Return to the Stepfamily Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
DNA testing

Posted by imamommy (My Page) on
Fri, May 15, 09 at 16:11

Reading another post about doubts regarding paternity got me thinking: What if DNA testing was mandatory at birth? How would everyone feel about that?

I've thought about it for sometime that they should begin taking DNA samples when babies are born.. sort of like when they take footprints. The DNA database could be used to find missing kids and solve crimes. But, how many paternity frauds would be exposed???

I know of two situations in my family where paternity is questionable.. my brother looks EXACTLY like my mom's high school sweetheart (a Mexican guy)... and my grandson has fair hair and blue eyes... and my son is 3/4 Mexican, his wife is white. (of course he has the recessive gene for blue eyes because my dad is white & blue eyed... but still, DNA would be conclusive) and of course, my DH's parents have said they suspected SD was not DH's because she looked like her ex BF. But, at this point... my dad would not want to find out my brother is not his, my husband would not want to find out SD is not his.... and my son would be heartbroken to find out it's not really his son. So, I can see the side of not wanting to know...

Thoughts???


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: DNA testing

I dont think the govt should intrude on people's private lives -- if you want testing -- its easy enough to arrange on your own.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I think it should be done anytime the couple is not married, and offered easily at the hospital. My nephew and his girlfriend have two kids together. We arent 100% sure of either of them. THey are so on and off. She will get mad and not let him see the babies and they work it out before the test gets done. Then he don't want to know. He would never have the test done if she wouldn't refuse to let him see them and he can't get visit rights til it is done.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I think they should totally do it. It would cut down on dead beat parents. Parents wouldn't be able to deny children and women couldn't LIE and then go after the real father for back supposrt thirteen years later.

Paternity isn't a private thing. Sexuality and religion is but not paternity. You either are or are not that child's father. Futhermore If a woman is caught LYING she should be able to be charged on some sort of misdeamenor IMHO. You are screwing with peoples emotions when you start lying about paternity of children. It could damage both the real fthaer, the alledged and also the child.


 o
Don't know if the response posted so I'm posting it again

I think they should totally do it. It would cut down on dead beat parents. Parents wouldn't be able to deny children and women couldn't LIE and then go after the real father for back supposrt thirteen years later.

Paternity isn't a private thing. Sexuality and religion is but not paternity. You either are or are not that child's father. Futhermore If a woman is caught LYING she should be able to be charged on some sort of misdeamenor IMHO. You are screwing with peoples emotions when you start lying about paternity of children. It could damage both the real fthaer, the alledged and also the child.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I agree it should be done. Why not? you have nothing to hide right???
Doodle is right..you are either the father or not. Its not private and shouldn't be taken as intrusive at all.
Now if someone is lying...then..i can see emotions being hurt and betrayal..etc.etc...but hey! if you are going to have a child. Be responsible!


 o
RE: DNA testing

everyone in my family is dark hair brown eyes dark skin Jews and mixed with Italian on mom's side. I am blond, green eyes, light skin, much shorter than anyone in my family with small frame, never ever anyone in my family on any side in any generation looked this way. On family pictures we look like: "OK this is a family but who is this woman?" LOL Well I do have some of the traits of my parents but they aren't obvious right away. So should we all get DNA testing? I mean these are just looks.

I don't think we should mandate DNA testing. I think it is private and unless court ordered no one can force that. Poeple might want to keep their paternity private. My mom's dad was not biodad, but they didn't go around proclaiming it to people. It is no one's business. If someone is accused of lying or not paying etc then it should be court ordered, only then.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"It is no one's business."

But I wonder if you would change your mind if you had a son that might be 'tricked' but then wouldn't get tested because he didn't want the mother to get mad at him for not trusting her.

It's easy for a woman to know she's the mother, but guys can't always be sure... even if they are married. It's one thing if you KNOW the child is not yours and you choose to raise him/her anyways... that's what most stepparents do, they make a choice to be a parent or not to the child. So, no they don't have to proclaim it to people but they, for their own knowledge, should know the truth... don't ya think?


 o
RE: DNA testing

And why can't the Dad get the DNA tested without mom knowing -- can't he just swap kids cheek, his own, and send to lab?

Do I not understand how DNA testing works -- arent there places that advertise they will do it?

If you want DNA testing, go for it -- but dont force me to do it.

PS - Blond hair and green eyes are recessive traits -- they can pop up in the middle of knowwhere.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"...women couldn't LIE and then go after the real father for back supposrt thirteen years later."

In my state, back child support only goes back to the date that support was filed for. Granted, it was only recently amended (in the last few years) but they can't do that anymore. Are there still states that do this? How unfair.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Lone, I think Ima and other's complaint revolves around where Dad wont insist on DNA, and is stuck with not knowing.

I find this hypocritical when these same people complain that 18yo stepchildren are adults and should act as such. Well so should their male relatives -- if they are old enough to father a child, they are old enough to arrange a DNA test without the state requiring it.

And for people like me, who DO believe that a teen or young adult needs quidance, if my D, who is not promiscous, and is repsonbile, were to become pregant and have a child (which is highly unlikely, given she understands how this would prevent her from realizing her career plans), yes, I would strongly encourage her to have tests so that she was sure who father was.


 o
RE: DNA testing

As a mom, I wouldn't have been offended in the least if my childs DNA had been collected/analized at birth. It could be as routine as the immunizations newborns recieve. If Dad had questions or doubts he could have himself tested and compared against the child at anytime because the info would be on file.

I can see how it would have the potential to help identify missing persons, crime victims, and assist in solving crimes. I don't really see the harm in having the info on file.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Really -- what if they want your fingerprints? Again, if you want your DNA recorded, go for it, but don't tell me I should have mine or my Daughters recorded. Dad can compar easily, take a swap and compare. If he wont do it, dont try to get everyone to. It wont happen.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I'm not personally suggesting that you or your daughter do anything.

I interpreted the origional post to ask what are your thoughts on if DNA was collected at birth routinely. Not necessarily only to test paternity.

And what if they collected fingerprints at birth? Would that really be so different from the footprints they take?
I can see you are passionate about this, what do you think would happen if they did collect DNA at birth? What are some reasons this would be a negative?


 o
RE: DNA testing

Well they do take your fingerprints in CA when you get a driver's license... at least the thumbprint and social security number. When you volunteer at the schools here, you also have to have fingerprint cards on file. Many jobs now require it. When recipients apply for welfare in CA, they are fingerprinted as well... it's not just criminals anymore. So, yeah I think you should have yours and your daughter's fingerprints AND DNA recorded. What about babies that are kidnapped in the first year? How much does a baby change in the first weeks, months or years of life? If the child isn't found immediately, how would they be recognized three years later? If someone is kidnapped and murdered but not found for months or years, how would they identify the remains? The number of unidentified remains is staggering... ONE is too many!

