While I understand and appreciate the idea behind it and, in spirit, support it, it's not feasible for several reasons.
1. The father may be unavailable - he may be dead. 2. The father may be unavailable - he may be a rapist who was unknown and never caught. 3. If the father is available and willing to be the child's father, then the issue is moot. 4. If the father is available and willing to be the child's father, but then a paternity test results in being proven that he is not the father, then that instantly adversely affects the relationship between the would-be father and the child and, if married, results in proof of infidelity. Furthermore, it is a violation of spousal privilege, in a sense. 5. The father may be an anonymous sperm donor who wishes to remain anonymous. A mandatory paternity test without a warrant might be considered a violation of his 10th Amendment right to privacy. 6. If the father does not wish to be the father or even find out one way or the other, a mandatory test is likely a violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. It is also likely a violation of the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. In other words, to compel him to participate in the paternity test would require a court order / warrant which he could challenge in appellate court because that is part of due process. 7. The mother may not wish to be involved with the father. In this case, he would willingly due a paternity test, but would have to legally compel her to submit the child to it. 8. Technologically, this will eventually become irrelevant because females will eventually be able to procreate artificially without males. In such a case, a paternity test is moot.
@msc545 The child doesn't have that right. Children don't have rights like adults do. Besides, there's no compelling reason to know the identity of the father outside of a genetic emergency and, in that case, the child may be given the father's genome, but not necessarily the identity.
======== Meanwhile, let me ask you a question: Do you have a right to know the date of your birth? After all, you don't remember it, do you? You were voluntarily told what it was by your relatives. And, it's also printed on your birth certificate, but you don't have a right to it. You have to pay the jurisdiction for a copy of it. And, believe it or not, it could contain false information! So, how do you REALLY know when your birthday is? You don't. People who know voluntarily tell you when (but they could be lying), but you don't have a right to that fact.
@msc545 You have an expectation that you can buy it. You don't have a right to it because you don't own it. (*) The jurisdiction that has it may sell copies of it to you if you request it.
(*) It's just like your passport. You don't own it nor have a right to one. A US passport is the property of the United States Department of State.
But, we are getting sidetracked. There is no right of a child to know who its parents are. And, in the US, there can't be because we have a decentralized birth certificate system so the laws involving birth certificates and changing them are dependent on the state issuing it.
This is just reductio ad absurdum. The purpose of a birth certificate does not include it sitting in a file because the state "owns it".
It's funny that you think a person has no right to their birth certificate given that I just went to court to get a true copy of mine that had been previously sealed by the state where I was born and got a ruling in my favor and the certificate, for which I paid nothing to the state.
@msc545 Well, personally, I do believe that a person has a "right" to it so long as it is necessary to function in society. That said, I don't believe in rights. Rights are a fiction. No one has a right to anything; you have an expectation of something, but no right to it. Rights are backed up by force.
Perhaps the concept of a right is best rooted in Jean Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract. The basic premise is that members of a society give up freedoms in exchange for rights within that society.
For example... You, me, and everyone else is evolved to do what's necessary to survive and we expect that of each other. If that means killing other persons, so be it. That's Nature at work and Nature has less emotions than Mister Spock.
But, we live in societies because we recognize that there's safety in numbers because more numbers = more force to project your collective will or to protect yourself from the will of others (including Nature).
However, societies fall apart when there is internal violence among its members. Thus, societies create rules for behavior. Every person within that society has a choice - live by the rules and thrive within the society or disobey and expect its wrath.
But, at the same time, we circle back to the prime directive: Do what is necessary to survive.
So, if a society exists and expects you to abide by its rules, then it needs to make sure that you can still survive within it...
... and this is where rights come in...
If the society requires you give up some "survival method", then you have a "right" to be compensated for it so you don't need that survival method.
Here's an example: You have to eat. In an anarchic world, you'd just eat whatever is in the environment and take it if necessary because you need to eat to survive. However, if you are in a society and are not provided a direct way to get your own food, then society needs to come up with some way of enabling you to acquire food. In that sense, you have a right to food. If the society doesn't provide you with the ability to feed yourself, then the society is actually killing you and stop abiding by its rules because you need to survive by eating. So, from the society's perspective, you might start committing crimes (like stealing food or stealing money to buy food). So, then it becomes a question of who has more force? Them to stop you from violating their rules or you? The more force you have the better prepared you are to survive.
it should be a requirement for them to be able to bill men for their kids. Without test these thing should be completely voluntary. If a guy wants another guys kid he can always adopt it. So not really a mandate, because I think women should have the option to raise a kid on her own. But she then needs to also pay for it all.
