Mandatory paternity testing at birth?

Post Reply New Topic

Freudian slip?

You do realize after a certain point of time the man is forced to take responsibility even if the child isn't his? What use is knowing your not the father after you have already become emotionally invested? What good is it after you are already financially liable? And if you still want to be involved with the child but not the mother, do you think there is any chance of the non biological father getting custody?

This isn't about solving problems its about preventing problems which shouldn't exist. I don't see paternal assurance as a waste of money, equality is one of the most espoused virtues of my country, why should it be different in this area?

Speaking as one woman (not for all women), I wouldn't have a problem with institutionalizing paternaty testing whenever the mother is asking a specific man to take responsibility for the child(ren) due to his genetic contribution. If it's institutionalized, then there wouldn't be the 'I suspect my wife of cheating on me' implication of the putative father requesting it for an individual case.

My impression of genetic paternity testing is that, overall, it has helped women make their cases more than it has helped men escape false paternity.

While the issue is only hypothetical and not likely a legal possibility in the US, it would be interesting to get some female perspective on the issue. Anyone care to ask their wife or girlfriend what they think. A poll on this site might bring some interesting female responses.

I did ask my wife and she found it amusing because from her perspective it would be the most personal intervention by Government into citizens lives that she could imagine, except for a requirement like China has to limit reproduction. I think the principle of this kind of Government intervention into a persons sex life would be more an issue than the benefit derived from the test.

Another point is who is going to pay for the paternity test, it's not cheap. And also the exception for the court proceeding; someone pays for court costs, it's also not cheap.

Which is my dang main point. When the mother wants to place the name of a male on the birth certificate, or when a male wants his name on the certificate. It shouldn't be a requirement to match, but it should be a requirement to know.



Is this relevant? Would you disagree if it went the other way?

In what way is this an intervention in anyones sex life? It does not legalize or make illegal (directly) any sexual actions. At best you could say that it might make women and men more cautious about affairs. But it does not actually interfere at all.



The same way government always pays for things. I'm not going to bother arguing this part of the argument more unless the economic habits of the governments of the world makes a sudden shift.

EDIT: Also your wife's imagination isn't very creative. The biggest I can imagine is breeding farms.(both sexes being sterilized through the food supply, then at a certain point in their lives taken to the farm and evaluated, if they pass they are made to copulate, willingly or otherwise.) Or perhaps they are not taken, but allowed the 'choice' with the government being able to get an individual order when an exceptional person they want to breed chooses not to come on his/her own. This took me less than a minute and I find it much more offensive.

It's relevant to the fact that I'm speaking, in this thread, specifically as a woman.
As for whether I would have a different opinion...? The possibility requires me to first imagine that lots of women would be deliberately lying about who the father of their child is; I have a hard time imagining that. I don't see a reason why they would do so, but I don't think I'd support people routinely lying and getting away with it on a subject of such importance.

typo but I think Ill keep it.

A government intervention in a persons sex life just means that the government is intervening in the process, not inteferring in the sex act or making them illegal. A government required paternity test is certainly a government intervention in genetically determining who the father is as a result of procreation.

And no my wife is not nearly as creative as you in this instance, also I don't think she read "A Brave New World", she just used an example from the real world.

Normally a women is required to list the father of the child on a birth certificate if she is not married. Then the next thing you know the the state wants child support. Can be a tough thing for the guy to go through if he is not really the father. Fortunately, he can provide a paternity test to prove he is not. I don't think the women gets to keep putting names on the birth certificate, but I could be wrong.

Some times the woman really is not sure who the father is. If the government requires paternity tests, for instance, she comes up with two or three names, then the government must legally require the two or three men to take the paternity test. If they say they didn't sleep with her and refuse the test, what is the penalty?

What if she was at a party and doesn't even remember the guys name or have any idea where he lives. Then does it become a legal requirement for every woman to have the name and address of every man she sleeps with? If she doesn't remember what is the penalty? If there is no penalty or requirement for the woman to state this what is going to stop someone with coming up with this story? Do you see all the possibilities of government interventions into the private lives of citizens. Is it feasible for the government to get a handle on the real life soap operas of millions of citizens. A whole new government agency would probably have to be created to come close to effectively dealing with this.

This makes an insurance mandate look like child's play in comparison to what it would take to make a national paternity test work.

Paternity is not part of someones sex life. And its not determining the father its requiring that any one who wants to be declared the father know whether or not the kid is genetically his.



? A brave new world had free standing sex yes, but they did not force people to breed with strangers in the manner I described.