I'm not suggesting DNA is only for dad's that don't want to take a test, but if it's routine... just like blood typing or testing for genetic defects or at birth immunizations... everyone would have it done as a routine test, the number of fraudulent claims against the wrong man would drop. and yes, in some states the 'real' bio father can be held responsible all the way back to the birth of the child, regardless of how much time has passed. Can you imagine being in a marriage and out of the blue, getting stuck with 18+ years back child support for a child you never knew existed? It happens. What's worse? Raising a kid as your own for 10-12 years and when the relationship breaks up.. she blurts out "he/she isn't even yours!" and THEN a DNA test proves it... In CA, legally he would still be responsible for supporting the child but he would be stuck with the heartbreak those words might bring. I heard a case where the 12 year old was cut off from the guy he believed was his dad after the mom pressed for a DNA test at 12 years old and then cut off the guys relationship with the child. There was another case where a guy took his 9 year old daughter for a test while he was on a visit, which proved he wasn't her bio father. Knowing from day 1 would remove all doubt and there would be no reason to put the child through that at an age where it would destroy the child and his/her relationship with the person they believe is their parent.

As to whether it will happen or not. I think it will happen eventually. Technology is there and it's in the best interest of society and children to determine correct parentage. and as I said, if the person wants to take responsibility AFTER they have the knowledge that the child is not theirs biologically, then they should be held to the same standard as if they ARE the bio parent. The rights and responsibilities of parenthood go hand in hand.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Of course the technology is here -- but so are privacy rights. If a child is kidnapped, there are sources of his/her DNA at home, as are its parents. Like I said -- if someone wants a test, they can do it. Why did the guy wait till his daughter was 9 - he could have done it if he wanted?

I guess only stepchildren are supposed to be responsible -- if you want the test -- get it done. But dont tell me to. And trust me, the only child I have, I know the father.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Since I have nothing to hide I would gladly have my DNA, fingerprints, whatever on file and if my children were minors theirs as well. I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. My DH, who was career law enforcement, has always said every one's DNA should be on file in order to help solve crimes. When a crime is committed it would be so helpful to be able to put DNA into a database to see if there is a match. It could easily exonerate an innocent person. I don't understand the privacy deal. Privacy from what?


 o
RE: DNA testing

My D happens to be the biological child of my X. But if she werent it wouldnt be your business. What I see here is a lot of frustration of people whose male loved ones wont obtain a DNA test. If they want them, they should get them. As far as I know, no state other than Ca requires fingerprints for driving license. DNA testing could result in employers finding them and screening employees for heritary health issues.


 o
RE: DNA testing

You can't tell me that if your husband (at the time your DD was born) were to ask for a DNA test, even though YOU knew she was his and YOU knew there was no possibility that she was anyone else's... that YOU wouldn't have been miffed if he asked for a DNA test?

It's easy to see why some men don't want to ask for a test... it would be taken as an insult to the woman or as if it's an accusation that she was unfaithful.. etc. But, like I said, women never have a doubt their child is theirs but men might, even if they have no reason to. If you have nothing to hide, what would be the big deal to have it done as a matter of routine? If it were standard procedure, then a guy would never have to worry about making his girlfriend/wife angry and the woman would never feel she is being accused of anything and it wouldn't shake up the trust in each other.

Just as DMV records are fairly confidential, the DNA bank should be secured for use by courts & law enforcement or use only with permissible purposes. I don't see how employers would access anything regarding hereditary health issues because medical records are confidential anyways... I don't really think employers should have access to credit reports... that bothers me more. (Thank goodness I'm self employed!)


 o
RE: DNA testing

Ima, he wouldnt need to let me know ( at least now -- with today's technology) - google DNA and you can find plenty of private labs.

Any Dad can swab babys' cheeck and send in with a sample of his own. If it doesnt match, then he can pursue a court ordered screen. If it does match, he throws it away.

Why do you refuse to answer my question as to any man who wants can do it? Privately? Its relatively cheap and easy. Why should the public pay for testing for all. Just because some people cant convince a guy to do it?

As to access to records, once they exist -- who knows who can see them.


 o
RE: DNA testing

KK, because you brought up the dollars and cents side:
There's lots of things that it makes sense to pay for proactively out of public funds, because it costs waaaaay more to deal with the aftermath of not doing it.
Dollars to donuts, it's cheaper to do the tests than clean up a few ridiculous court battles decades later. DNA tests are cheeeeeeeeap (it's just that since JoeSchmoe can't do it in his garage, private companies are able to charge a lot for them). Court, on the other hand is freaking expensive.

Plus, if you're concerned about who can see your records, you'd better cancel your driver's license and your credit cards. You should quit your job, deactivate your email account, and cancel your telephone. You'd also better stop paying taxes, never send snail mail, and go live in a tent in the woods, snaring rabbits and picking berries.
Time to get off the map I guess.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I have no issues with my DNA and fingerprints being on record. Since I don't plan a career of crime, the only uses (and very good ones!) it would serve would be to exclude me from a crime or to identify my body if that was necessary.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Please explain to me why it costs more to do it afterwards --

1. AS pointed out -- states dont allow retrocactive CS -- anyone can get it when they want.

2. Its still cheaper for the few people who want it done privately to have compnaies do it than to demand all people get it.

I'm not promiscuous and wouldnt get involved with someone who is -- I dont see why I have to pay for those who are. Thats what we're talking about here. People who get involved with people in non-monogous relationships. They have the ability to deal with this. Just because some people may have loved ones who won't -- its interesting how the same people who expect stepchildren to be responsible don't expect their male adult loved ones to be responsible. I'm not even talking about avoiding casual sexual relationships (althought that is s good ides), taking proper precautions (another good idea -- but how many here have said their man was "tricked" -- as if he couldnt have taken precautions), I'm saying he can arrange for a private test when told he is a father. As for expenisve court tests -- please tell me how often an expensive or lenghty court process goes on when dad immediately contests paternity.

In any event, I doubt this will ever go anywhere, much less happen. But please post if any elected politician says he or she will support it --


 o
RE: DNA testing

"I dont see why I have to pay for those who are. Thats what we're talking about here."

How funny! When I worked in the social services office, there were several cases where a woman would claim "I don't know who the father is!", either because she really didn't know because there were too many to choose from, she had a one night stand and didn't know who he was or remember his name, or she was still with the guy and didn't want him to be ordered to pay support... because they were still together and committing welfare fraud. If everyone's DNA were on file, it would be very simple to say..."you may not remember that guys name but the DNA says it's Jon Smith" and the right guy would be nailed.

Let's say a guy and girl are together... in love. She gets pregnant and he is a stand up guy, so he marries her. He's in love, he doesn't doubt her love so he see's no reason to ask for a DNA test... he trusts her. They get married and within a few years, he finds her cheating on him. She leaves him or he dumps her... but the marriage is over. She files for child support and he has a choice: a) accept that the child he has been raising for three years is his and obligate himself to support the child for the remainder of his/her minority, including college in some cases. b) ask for a DNA test. Now it's complicated... the child is 3 (or older), there's a bond and a relationship to think about. When the child was born, there was no reason to doubt anything, but now that he knows the mother has the capacity to cheat... he wonders.

and if the WRONG man is initially ordered to pay support and has his wages garnished... for years... and then the real father is determined to be someone else... they will then go after the real father and the wrong guy doesn't get any of the money he might have paid over the years back. and while it may not happen in YOUR circles, it does happen and if it happens with someone on public assistance... then you ARE paying for it anyways if you are a taxpayer.

and if you are tricked? What precautions? There are precautions to prevent pregnancy (nothing is 100% effective except abstinence) but what precautions do you take when the woman you love says you are going to be a father... and you are in love and want to believe the woman you love would not lie to you or be with someone else? What precautions are there to make sure she doesn't sleep with her ex boyfriend behind your back and then claim you are the father to her child?


 o
RE: DNA testing

So how will taking baby's DNA help? Dad's wont be on file -- all it will it do is identify mom and babys. If mom wont identify dad - it wont help? If she will, he can have it tested.