I'll repeat the same thing I said the last time this came up: this is an utterly pointless discussion.
Mandating paternity testing on a blanket basis will simply not pass legal muster, and is not going to happen. If paternity becomes contested and a civil court orders a paternity test, then prepare to foot the bill for anywhere from $1,700-$3,000 for a test that will satisfy the court's legal requirements. Anyone thinking you can swab a cheek and spit in a bottle then send it off to 23andMe for a computer printout at the cost of $35 needs to really look into the court's requirements.
Yes, you can, and if a couple wants to buy one to satisfy themselves, fine. But it simply will not pass legal muster in the court system. It's not only the test material itself, having a reliable test done entails having the sample taken by a qualified location, maintaining the equivalent of a chain of custody in handling, controls in processing the specimen, and then bringing in a qualified expert to explain results and answer questions. A piece of paper alone won't cut it. And if it comes to that in a court, all of that expense is on one party or both.
@LuvMeSomeBoys. The insurance companies could mandate a paternity test before they cover the cost of the birth and ongoing care of the child if the mother is on the "father's" benefits.
You can very easily avoid this $1,700 that you actually think it's going to cost even though it doesn't by simply going and buying a cheap test and then basing your decision as to whether or not to take the expensive test on the results of the cheap test. The cheap test may not be admissible in court but it certainly will be informative anyway.
@msc545 You're not following here. It's not the cost of testing materials alone, it's the aggregate total of what paternity testing that meets legal requirements will end up costing in a civil hearing. That means bringing in expert witnesses to introduce and explain results; a computer print out just isn't going to cut it. Add to that rebuttal witnesses, as needed. Unlike in criminal cases where the government pays the costs for witnesses and expert evaluation, all of the costs get passed on to the participants in the case. Who makes the paternity challenge in the majority of cases ends up footing the bill, which right now is running a little over $1,700. I don't think so, I friggin know so as a partner in a law firm that handles both civil and criminal cases, including contested paternity cases. If you want to do testing for informative purposes, in most states you can do so for the low, low cost of free. Just walk into social services and ask.
@LuvMeSomeBoys Sorry, that should be - "what do you think the cost of a child support judgment is mandating payments over 18 years, as opposed to the cost of a legally acceptable paternity test?" You don't really know if you are the father or not until you have the test results, but if you don't get the test, you almost assuredly will get the child support order. Even if you think you are the father, it is still worth it to get the test in case you are wrong. Statistically there is about a 20 to percent chance you ARE wrong.
@msc545. If there's a paternity challenge, there's a whole lot more wrong with the marriage/partnership than just the paternity question. I get what you're saying though, if there's a doubt then a couple thousand on a paternity test is going to be far less cheaper than 18 years of child support which, bottom end would be over $210K spread out over the 18 years. Paternity cases don't usually involve infants, they happen but they aren't the ones we typically see. All of the cases we've handled here the testing authenticated the plaintiff as the father, who has every right to challenge, but ended up losing. My advice to anyone bringing paternity questions to us would be to work it out amicably: get the testing on an informative and inexpensive basis, and accept/stipulate to the results in most cases and come up with your own settlement. But since they're pretty ugly and contentious in the first place, most end up in court proceedings that look like an episode of the Jerry Springer Show, and the only ones who benefit are lawyers.
You only see the cases where there really IS something wrong given that people don't usually casually consult lawyers out of simple curiosity - mostly. I suppose there are outliers but in general, I think this statement is correct. So - you are the victim of a biased sample and have drawn the biased conclusion that everyone who wants a paternity test has a marriage in trouble. It is only your clients who are in troubled marriages.
I California where I live, men have up until 2 years after the birth of a child to challenge paternity, and after that, it no longer matters - they are forced to pay child support regardless of paternity. You might infer from this that men here are now rushing to get paternity tests, but that would be wrong - they are not; most men refuse to even entertain the idea that they are not the father of "their" children, even though 30% of the time they are wrong. Also, they are not suspicious at all. It is only when the whole thing falls apart in divorce or a discovered affair that they begin (sometimes) to question things. It is usually far too late for a paternity test to save them from financial exposure, and in divorce, they are stuck with child support for a child they didn't father, and almost never get any rights to that child.
So who suffers other than the man - since we know men don't count and are disposable? Well - the child counts - first the child thought they had a father, and now they don't. Also, not that it matters a lot, but the real father also counts who may never know he had a child unless Mom comes after him for money next, which is an ugly way to find out (again, it's a man, so who cares... but still).
