother cross-petitions, revealing for the first time that the child is not his, but her present husband’s. Ex-hubby amends his petition to say, if the courts do not grant him visitation because the child is not his, he should not have to pay child support for the same reason.

Held: (1) Ex-hubby never had DNA tested of child, so paternity permanently rests in him for child support purposes. (2) As for the child custody matter (in California and under the Uniform Child Custody Control Act, visitation is a part of the child custody issue), since ex-husband has no blood link to the child, as attested to by mother and tests during the litigation, he should have no legal interest in visitation. So you have a man “A” paying another man “B” to raise his “B’s” own child, while the man “A” can have no contact or visitation with the child.

The court acknowledged that it was a harsh consequence. But it said it’s ruling would have the effect of underscoring the importance of having children DNA tested. And so it was serving the public policy of assuring that the best of medical records be kept for children.

Funny, huh?

[Verve]

They are finally overturning that law, it's about time.

[Sharon den Adel]

Good idea, I say, this way men will not be raising children who are not theirs.

[Cambridge]

Interesting. DNA testing has caused a revolution. A study of Brits alone, over 300,000 involved, showed that 30% of the women had children not of their spouses. I had hoped that this might have been raised. There does seem to be a conflict between privacy and the rights of children to know their DNA alienage.

[Fred75]

Interesting. DNA testing has caused a revolution. A study of Brits alone, over 300,000 involved, showed that 30% of the women had children not of their spouses. I had hoped that this might have been raised. There does seem to be a conflict between privacy and the rights of children to know their DNA alienage.

THIS is why women are held to a different standard then men.

WOMEN can do far more damage to a family than a man can.

[Verve]

WOMEN can do far more damage to a family than a man can.

Excuse you!!! It's equal damage Steve!

[Fred75]

WOMEN can do far more damage to a family than a man can.

Excuse you!!! It's equal damage Steve!

No.
I cannot come home after eight months away with a child in my hand and say....Look..we had a baby!

Like that's going to fly!

So... since no woman is going to believe that... and men can....
A woman can compound the problem to the child if the father walks out upon discovering the news about his 5 year old son.
What kind of hell would that be for the boy to see the only father he has ever known disown him and walk about because mom spread her legs for another?

[Verve]

Steve, damage is damage. Pain is pain. Sure women do know how to cut deep but still yet a man is capable of the same thing. Keep that one sided bullsh*t to yourself.

*Shhh! be quiet*

[coolman]

I generally don't agree with Fred, as I am the epitome of liberal.

He has a point, however. I don't think the pain is the same. Babies generally, albeit not always, stay with the mother. So the husband bonds with this child and then finds out that it isn't even his.

Should a woman find out that her husband has had a child with another woman a few years ago, it would certainly hurt, but she never lost a child with whom she had bonded. . .

[Verve]

I understand your point Coolman and Freds..... but pain is pain. To hurt from heartache is not easy. I know from my own personal experience from my dad’s fun days, pain is pain. To feel hurt/pain is universal you don't get extra cool points because of circumstances.

[coolman]

I understand the pain your father put you through. But you simply can't equate the pain of a cheating spouse with that of the loss of a child.

Nobody gets any cool points out of any of this. Pain is not pain. There are different types and levels of pain and I can't think of any worse than the loss of one's child and hope I don't live to lose one of my 3 children.

[Verve]

My point is there is no equation. There never will be. Pain is pain. The severity of the circumstance is not the only defining factor. Pain is pain. I hope you never know what it feels like to lose a child.

[coolman]

I hope you never know what it feels like to lose a child.

Thank you. I wish you the same.

[Mr A]

A saw a study a few days ago and it said as many as 1 in 10 (1 in 8 in some places) women were lying and tricking thier current man into beleiving they were the father when infact he was not the father.


DNA test, yep definately a good idea
although if you ask for one and are still in a relationship I doubt it's gonna go down too well ..lol

[Fred75]

I understand your point Coolman and Freds..... but pain is pain.

Pain is pain for the ADULTS.
The child is crushed to lose the only father he has ever known.
Or are you insensitive to the needs of a child?

That's the blow in which a woman can trump any hand a man can play.

A womans lie has far reaching consequences to family members.