I see an eaier solution -- require anyone requesting public assistance to identify the dad. The dad can chose whether he wants to constest.

Just becuase some men wont do what you want -- require tests -- shouldnt give you the rigth to require it.


 o
kkny

Well, you are only thinking in the short term. DNA has been around 20+ years. It will be around forever. Eventually, all baby boys born today would be on file and in 20 years it would be easy to identify them as the fathers of children born at that time. (or as suspects in crimes, etc.)

anyone requesting public assistance IS required to identify the father already. There was a woman that claimed she went to a bar and didn't know the guy's name... there was another woman that gave seven different names/descriptions because she didn't know full names... or claimed it. Because it would be detrimental to deny the child benefits, the mother's can get away with lying to get assistance. When they give seven names, the DCSS must then go after ALL of them... testing & eliminating each one. What does THAT cost? and What happens if an overzealous process server serves some guy he thinks is Joe Smith but Joe Smith no longer lives there and never knows there's an allegation he's the baby daddy? He never answers the summons & complaint.. a default judgment is made against him and he is now declared 'legally' the father. CA enacted a temporary law a few years ago... exactly because there were many cases like that. If Joe Smith is just one name in seven guys named... and HE doesn't get the papers so he doesn't answer that he wants a DNA test, then bingo, he's the legal daddy and when they go to garnish his wages or lien his house... his only recourse is to challenge service and hopefully he can clear his name... but many guys had NO recourse once an order was made. The law CA had to allow those cases to be reviewed was temporary and if the guy that has been wrongfully paying child support for ten years did not know about that temporary law, he is out of luck. If it happens today, he's out of luck.

You're entitled to YOUR opinion. I'm entitled to mine. I guess we need to agree to disagree. It's good that you are not promiscuous and you know who your child's father is, but the world is not made up of kkny's.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Ima, yes times have changed, and those men who were incorrectly labeled years ago as dad went for years without being able to challenge. But anyone labeled Dad now has the ability to challenge. Your vignette does stand for the state requriing better service. But it is kinda hard for me to beleive that anyone who now is ordered to pay and has bad service and has his wages guarnished or whatever does not challenge. But the 10 year vignette, in todays day and age of abilitiy to test seems kinda strange.


 o
RE: DNA testing

There are too many different circumstances and situations to mention all possibilities. However, the law is the law... regardless of what you or I believe. I believe any guy that finds out he was never served and an order was made against him... should have the right to request a DNA test but it doesn't happen that way. That's NOT the law. He must prove he was never served... sometimes that's hard to do when it's his word against an uninterested process server who the court may believe has no reason to lie. He, on the other hand, may have a reason to lie... he doesn't want to pay support.

You may find it hard to believe, but if you live at 123 Main Street, Anytown, New York... but for some reason, you get mail at a Personal Mail Box at the UPS store. I can serve you at your Personal Mail Box and it's a legal service, even if you only pick up mail there once a year. If you have an active PO box that you get mail at but you got it when you lived across town... I can access the card on file with USPS and serve you at the address they have on file, even if you no longer live there...and that's legal too. So, it's very possible to have lawsuits turned into Judgments without actually knowing about it. and it's a mess to try and clean up because you might try to challenge service because you no longer live there... but if you never changed your card with the post office, then the court is most likely going to uphold the Judgment against you... because it's a legal service. Happens all the time. Maybe not to you, but it happens. When it's a money Judgment that is truly owed because you didn't pay a bill, it's not tragic. But when it's a frivolous lawsuit or paternity case, it very well could be tragic. Not to mention the cost of attorney's, etc. to fight it once it happens.

lol, I had a ticket 21 years ago. I paid my fine 20 years ago, which was a few hundred dollars. Last year, my state tax return was intercepted for that fine... from 1988. When I called to find out why the heck they took my tax return, they said they had no record of me paying the fine... they told me I had to bring them proof I paid it. Well, who the hell keeps bank statements for 20 years? I don't. I sure kept the record of them taking my taxes this year but I feel I was screwed. I'm not going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to fight it.. it was a few hundred dollars and I have no proof I paid it. Sucks for me. Several years ago, my bank account was levied for $800. When I investigated to find out why, I found out that I was 'served' the same month I left my exBF, about a week after I left him. I never got the papers... my ex didn't tell me anything about it because we weren't talking. I was still getting mail there so it was a legal service. I did go to court to fight it but it was declared a legal service. It was a debt belonging to my ex but he had filed bankruptcy and I had co-signed... so I got stuck paying it. But, the point is that it's hard to challenge service. It's possible but often very difficult and costly.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I think DNA testing should be available for people who want to do it and it should be mandated by courts when it is necessary. Why does it have to be mandated in all cases? I never intended to commit crimes or sleep around and make babies with whoever.

I understand that there are plenty of promiscious men and women out there who sleep with whoever and might not even know who their children are, but why do i have to have to do testing that doesn't apply to me? I only have one child who is certainly biologically my Xhusband's and he wouldn't question it even if she wouldn't look like him. Like my dad doesn't question why i am blond. People who get themslves in messy situations should do DNA testing on their own expense but why do i have to?

Who is going to fund mandatory testings? My taxes? Why do I have to pay my taxes for mandatory testing of people who sleep around?


 o
RE: DNA testing

Ima,

Your problem at the end, wasnt the bad service, but that you had co-signed a debt with X spouse. That is a problem that is of your own making -- although I am sorry when this happens to people.

Fine, I suspect people want it mandatory because their DHs or DBFs wont do it on their own -- or at least some of them.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Your taxes are already being spent on mandatory testing of every woman that claims there might be more than one guy that could be daddy. If a guy is accused and asks for a DNA test by a woman on public assistance... who do you think pays for the DNA test? Taxpayers! If he is found to be the father, he may have to reimburse HIS test but who knows how many tests are done at taxpayer expense before the right guy is found.

and if it becomes routine, the cost would likely come down.. they can charge what they charge now because it's done privately. Not to mention, in CA it costs $350 filing fee to file a paternity case. If the DA has to file a case against seven possible fathers... because the court won't order a DNA test unless he's been served a summons & complaint to establish paternity... then it costs $25-150 to have each guy served... and then if he is served, he has to file an answer... another filing fee to him of $350 plus possible attorney fees, etc. It's EXPENSIVE. versus a couple of hundred dollars to test in the hospital... if that. The courts would not be clogged up and taking time of DCSS, DA, Court, and attorney's...and potential father's. Yet, nobody complains that a tylenol costs $30 in the hospital... LMAO!!!


 o
Private testing

I agree, there should be a test if either parent demands it. But just becuase some people are irresponsible doesnt give the state the right to my finger prints (in my states, and most), my DNA, etc.