All of this is easily avoided with a mandated paternity test at birth.
@msc545. The impeachment paragraph is really off message and thus moot here.
Simply put, while I've seen a lot of novel arguments (both legal and lay arguments) advocating mandatory paternity tests at birth, none of them can overcome two things: 1) the government has no interest in meddling in civil unions on a wholesale basis (the civil court system can be used, if petitioned, on a case-by-case basis); 2) there's an inherent Constitutional problem (rooted in Fourth Amendment protections) with such a proposal, and legislatures know even if such a law passed, it would not survive the first engagement in an appeals court. Without all parties' consent, there's no way around it. If a couple wants to do it on their own, fine, but using the brute force of law to compel it simply isn't going to happen.
I understand a lot of men's frustration with one-sided judgments in custody and divorce proceedings, and in many respects I think they're fully justified. But mandated paternity tests at birth is a simply a bridge too far and isn't going to happen, no matter how good it sounds on the surface.
I tend to agree with you although I think I could make a good medical argument as to why it should happen. That said, I agree that it will not happen for the reasons you mentioned and more. That does not mean it shouldn't happen, and if the potential consequences were reversed such that women were in jeopardy, I can guarantee it would happen.
Men can help themselves by getting a paternity test shortly after a child is born without the mother's permission or knowledge. I sure as hell did this with my daughter and my ex still doesn't know that. Fortunately, I am the father. not all men will do this, of course. Most will not.
@msc545. By hook or crook if you want to do it without the mother's permission or knowledge to satisfy your own concerns, that's on you. Getting government involved in any way is where it becomes a problem. Whether it's the man or woman with the potential consequences doesn't matter, the same lack of government interest and Constitutional issues still exist.
If your medical argument is mandatory paternity testing would be a safeguard against the hospital giving the parents the wrong infant, that's already been proposed and struck down in a couple of states. We had a case about five years ago involving a couple accusing and suing the hospital over it (the couple lost).
The medical argument is a bit more complicated than that - but essentially, it is that there are genetic anomalies that don't show up until much later, and knowing about them ahead of time would be helpful. Also, we can now predict the emergence of some diseases (like diabetes and heart disease) again based on genetics and prevention is always better.
I'm not sure the wrong baby argument is really very good. Hospitals take major precautions. Unexpected paternity might very well yield a false positive for a wrong baby test.
@msc545. True, but that's a private health consideration that isn't in government's interest, although one could come up with some novel arguments why it is (not that any arguments would prevail).
Yes, switched at birth cases are quite rare because hospitals do have effective identification protocols in place. The one I mentioned happened because a couple, both white, accused the hospital of switching babies because their newborn daughter had prominent negroid facial features. That was despite the baby going straight from birth canal to mother's arms, id bracelet put on immediately following clean-up, finger and foot printing, and a digital photo taken in the delivery room. It took DNA testing of all three to convince them yep, the baby is yours: you're undoubtedly the mom, husband is unquestionably the dad, might want to look back in your family heritage for a set of racially-mixed parents because they're definitely in there somewhere.
For the children it's better to know who his biological father is. For the mother it's better to have a child support provider, even thought she knows it's not their biological fathers. I think a compromise should be made here. If the father or mother wants a test it should be made despite one of the sides opposes it, without expensive court processes. It's in interest of the child and someone who has to pay at least 18 years long child support should know it's their biological child. It's just fair in my opinion and this will reduce massively amount of problems which may come later.
I love this... except in this instant it makes no sense. The government is extremely involved in children already. When they are removing child support from your paychecks for a child that isn't even yours... is this an example of the government not being involved? Its just inauthentic or completely missing the point. Same with a prenup. To sign legal marriage docs you are agreeing to tons of government control so whats the difference if you want to take some of that control back and tailor it to your personal situation? Id argue its LESS government control for both a prenup and a paternity test. Now if the child isn't yours now the government won't involve you in the situation. Thats less control not more.
Examples of government abusing power day not justify other examples of government abuse of power. In my state, a guy can't be subject to a child support order until paternity had been established.
Right but its like not taking a small win because you demand perfection or complete horror. Step by step improvement is not sufficient. Oh the moral purity! Thats good your state doesn't do that so i can see why you would think its not necessary.
In most states paternity is primarily established by the signing of the birth cert, marriage, living situations... if you find out 5 years later when you get divorced its not yours, guess what? Its yours. Since you signed the birth cert, you were the husband, you lived with the child as if it was yours... so now you pay child support.