Yes but it has to done within a certain point or they just assume he is the father regardless of genetic ties. In some places thats as low as 6 months(And the woman doesn't just put the name on the certificate, the man has to sign) At least thats the way its done out of wedlock.
Aka if your name is on the certificate, and she cuckolded, you your screwed if you sign that certificate. Even if she lied about the child being yours, you legally took responsibility for the child and have been presumably taking care of it financially.




Take them to court. if one does not just decide he wants to assume responsibility for a child they can just be held in contempt of court until they take the test or the genetic father is found.(They could also try and prove that they didn't sleep with her, but that would be difficult, and near impossible)



If she can't name anyone as the father she can't get support payments without taking someone to court.(which would order a paternity test) The penalty is having no father declared for her baby. The only way to get around this would be just living with someone who didn't have any concerns about being the birth father, he would naturally(from a legal viewpoint) become legally responsible for the kids if he started taking care of them. I suppose she could just lie and say she doesn't know who the father is, and then move in with someone, but they would have the option of just kicking her and the kid out with no concern about repercussions(unless of course they where declared the father after the kid and its mom got kicked out).

The father of course would also have the option of getting declared a father and claiming visitation rights(and putting himself up for CS payments, or perhaps shared custody)), if she refused to bring the baby in for testing, or something along those lines she would be held to the usual punishments when someone violates court proceedings.

You keep stating that there are interventions but I see none, at least no new ones. Your just asking open ended questions that could already be dealt with by the legal system that is already here.(aka what happens when someone refuses a court order, aka what happens when there is no father on the birth certificate)



No it doesn't. It sets up a procedure for putting a father on the birth certificate. If this procedure is violated or hindered in some way it goes to the courts. It could of course be subsidized but thats not really a requirement, and that might require an organization to dole out money. But really its quite simple in implementation, the only hard part would be keeping your seat after making the law.

I have a few public policy concerns around this:

1) Cost. Who is going to pay for this. DNA profiling does not come cheap, and if you are going to make it mandatory, the cost is going to have to be borne somewhere--and that means the public purse. So what's the benefit to the state from this added information? Will it diminish the divorce rate? Will is simplify custody and access applications? Will it diminish the number of deadbeat dads?

If there is some epirical evidence to suggests that conclusive evidence of paternity is important, then by all means do so. But build the case first.

2) Compulsion. Who is to be tested, and what is the protection against unreasonable search and seizure? Can a woman name any number of men and compel all of them to be tested on her declaration alone?

3) Privacy. Who has access to this information, and to what other uses can it be put? Do we suddenly have a DNA library of every father and potential father in the country?

I see it as a proposal fraught with danger, which will produce no meaningful improvement in the child's exercise of its rights. (And let us remember, custody, access and support are rights of the child--not of the parent seeking to enforce them on the child's behalf).

Answered the first question above. The benefit to the state? Why must there be a benefit to the state? The benefit is equal assurance of paternity for men and women. The last questions would be uncertain. But custody isn't based solely on genetic ties so I don't see why it would simplify it.



The importance is to prevent paternity fraud, and give men the same genetic assurance that women have. It is to promote gender equality. So what kind of evidence are you asking for? My argument isn't based on any implicit benefits to the child, mother, or father.



If the man(or men) refuses it goes to court, this was outlined above.



Why would we? Parental tests are done all the time, it would follow the same methods.



Visitation rights are a right of the parents, to think otherwise is absurd, maybe both the parents and the child have this right, but to say a parent has no right to see his/her child is silly and has no logical foundation. Also if a father wants to support his child financially or emotionally why wouldn't he be able to?

Define meaningful improvement, are you asserting that one genetic parent can have no meaningful impact on a child?

I disagree, some people don't want to be forced to buy health insurance, because they believe it is an invasion of their right not to purchase it. If you force people to pay for paternity tests, it is much the same thing. It also can be considered an invasion of privacy. In this case you are suggesting legal penalties for failure to comply with a paternity test mandate. As stated before the courts do not have the capacity to deal with a private issue like this on a nation wide basis. Legal penalties have been taken out of the insurance mandate, so it is not an issue there. I think the overall human costs outweigh the benefits of such a proposal.

^ with universal health care the issue of forcing insurance would be a moot point... just sayin'
But I do agree

The issue with universal health care is that it forces everyone to buy health insurance.

No that's a different story. I live in Canada, I benefit from universal health care, and I have no insurance. Perhaps you're thinking of 'Obamacare'