My guess is the knowledge that private tests are available will drive down related problems.

You say that you are glad you are not employed, as you dont think employers should have access to health records. I trust my employer a lot more than I trust the govt.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I dont think so. I told the hospital that I didnt know who the father of my daughter was. (Even though I did) I would have resented anyone telling me that I had to do anything like that.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Momof 4 -- as long as you arent asking for public assistance, I agree it is up to you.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"Ima,

Your problem at the end, wasnt the bad service, but that you had co-signed a debt with X spouse. That is a problem that is of your own making --"

The problem was not my own making, it was his debt and we were never married... but, yes I co-signed & shouldn't, but there's a right way and a wrong way to collect.. even if the debt was valid. Not knowing you have a debt/judgment and having your bank account drained on payday when you are a single mom with 3 kids is not something that was not my own making... sure, I co-signed but I was never given the papers and was never given the opportunity to pay in payments or I would have.. it wasn't MY debt, it was his... and it was NOT a bad service, I was apparently served properly at the address I received mail at which is a good service... but my point is that I no longer lived there and never got the papers.... that happens to alleged fathers and BOOM... they are declared baby daddy by default and never knew baby even existed... it's not really fair. That was my point... there are too many scenario's to mention them all.

And then you say it's okay to decide to lie to the hospital and say they don't know who the father is, as long as you are not getting public assistance? WOW!!! That says a lot!


 o
RE: DNA testing

And then you say it's okay to decide to lie to the hospital and say they don't know who the father is, as long as you are not getting public assistance? WOW!!! That says a lot!

I can see that in a few cases, not having a legal record of who the biological father is might be a good thing...
1) A__'s BF who threatened to kill BM while she was pregnant and has been in and out of jail for the past 15 years. She lied and said "Father Unknown".
I'm happy A__ has no legal ties to that waste of oxygen.

2) A friend of mine who has been fighting for nearly ten years to get BF sign off on rights to her son. She got pregnant, he told her to get lost. To do the "right thing" and follow the rules, she put him down as the father on the birth forms. He has never paid a dime and has only seen the son once, but his mother won't "let" him sign off his paternity rights so my friend's DH can adopt. (How a 30yo man's mother can control that is beyond me, but...)
She kicks herself regularly for not lying on the forms.

HOWEVER, while I see that there are some cases that it may seem for the best to lie, I'm very opposed to it.
A__'s BF is a fckup and shouldn't have any rights to A__... But A__ has a right to a complete birth certificate.
My friend could probably get her son's BF to give up his paternal rights if she threatened to file for CS (maybe a little dirty, but within her legal rights).

I don't think anyone should lie on official papers, whether they're on social assistance or not.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I am surprised by this talk of lying at the hospital regarding paternity.

I didn't put ANYTHING on my DD's birth certificate for father. I left it totally blank and no one questioned anything. The lady helping me fill out the paperwork said "do you want to put the father's name down?" I said no and that was that. No lying was involved.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Well that is certainly preferable. I dont know if some states allow it to be blank. If Dad doesnt even know if mom is pregnant -- one has to wonder if he wants to be involved.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Yes, some (if not all) states allow it to be blank.

Actually, I don't know if anyone knew this, but (at least in ID where DD was born) the father CANNOT be on the birth certificate if he is not at the hospital. Well--I mean, he can get it ammended and have his name put on. But a mother cannot put a name down for the father without him being there to sign and have it notarized. This is to prevent a woman from naming someone who is NOT the father without his consent.

So I guess that is why it wasn't an issue for me. I mean, if I had put his name down, it wouldn't have been considered official anyway.

Not sure if I HAD if he would have been notified and had a chance to contest it?

Regardless, I left it blank, and it was a non-issue. He wasn't there for her birth and I had no desire to put his name on it.

When I filed a paternity suit against him a year later, he was court-ordered to pay to have the birth certificate ammended with his name on it...but here we are six years later, and he has still not done that. Doubt he ever will.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Love, that seems sensible to me, but I know less about birth certificate rules than most people here. I dont even remember either me or X signing, but I was so happy.


 o
kkny

"Fine, I suspect people want it mandatory because their DHs or DBFs wont do it on their own -- or at least some of them."
I don't think I understand. Why would their DHs or BFs need to do it and why would women want them to do that? maybe it does happen but it cannot possibly be that massive of an issue.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"Your taxes are already being spent on mandatory testing of every woman that claims there might be more than one guy that could be daddy."

It could be the case but it is not like every woman sleeps wiht more than one guy. If it becomes mandatory, i have to pay for everyone.


 o
RE: DNA testing

FD, Apparently it appears to be an issue to some people here. Some woman shows up (or has been around for a while), says that someone elses DH or BF is papa. Papa pays child support. Papas now SO or wife is angry. Papa wont just swap the cheek and send it in anon to private lab, or demand court ordered test. I can understand why papa might be afraid to do the latter, but not the former.

Other alternative, mom says to dad, not your kid, go away, or threatens to.

I think some of the horror stories happend as DNA analysis first became uses. Now that people are familiar with it, I suspect people are more honest.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"My D happens to be the biological child of my X. But if she werent it wouldnt be your business."

If your daughter WASN'Y your husbands though you wouldn't of lied about it KKNY. You wouldn't do that but sadly it happens more than some might think. I bet the number of men who go to their graves thnking a child they raised was theirs when it wasn't would be surprising.

How many times have we said that men are gulible and don't like confrontation? All a woman wouls have to do is act hurt oe offended and the guy would back down. That's just in the cases where there is suspicion. What about all the cases where the poor guy is totally in the dark!!!! It wouldn't even accure to these men to check paternity. We pay for everything else for people on assisstance so why not this. In the casebof people on public assisstance it would actually CUT costs because women would no longer be able to say "I don't know". There would have to bb a father paying some support.

I work with low income families and I have seen it all. A woman will come in our office looking for assisstance and say she doesn't know who the father is because she will GET MORE MONEY. This same man will have knocked up 7 or 8 morewomen. They will all claim they don't know who the father is. The man has a bunch of kids to carry out his "legacy" without the stress of having to be financially responsible and the women have more money on their check/EBT card each month. Everyone wins....except the kid of course. This is ALWAYS how it goes. The kid is always the loser.

At tax time (get this) they will claim as many kids as they legally can and then "sale" the remaining kids to family members or friends. They will let them claim the remaining children as long as they get a percentage of the rufund money! They will find any way possible to work the system and get all the money out of it they can.

Spending the extra money to establish mandatory paternity from the get go would actually save everyone money in the end. I personally don't think a woman should be able to recieve ANY services unless paternity has been established and the father has been contacted about support. If he's an abusing ass then even MORE reason he should be paying. He wouldn't have to have visits but he could damn sure have money electronically debited to that mothers account every month.