@bamesjond0069 WITF would you sign the birth certificate if you weren't sure about paternity? Just living together without being married does not establish paternity. You can always get a DNA test and disprove paternity.
Why would any father sign any birth certificate tbh? It seems completely unnecessary in the first place. That being said just "being sure" obviously doesn't work. Only a test would make one sure. And this circles back. Why not just require a test to have a father sign the birth certificate?
I don't know im just business minded the idea of just willy nilly signing legal documents without fully thinking things through or having a lawyer present just seems ridiculous to me. Id be horrified to sign a document like that without a test. Does one also sign a 100 page contract without reading it and says "fuck it i just had a kid whohoo i hope this doesn't go wrong" lmao. Go get a plaque made.
How is saying "The child has a right to know who their father is" being "unnecessarily" involved in people's lives?
This will prevent 100% of Paternity Fraud, you can't get success rates like that with crime generally, this is a perfect case for intervention, and these tests are cheap.
and the guy who says his theory was wrong, said that his research was invalid because the wolves he studied were in captivity. but if you werent a total moron youd realize no one thinks humans are wolves anyway. the concept of the alpha and the omega has been around since at least the bible
@OlderAndWiser. I agree, but the government is already heavily involved in our intimate relationships, with little to no protection for men. Whoever the baby mama says is the baby-daddy gets stuck with the bill with no burden of proof. "Believe all women", because no woman would ever lie about who fathered her child, right? Mandated paternity testing should be a very basic step to protect fathers AND the child (from not knowing who his/her true father is). I don't see any reasonable argument against this.
@KrakenAttackin "Whoever the baby mama says is the baby-daddy gets stuck with the bill with no burden of proof." Not in my state. If the alleged father denies paternity, he doesn't sign an acknowledgement of paternity and he doesn't get put on the birth certificate. If he mother wants to take it to court, she can file a petition to determine paternity and if he denies he is the father, a DNA test is immediately ordered.
@KrakenAttackin When you hear stories of things in the law that sound utterly stupid, it is usually the result of someone who lost ther case, is angry, and twisting the facts to try to salve ther own wounds.
Honestly, I had to think about this one a bit before I answered it - and my answer surprised me. The answer is "no," it should not, and at first my answer may sound a bit self-serving but hear me out.
To start, truth in advertising, I have gotten four women pregnant. The first pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. The second, and the only one that hurts and that I deeply regret, my girlfriend at the time got an abortion. I wanted the baby and would have care for him or her on my own, but I was denied that and it causes me more pain than you can imagine.
On a happier note, my current girlfriend and I have lived together for 12 years and have three children. We love each other and have talked about marriage but for some reason the idea of an expensive ring and a big ceremony just would seem to cheapen what we share. So we live together. Our first two pregnancies (both boys) were unplanned, the third (a girl) was more or less planned.
However, the one that is really relevant to this question goes back about 15 years. To summarize, I had a one night stand with a woman I met at a business event. We did not know each other, but we just clicked, had very raw sex and that was that. However, it was unprotected sex and I got her pregnant.
Long story short, she decided not to tell me and to raise the child on her own and I went on unaware that I had a son. However, a couple of years ago, as she decided our son needed to know his father, so she tracked me down - even now I am not sure how - and she told me that I was a father. Subsequent tests proved it and so now I have a teenage (14) year old son.
Frankly, it was awkward at first getting to know my son (and his mother for that matter.) However, my son and I have since grown close and while he still lives with his mother, he spends part or all of some holidays and the summer with me, my girlfriend and his half-siblings.
So what does all this have to do with the question? Well truth is, while I love my son and am very happy to have a part in his life, I miss that I did not get the chance to be with him as he has grown up. I feel like I missed so much.
If paternity tests would have been mandatory, I might have had a better chance of being informed that I was going to be a father. So you'd think that I want them to be mandatory.
Yet that is the funny part. I don't agree with what my son's mother decided to do in raising him on her own for all those years, but she had her reasons and she - I have to say - seems to have done a superb job in raising him to be a fine young man.
Is it a good idea to intrude the state into those deeply personal choices? I can't say that it would be. In fact, it would be like threading a needle with a sledgehammer. Not a good idea. She was entitled to make the choices she did and while - as I say - I don't agree with what she did, to blanketly just take that decision out of any individual or even couple's hands is not wise. It is too delicate a situation to intrude such a blunt policy.
When I needed a paternity test to confirm that my son was indeed my son, I was able to get it. I did not need the law to require it before the fact.
Bottom line, I confess that I am torn - and gosh knows I find myself wondering if I have another child I don't know about. (Not likely, but not impossible.) However, it is best to leave these decisions to the people involved. We cannot know their specific circumstances, and we should, with something so personal, give them latitude to make their own decisions.
The problem is if a man wants to do a test voluntarily at birth, that means he doesn't trust her.
He may think it is all about building trust by proving her right, but she thinks it is all about not believing her and destroying trust.
Voluntary ones at birth is just a lose lose situation.
If they are going to be needed, it should be quick and easy to do at birth, mandated to find out if who she says is the father is the father. This way it won't him asking for it and destroy trust with her.
Of course she could say she has no idea and no test is needed, can't test someone if you don't know who to compare to.
Absolutely not. Getting government involved in our private lives is over the top. If there's any doubts, the couple can work it out. The father does NOT have to sign the statement claiming paternity no matter the case. But for government to mandate and obligate anyone to pay for a paternity test is ridiculous. That's between couples.
It could simply be done the same day he goes in to get his vaccines. And the original birth certificate can have a void clause in it if the DNA doesn't match
I think so. Too many legal factors to ignore the legitimacy of parenting. Suppose mother and father break up and now mom wants to put the man on child support, he signed the birth certificate, he was involved in the child life, but little does he know his girlfriend cheated on him and the baby is not really his. Now for the next 18 years he will have to take care of a child thats not his and its not by his choice but law requirements.
No I think that’s too costly and time consuming. I like our current system — men get automatic parental responsibility rights if they are married to the birth giver, otherwise they have to apply for it if they are not married. The birth giver always has automatic parental responsibility. I think that’s transparent and reasonable.
Im speaking for the UK I’m not sure what it’s like in the US.
@PAcc92 raises a good point. Some things are just too serious and perhaps one of the greatest of them all is knowing with certainty who your parent is.
In some cases yes. But ultimately it's up to the individual. It's a fine line to walk. You could ruin a relationship over wanting one. There are so many men who have paid child support only to find out later that they aren't the father and the courts won't reverse the ordered child support.
If something is mandated it should be paid for by tax payers and I don't think a paternity test should be.
Also, what would it say about the society we live in? Do we really need government to collect even more information about us? It's our DNA and it's going to a database from which it will never be removed.
If a man has doubts then he can demand it and agree to a contract that if he is the father he will cover the full cost, if he's not then she will.
If your man demanded a paternity test… think real hard… how you’ll you kill him for not trusting you? But seriously asking for a paternity test if like saying I don’t trust you and is taboo.
I agree 100% with what your saying but… your missing half the information. When a woman has a child it’s not possibly someone else’s nor is she on the hook for 18 years with or without custody.
Try and understand things from a man’s perspective then consider how what he does would effect the woman and relationship. Also to be clear this is potentially marriage ending.
@VanillaSalt So you're saying that because a man and a woman can't work these things out between themselves, every child born should have their DNA taken and stored together with mother's and father's? So it's punishing average people who live moral lives for the issues caused by a small minority? Because it is still a minority of births. I disagree with it. I understand how it sucks to be lied to and raise someone else's child but that's why the decision making should start before the child is in the equation. And if a stupid decision was made or there's good reasons to doubt paternity then the couple must work it out between themselves and not drag everyone else into it. Also, in the case that a woman is raising the child by herself, she's likely to have to care for them well beyond 18 years... I don't know if fathers are obligated to pay alimony past that age even if the child is in full time education and still needs support. The sad thing is that child probably won't have a chance for higher education in the first place... that's why we should all go back to normalcy and start thinking about more than just ourselves, form stable homes and stick to them. For the sake of the children and all society. I know, easier said than done but it's not only one party's fault, both are responsible. How likely is a man to marry a woman in this day and age even if proven to be the father? It almost doesn't happen.
I want to be clear. I value marriage to the same level as the Bible or other religions texts… not the same as Christians whom are okay with divorce.
If we really wanted to support the children we should pool resources and time regardless feelings between husband and wife excluding abuse. I do not like abortion or the idea of taking the option away completely. I’m pro small government and against the government having MORE control in the family.