If you are so loose you can't narrow the paternity of your child down to a reasonable number of men than you probably shouldn't have the kid with you anyway. If I were these women I'd be embarrased to admit it could be one of tweenty men. EEW. How desperate for cash are they?


 o
RE: DNA testing

that's exactly my point doodle. In the long run, it is less expensive because the taxpayers are already shelling out the cost to test paternity on public assistance cases and yes, the women may name 10 or more guys... I think it's more that they KNOW who the daddy is and maybe the daddy is sliding them cash on the side and will stop if he's ordered to pay support, so she covers for him... throws up a smoke screen of ten guys the DA can run after (knowing none of them are really the guy).. she gets more aid, plus the cash on the side and if she's really lucky... one of the guys will be properly served and not respond... and be declared the daddy so HE will end up paying or owing support. I don' think it occurs to some people that these things DO happen... unless you work in or near the welfare system and see it happen first hand. It's shocking what goes on in other people's worlds. and there are guys that consider themselves more of a man if they have kids all over the place... heck, I've seen guys brag that they made sons, not daughters... as if their sperm were superior! There's all kinds in the world!

Ceph, A's bio father should have been named. He should be ordered to pay support. He may be a worthless waste of oxygen, but there is nothing to prevent him from showing up one day and demanding his parental rights. If nobody has been legally declared A's father, there is nothing to prevent him from doing that. Now, do I think it will ever happen, not after 10 years. But, support should have been pursued from the beginning. That's the child's right. and your friend who's ex won't sign off his rights... she should also pursue child support. It is the child's right to be supported by both parents. It might persuade him to sign away his rights too, but she can also ask the court to terminate his rights if he refuses to support or establish a relationship with the child and there is a step father that wants to adopt.. that does support and does have a relationship with the child. Or she can pursue child support from the bio dad and let step dad be the father figure in her son's life and not let bio dad off the hook. (the only thing is bio dad would retain parental rights too) But, in any case a child has the right to know who both of his/her parents are and a child has the right to be supported by both parents, unless a court decides otherwise. I don't think it's up to one parent to decide they made a mistake with a loser and that entitles them to decide to deny the other parent their rights. I mean, how many are raising a kid where the mother is non existent or on drugs or irresponsible or a loser? How far would a man get, going into the hospital the day the baby is born and saying "I'm the father, put my name down but I don't want HER name on there!" It would never happen. Even the lousiest of mothers, has her name on the birth certificate.

Now, I agree if the policy is to only allow a father's name to be there if he's present... it's to prevent her from falsely accusing a man, that makes sense. But, to lie and say "I don't know" when you do... or leave it blank because you don't like who you chose to have a child with, well that's not right. In cases of rape, incest or maybe some extraordinary situation, then it's understandable to leave it blank... but not just because the mother unilaterally decides the father is not worthy of being named.

And tying it to whether she is on public assistance or not is just wrong on a few different levels. First of all, child support is the right of the child, not the parent. One parent cannot give up the child's right to be supported by both parents. So, it's wrong to say that if she is not on public assistance, it's okay to refuse to name the father and leave the birth certificate blank... because while she may not want or need anything from the man now, a few years down the road her situation may change and she may need his help. and he would be obligated to help in the way of support... no matter what she said at the time the child was born. So, I don't see why it would matter whether she is on assistance or not.

It is still wrong for a woman to decide to have the child "on her own" and exclude the father.... even if he tells her to get lost. I wouldn't push it on him, but I would put it out there on the birth certificate and in a support order and if he continues to say get lost and have no interest, then so be it. If you've done all you can to encourage your child to have two parents but you can't make someone else be a parent, then that's all you can do. A woman no more has the right to decide to exclude a guy than my DH has the right to say BM won't pay her support and she won't come pick up her own child for visits, and she doesn't spend her time with her child... she leaves her at grandma's house, etc.... and so should DH get to decide BM is a lousy mother and should not have parental rights? We can't have it both ways... in the eyes of the law, parents are equal. Giving birth doesn't make a mother more of a parent than the father... as a mom, I understand why we want to feel that way... we do carry them for 9 months, we do give birth and we are usually the primary caregiver. But the law is the law... both parents are equal.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Doodle,

The solution is to change that laws that limit public support if father not named, and better IRS auditing of child depencies.

And men CAN avoid confrontation, by using private testing, and first finding out what the story is.

Ima, again, its not every woman who does as you suggest, but you would want to test every baby. And I agree father is just as much a parent, but if he doesnt stick around long enough to even know he has a kid -- he doesnt seem like FOTY material to me. And yes, mom has to stick around till birth, but that doesnt mean dad cant. If all Dad does is make a baby and then leave -- its on him.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Hmmm, Ima, I don't know. I did EXCACTLY what you are saying is wrong.

I left the father's section on DD's birth certificate blank because my attorney advised me to do so.

I was 20 when I got pregnant, and it WAS a total accident. Not that DD shouldn't have happened, but the *relationship* never should have happened. Was I stupid? Heck yeah! Irresponsible to not use birth control? Heck yeah!

But the issue for me AND DD was---I was not a resident of Idaho. I was a student, a sophomore when I got pregnant. I never intended to live in Idaho permanently. I got SCARED when I saw how irresponsible bio-dad was. I was pregnant and still taking a full course load and trying to do the right thing. He was out partying at night, drinking, not really working, save for painting some houses on the side....auuughhh, it was bad. He lived with me in a rental house that I paid for and contributed nothing.

I finally had enough and decided I wanted and NEEDED to move home. I had plans to transfer to a university in my home state. My parents were and still are both in my home state and I knew I was going to need lots of support from them, financially, physically but most of all, emotionally.

I tried to leave Idaho when I was 36 weeks pregnant and my doctor said he just couldn't let me. He wouldn't give me an airline waiver b/c of how far along I was, and I don't disagree with his decision.

So--my parents retained a custody attorney for me and HE advised me, if I wanted to move back to my home state, to NOT put bio-dad on the birth certificate. He advised me to not do ANYTHING regarding paternity until DD had lived in MY home state for 6 months. At 6 months, she would be considered a resident of my home state.

Theoretically, if I had put his name on her birth certificate in Idaho, then I guess the custody case could have been in that state. But I specifically waited until AFTER she was born and AFTER I had moved home and lived for 6 months, before filing a paternity suit.

He ALWAYs knew he was her dad. And truth be told, I was so scared those first 6 months because he could have filed a suit against ME anytime during that time frame, and I would have had to go BACK to Idaho for court. And I possibly could have been court-ordered to move back. :(

It was NOT that I didn't want him to be in her life. I didn't have a problem with that at all. If I did, I would not have FILED the suit and given him the option to have rights/visitation, etc. I mean, he could have filed a suit against me himself, but by ME filing the suit, I KNEW I was opening the door for him to want involvement in her life. And I was okay with that.If I wasn't, I would have just left it all alone, as MANY people, including most of my family, felt I should do. I didn't, though, I did take it to court because I wanted it ON RECORD that he was her dad. I filed the paternity suit somewhere around 6-9 months and it was finished when she was 14 months old.

And, actually, before I left the state of Idaho, I spoke with him many times, and told him "I am leaving if things don't change, I am taking her home if you don't decide you want involvement" and he could have tried to stop me at any time. He never did. Not then and not for those 6 months when it was all up in the air, when he could have.

So--those were my reasons for leaving the birth certificate part blank.

So--I know at some point, DD will question why I made the decision to move away. I am prepared for that and I am still 100% confident that I made the best decision for her.

Her dad has proven to continue to be a total loser, with multiple DWIS, some time in jail, NO contact with her whatsoever, etc.

I guess it might be different if he was a really great dad and spend tons of time maintaining a relationship with her. Then I might feel differently.

Looking back, I think it was just one of those tough situations where there were many different possible scenarios, and I chose one and our lives took a very different path than they would have otherwise.

I'm not perfect and I think I have made many mistakes....but this is one thing where I would go back and do the same thing all over again in a heartbeat.


 o
RE: DNA testing

So Love, correct me if I am wrong, but the father could have shown up at the hospital, could have called legal aid, could have called family servces, could have called his parents and asked for advice -- but my guess is he did nothting.


 o
answer

I don't think he could have shown up at the hospital, at least not without my permission. I think if he had and I had objected, security would have removed him. You know, just because I was the patient, entitled to privacy, etc.

I don't know what I would have done or how I would have reacted if he had. I was extraordinarily emotional, in a happy and sad way. I spoke with him via telephone a couple days after she was born and I was balwing my head off saying "oh she is so perfect, so beautiful" and he was like "whatever." I don't remember the exact conversation but it was along those lines.

But yes, he could have obtained an attorney, could have filed a petition for paternity, etc. No, he didn't do anything.

We got in contact again somewhere around 4-5 months after DD was born and we started talking. He came to see her twice, and I bought both his plane tickets because I was eager for him to see how wonderful she was. He left abruptly saying he couldn't handle it---I don't really know what he meant? Maybe it was emotionally too tough on him? Or he just couldn't grasp the reality of having another child? I don't know. I filed a paternity suit after that happened and it was settled when she was 14 months old.

I kind of heard through the grapevine that he got very involved with a girl around the time he freaked out on me and said he couldn't emotionally handle it. I know he ended up dating that girl for 4-5 years, and from what I heard, bits and pieces from his sisters, she was very insecure, very jealous, and was also mentally unstable.

It was never outright said but I did get the vague impression that she was the driving factor behind him freaking out and "bailing," not that he was ever really involved to any extent at all, though. I'm not even saying SHE made him do it, but perhaps he wanted to turn his attention towards her/that relationship completely, and felt he couldn't with an ex and infant in another state? I don't know, and don't really care at this point anymore.


 o
RE: DNA testing

You were the patient, but I believe he could have had the right to see the baby and request to sign the birth certificate.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I don't think so because we weren't married.

Otherwise, any random guy could walk in and say "I'm the father" and insist on signing the birth certificate.

I mean--he could have done so if I had said OKAY but otherwise, I really don't think a man can do that.

Let's pretend I didn't know for sure he WAS the father. And let's say he really wanted to be the father and was hoping he was. Well, it wouldn't be legal for a hospital to just take a man's word for it that he is the father. He would have to have some sort of proof, and if the mom won't let him sign or says he's not the father, then I don't see how a hospital would let him. Seems like he would have to file a paternity suit in court.


 o
RE: DNA testing

A paternity test costs around $70.00 and takes about three days to get the results, according to this DNA Testing Center.

Deadbeat dads cost taxpayers $99.8 billion in the year 2006 according to this report.

I think DNA testing at birth is not such a bad idea. My ex tried to throw the "I'm gonna get her tested, she's not my daughter" at me during a fight once. I told him to go ahead. I know whose kid she is. But it made me so angry. Women KNOW if a child is theirs or not. Men don't have that luxury, or responsibility. I think it's their turn.

Perhaps parents could refuse DNA testing. But only if both parents sign an agreement that they will not DNA test, and that they agree to jointly take on the responsibility of raising the child to age 18. They agree that they waive the right to know, and that by doing so they understand they are duly responsible for the child regardless of future testing they might undertake.


 o
security

" I believe he could have had the right to see the baby and request to sign the birth certificate."

This for SURE is not correct. Hospitals are SO STRICT about who has access to the babies. The mom is OBVIOUSLY the mom. But a hospital has NO WAY of knowing who the dad is. Any guy could walk in and CLAIM to be the bio-dad in cases where the mom has given birth, and no dad has been present. No way in h*ll would a hospital give access to an infant to anyone other than the mom and dad. A guy claiming to be dad doesn't cut it. Either the mom would have to say "yes, he is bio-dad" and they would both sign the birth cert. in front of a notary OR they would have to be married. In cases where two people are married, the dad CAN sign the birth certificate no questions asked.


 o
RE: DNA testing

love, I don't necessarily think what you did was without good reason... wrong? Well, your attorney advised you what was best for YOU, not necessarily what was best for the child. (although it may have been?) The father could have done more, you could have done everything the 'right' way (in line with the laws of Idaho... you said you couldn't put his name because he wasn't present, so maybe you did) but being a resident of Idaho, they had jurisdiction but your attorney advised you to sidestep the law in Idaho... and yeah it made it easier for you but was it the 'right' thing??? I don't know...attorney's have strategies, they know more or less what will work or what won't. They don't always advise to do the right thing. If the father had done what you feared, it could have backfired on you and your attorney would have shrugged and said "we tried!" but you would have looked bad to the court. Fortunately for you, he did nothing (as you probably knew he wouldn't) and it worked out for you.

But, it's naive to think women don't name guys without ever telling the guy she's pregnant... it's happened to a few famous people. So, to say that a guy just doesn't care because he doesn't come around means nothing if he doesn't even know she's pregnant. Not every pregnancy is the result of a relationship and like I said, there are sometimes extraordinary circumstances... but even a one night stand deserves to know they have a child running around out there.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Yes Love, but my point was I suspect if He had shown up and either told you he wanted to be on birth certificate or would take action, or if he had told hospital, they would have told him his options. But my guesss is he did nothing.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Yes, they deserve to know they have a child out there. And absolutely they deserve to have a relationship with that child. But, I do not think that means that anyone should HAVE to name a father on a birth certificate. Nor does it mean that anyone should HAVE to go after that person for child support. I dont think that has anything to do with a child's rights whatsoever. A child has the right to be loved and cherished. A child has a right to be fed clothed and taught the values of life to be able to grow up and become a productive adult. Unfortunately for some children they never have this.

In my case I was young and dumb and had a fling with some guy. I found out I was preg after we had broken it off. I contacted him told him about it and told him the decision was up to him what he wanted to do. He wanted an abortion. I couldnt bring myself to do that. So, I and I alone decided to have my daughter. I didnt name him and I didnt pursue child support. I did love support and cherish my daughter and continue to do so. I wrote down his full name and social sec number and put it in a locked box for her if she ever had questions and wanted to try and contact him. But, there was no way I was going to fight some guy to see, have or take care of a child he didnt want in the first place. I personally think it is ludacris to say that I should have to put his name down and I should have to go after him for child support because that is my childs right. No, my child has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... not a paycheck from someone who didnt want a child in the first place.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"my child has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... not a paycheck from someone who didnt want a child in the first place."