That being said. Laws need changed. I want a wife and kids and I have to worry that the woman I choose will leave me because the quality of most PEOPLE these days is tested just by being unhappy. She loses the butterflies and now I am on the hook for alimony and child support and I probably have at best 50/50 custody. Here in Texas that’s 20% on my income for child support… only 40% of that is seen by my child’s mother the rest the government takes… divorce is a $60 billion a year “business”. Really? And women can claim abuse and is over for me…
We need a new look at the value of family and children. I won’t marry a woman. When more and more want to wait later and later giving me less and less time to have my family. They expect me to be prebuilt before they consider me a worthwhile partner. They don’t want to do it act like I prefer and they still want the privileges from being married like marriage and alimony. Marriage today’s just risk with very little gain for men and women are leg gain and tremendous risk.
Until there’s change that changes the reason of people to like for relationship or risk to me is brought to an acceptable level I’m not not okay or comfortable to commit and that means things like children arnt an option for me. I wouldn’t make a good single parent and I’m not going to be the cause of one either.
There is absolutely no need for DNA storage in this, all they have to do is look at the child/parent test and go "Yep/None" and then throw it away. Also paternity tests cost less than $100 in no way does this have to involve the government, I think the man and woman can afford a small $50 bill considering that's like taking yourselves out to dinner.
Yes yes yes or at least an option of some sort if a certain party wants intestine is should be mandatory the truth needs to be told just for the kids sake Every kid should have both parents in their life and the truth needs to be told Only person that does not care or doesn't want responsibility would not want this done
Maybe.. but at the same time I think it’s unnecessary and a waste of those resources.
But yes for a man who suspects that the woman was unfaithful, or just to be sure. 100% he should demand one. If the woman has a problem with it. (ITS NOT HIS) period.
Why not. But not immediately after birth. This is kinda disrespectful since the women go through a lot. He can expect it but he should not be mad when she leaves him for his huge trust issues. Imagine he does that for no reason. How big are his trust issues to the point he needs paternity test. This is accusing your partner of cheating. I can understand in some cases when you know she is cheating but for no reason is just disrespectful
In cases like divorce or cheating it is perfectly understandable but if you make such test without any proof that she cheats, then you are incesure and falsely accused a woman for cheating
well it wouldn't be about trust issues if it was just part of the process before signing the birth certificate. It's not about the woman its about the rightful paternity of the child.
OM! Not MORE useless government involvement in our lives? We have much more than enough right now, thank you very much. I have to show my driver's license to get a cold pill, but voters don't have to show any sort of ID? We do NOT need more of this Bravo Sierra, idiotic, over-stepping, unconstitutional control lunacy.
I think absolutely nothing should be mandated by the government. One thing I can say with a pretty high confidence is that whatever the next mandate the government comes up with, I'll be against it. Before I get accused of loving violent anarchy or whatever, there is a difference between mandates and legitimate laws against violence or destruction or theft of property.
Ideally sure. But this doesn't hold up. If the government had a document and you sign it and 50% of laws and mandates dont apply to you... opt out if you will. Would you then argue that signing it is buying into a mandate and government control? When we have all sorts of laws and things already it is possible to to have laws that decrease government control. I mentioned above to someone else... which is more government control over you... having to take a test to make sure a child you want to claim is actually yours... or possibly being in a situation where you are having child support drafted from your paycheck for a kid thats not yours? Which is more controlling to you?
1. I know/knew 5 couples that the dad thought he was and wasn't the father of. I would not fuck over my hubby like that. If I screwed up like that, I would have to be honest. We've been friends to long to do otherwise.
2. If the guy later decides to "claim" that the child isn't his and that mom cheated, this would shut that shit down!
How is making sure the man is informed before signing a birth certificate a violation of civil liberties... its a cheek swab... a paternity test isn't exactly invasive
What part of a paternity test is unconstitutional? Biblically if the woman was found to have committed adultery she should be stoned... How is having a man take a paternity test before he signs a birth certificate unconstitutional? Would you rather men be trapped and forced into paying for child support to children that aren't even theirs?
This sounds like a good idea but how would you get a paternity test if the father just vanished? I don’t think it’s fair to hold up the birth certificate just so the father can be found. But otherwise I think yes.
Obviously, if you can't find the father (who are these women choosing to sleep with?).
You can't have a paternity test, but prior to ANY naming of benefits (i. e. Child Support) a test would have to be done. The mother would not be able to claim benefits until that point.
No. Obviously not. I would have thought that by now everyone would be well and truly fed up with "government mandates". We neither need, nor want, the government in our lives. They should just stay the hell away from us.
Well maybe single mothers would lend itself to that idea. I read somewhere that 15% of men are raising a child that unbeknownst to them is not their child. I just see people suffering needlessly. Granted its right for them to know but it would end up causing problems
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
u 