Yes, your child deserves support from both parents. You may not agree, and that's your choice... but your child deserves to be supported by both parents, whether they want to be a parent or not. There are also mother's out there that may not have ever wanted to have a child but got pregnant and couldn't bring themselves to have an abortion so they keep the child... they have an obligation to that child until they terminate their legal status as a parent.

Trust me when I say that I understand young & dumb! I understand doing foolish things... I did my share of foolish things, including putting the wrong name on the birth certificate when I was 19. That doesn't make it the right thing because I thought I had a good reason to do it. I spent years and thousands in legal fees to fix it. and I did fix it. My kids are now 19 & 20... they DO want to know. and you may justify it how you want, there is no guarantee they will agree with what you did. and who's to say she won't find her dad when she's 20 and he tells her you excluded him and he wanted to be a part of her life and you lied to the hospital and refused to put his name on the birth certificate and he would have been there but YOU prevented it. He wouldn't be able to say that if you put his name on the certificate, pursued child support and create a record of him dodging his obligation, and it's out in the open & he never pursued visitation. Then you could say you did all you could so she'd have a dad and he couldn't say a damn thing. But, the way you are doing it... gives anything he tries to claim in re-writing history.. some credibility. Good luck with that.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"Nor does it mean that anyone should HAVE to go after that person for child support."

I do see where you are coming from Mom4 but I don't think it is fair for tax payers to pay to help raise a child when both parents arn't pulling their weight financially.

We have children of our ownthat we are struggling to support. I want to know that if money is coming out of my pocket to support a child that BOTH of that child's parents are at least contributing SOMETHING to the child's financial stability.

That is point blank horse sh*t that the man be let off the hook while others are giving money to this mother to help raise her baby. If she doesn't have the pride to turn down "government" assisstance which in all actuality is from complete strangers who pay taxes then she should put pride aside and expect the father, whom she SLEPT with, to do his part as well.

I feel very strongly about this because I work around it every single day. I see people driving better cars than me, wearing better clothes than me with their hair and nails all done. Jewelry around their necks, rists, fingers and in their ears...coming in and getting all kind of "Government" handouts. It infuriates me. Magically, none of them know whn the baby's father is.

Daddy is paying for her hair-do with the money he slides her under the table! If you don't want to name the father....fine. But I sincerely believe you should NOT be able to take FREE money unless both parents are contributing to the child financially. Each mother should be faced with that decision. They shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat the damn thing to. It goes back to Americas refusing to except consequences. We are the most blame shifting finger pointing nation on the planet.


 o
RE: DNA testing

My sister, at 16, tried to get the father of her daughter to give up his rights or start taking responsibility. My parents filed orders and went to court and everything. His attorney told him that giving up his rights would be admitting the child was his and he didnt want to do that. My parents were out of money by that point. So they just let it go.

3 years later, my sister was pregnant with her 2nd child and was getting married to the father of the 2nd child. He wanted to adopt the first one so all he had to do was "claim" her. In the state of Texas, if there is no father on the birth certificate, a man can claim a child with no paternity test and be put on the birth certificate with no contest. So that's what he did. Consequently, he is her father in every way. If he and my sister split, he would be responsible for the CS and everything.

If DNA was mandatory at birth, my niece wouldn't have a father right now. The sperm-doner loser of a human is on the run from the law right now and will be in prison for drugs for quite a long time when he's caught. At least my neice is in a stable family where her daddy provides for them and talks to them on the phone every night and WASN'T AFRAID TO BE HER FATHER.

Plus, I believe that taking DNA at birth, while it may start with good intentions, would end up just like everything else the government does....perverted. I will never surrender the DNA of my child to the government of anywhere to do with what they want. Who knows...they may end up cloning my kid without my knowledge or trying to mix the DNA of my kid with a horse or something.

I agree with KKNY that if a crime has been committed, DNA of the child would be easily found in hair in a comb or fingernail clippings.

PLUS...DNA is not as unique as fingerprints. If you ever look at paternity test results, they only give a percentage that the person would be the father and it's never 100%. Sometimes family members have such similar DNA that differences are not obvious (even though there are definitely differences). DNA wouldn't help in cases of incest.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"I do see where you are coming from Mom4 but I don't think it is fair for tax payers to pay to help raise a child when both parents arn't pulling their weight financially."

Yes, but Doodle, Momof4 didn't get any form of public assistance. I don't think it's fair to lump her in that category.

I totally agree that if a woman doesn't name the father and THEN goes onto public assistance, that is wrong. The father should be financially supporting that child, and, at the very least, the woman should provide as much information about his whereabouts, information, etc as possible so that the state can go after him.

But this is not momof4's situation.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Public assistance is a general term.... it's usually associated with welfare.. cash aid, food stamps, medicaid... but other things paid for by taxpayers that are income based are also 'assistance' such as student financial aid, WIC (not sure if it's still income based but it used to be), Earned Income Credit, Low Income utility assistance, Life Line phone service (or lower rate based on low income), HUD section 8 or other low income housing assistance, Head Start (again, it used to be income based & I don't know if it still is), school free/reduced lunch program, child care assistance programs and the list goes on...

Very few single parents by choice can or do raise the child for 18+ years without ANY income based assistance and if the single parent refuses to go after the other parent for support or name the other parent, should they be allowed to take advantage of any program that is government funded and based on low income?


 o
public assistance

I think most of those programs you mentioned ARE public assistance.

I used to student teach in an inner-city school and 98% of the kids were on free lunch. If you receive welfare (TANF, food stamps, etc.) in MO, your child is automatically eligible for free lunch. I don't think anyone would have a child on the free lunch program and NOT be on welfare. That IS welfare.

Anyway, I also consider section 8 to be public assistance, and also HeadStart, lifeline, any kind of utility assistance, etc.

The only thing you mentioned that I am not sure about is student financial aid. That really has nothing to do with a dad paying chil support or not. (I assume you are talking about a mother going back to school and getting grants/loans?)


 o
RE: DNA testing

I agree, but if a mother going back to school is getting financial aid, she can get more because she's a single mother and if it's based on her household income, she might get less aid if she were getting child support because it's based on the household income. I had many clients that were career students because they got so many benefits for being a student and they didn't have to work... (in CA, you have to work or be a student for welfare) and it's been five years since I left so things may have changed... but I can relate to what doodle says when I had clients that had perfect tans, hair & nails done, dressed in designer clothes with all the bling, driving a nicer car than me and most of my co-workers and going to college for an advanced degree, when I didn't have time or money to do that because I worked and had kids. and when they'd come into the office all fixed up and the kids are dirty & wearing raggedy clothes.... sure pisses me off as a taxpayer and worker. and there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to stop that from happening, except report it and it seems nothing is ever done to follow up those types of reports...


 o
Lovehadley

"Yes, but Doodle, Momof4 didn't get any form of public assistance. I don't think it's fair to lump her in that category."

I didn't mean Mom4's situation. I just was disagreeing with her ingeneral because alot of the parents my organization serves rides the system. One of the tricks they use is refusing to give the father's name.

I think I mentioned furtherdown in my post that if you don't want to name the father and don't apply for services that's cool. Mom4 would fall in that category. It's the ones who LIE and say they don't know and then take cash hand over fist from tax funded porgrams that piss me off. Mom4 didn't do that.


 o
reply to Love

"Yes, but Doodle, Momof4 didn't get any form of public assistance. I don't think it's fair to lump her in that category."

I didn't mean Mom4's situation. I just was disagreeing with her ingeneral because alot of the parents my organization serves rides the system. One of the tricks they use is refusing to give the father's name.

I think I mentioned furtherdown in my post that if you don't want to name the father and don't apply for services that's cool. Mom4 would fall in that category. It's the ones who LIE and say they don't know and then take cash hand over fist from tax funded porgrams that piss me off. Mom4 didn't do that.


 o
Sorry

It said the first message was rejected but they are both showing up?????


 o
RE: DNA testing

Oh trust me, I am not arguing that there aren't those, MANY of them, that take advantage of the system.

BM is a classic example.

Actually, if you look her and her DH up on casenet there is currently a case filed against him from the state. They are *looking* for him for child suppport. BM collects TANF (temporary assistance) for her baby girl and even though they are now MARRIED, the state doesn't know that. They weren't married, just living together, when she originally filed for the benefits and she obviously told them she doesn't know where he is.

So while she is collecting $200-300/month from MO TAXPAYERS and probably foodstamps as well, and driving around in her LEXUS that my DH sold her at wholesale, the STATE is trying to locate her "baby daddy" to get back the money the state's been spending.

This is the SAME thing she did with my DH. He shelled out over $800/month for daycare for 5 years and helped her buy two cars and routinely paid for swim lessons, tumbling lessons, clothes, etc, all while having 50-50 custody.

Meanwhile, BM was collecting welfare benefits through the state for SS and wasn't cooperating with the state in terms of "finding" DH. So finally the state caught up with DH and he was like "WTH." So that's why my DH is now paying back $277/month and ALL of it goes to the state, not a dime goes to BM. It's all for the benefits she collected over the years. Thankfully, DH is only responsible for a portion of it, but I do wish the state would go after her for welfare fraud.

Sorry--this is totally off topic.

Anyway, I know what you are saying, Ima. I just don't see how DNA testing at birth would solve any problems. The moms that aren't going to or don't want to identify their baby's father aren't going to be any more inclined to be truthful if testing is mandatory.

All one would have to do to get out of it is say "I don't know who the dad is" and that would be that. The state can't test someone if the mother won't even name him.


 o
Mom4

Did you say some where you didn't recieve any Government assisstance in raising your child? Did I miss that? I tried to find where you made that statement but couldn't. If you didn't then I wouldn't group you in the same category and I apologize if my post came across as a personal attack:)


 o
answer

Doodle, are you asking me?

I have never received any kind of public assistance.


 o
Another reply to Love

"The state can't test someone if the mother won't even name him."

But what you don't understand Love is if it was MANDATORY to recieve services they would all be clucking like a hen house full of chickens. They would give the name of the father, his address, his social, his blood type and his closest living relatives. If paternity was mandatory to get services they would rat out ole' dad faster than a jack rabbit on a date. LOL!


 o
RE: DNA testing

No love. I was asking MOM4 and apologizing if my post sounded attacky if she hadn't recieved any services:)

Sorry about the mix up.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"The state can't test someone if the mother won't even name him."

There are also other ways of matching a father through DNA. If he's been arrested and his DNA collected (I believe felons that are released from prison are already required to give up DNA as well as suspects in crimes... but if they were required to provide DNA to get a driver's license like CA requires fingerprints or they could require it when getting a passport.

Ashley, if the 16 year old had forced a DNA test in making him take responsibility, he would have probably willingly given up his rights so the dad of the 2nd kid could have adopted him. I can't really agree with sidestepping laws because the ends seem to justify the means. But, that's just my opinion...


 o
RE: DNA testing

Maybe just me, but there's a danger of too much reliance on DNA evidence and whilst in some cases it may prove the guilt or exonerate the innocence, it might also convict the innocent if it's looked upon as 100% reliable - it might be as simple as someone shedding a few skin cells in the wrong place.

The "I have nothing to hide" chestnut does not justify forcing such an idea (mandatory dna testing) on us. Once that frontier is crossed, it moves us much closer to the next. Freedom of the press is already seriously in danger in more countries than ever before, including the US. We don't really need to accelerate this process.

There's already issues with insurance companies wanting to use DNA testing to decide who they will and won't insure, and what sort of a premium they're going to pay. That is indeed a slippery slope.

DNA testing ought to be a lot more regulated too, at the moment, you can simply mail away for a kit. Who oversees these companies? What if samples are contaminated (there was a case recently) or switched accidentally? There's a lot of potential heartache. A genetic predisposition may mean there's an increased risk of something, but does not necessarily mean it'll happen. Genetic testing for mental illnesses, as the genome is charted, is another controversial area. Who gets to play god? I'm not totally against it, there are for example diseases that could be treated if found in time, and I'm not against gene therapy or even stem cell research, especially using a patient's own. But we need to tread warily and regulate it.

I understand there are a number of cases where a second spouse has her husband tested, to see if he really should be paying child support. Whilst the idea that a person who is NOT biologically the father might be forced to pay child support may be reprehensible, if he is really the only father the child knows, then what happens to the child? There might be parents who really do walk away from them. How devastating for the child.

I can see a number of good reasons for not naming a father on a birth certificate, if he is violent, say, and the mother wants nothing further to do with him, or what about incest or rape? Does a child need to know where they came from in such circumstances? I would think perhaps not.

To me it's a bit like the private eye issue - you are letting a genie out of the bottle, and you, or innocent parties, may not like what comes to light.

"Gattaga" is an interesting film that explores the slippery slope of DNA testing, well worth seeing.

Here is a link that might be useful: Gattaga


 o
RE: DNA testing

Based on everyone's arguments, it seems to me that more people would be in support of Welfare reform. It would make more since to me to limit public assistance to those who name the father of the child in addition to limiting the amount of children a person can have on public assistance than to have mandatory DNA testing for everyone.

If a person has one child on public assistance and then chooses to have another, the second child should be taken away and given up for adoption. It should not be up to the taxpayers to take care of the children if the parents continue to make bad decisions. These people use their children and the assistance they are given in order to live off of the system.


 o
pjb

"There might be parents who really do walk away from them. How devastating for the child."

IMHO this is one of the top reasons it SHOULD be mandatory. Totally unfair for a tramp woman to LIE or withhold info from a man and pass a child of as his when she suspects it isn't. Even more wrong that the tramp of a woman who lied puts the child in that possible situation. I have NO SYMPATHY for women who sleeps around and then fails to mention the other guy to steady boy friend or husband when she turns up pregnant. It happens everyday. The woman is wrong wrong wrong for doing this and I think there should be legal consequences when this info is withheld.

Woman are given far to many "freedoms" when it comes to such matters IMHO. Because she is the one who carries the child she gets all kinds of "rights". These rights typically hurt everyone but the pregnant woman/mother. Case in point would be custody cases. Just because the woman is the mother she almost always gets custody. I think THAT is a travesty on our freedoms but it is allowed to go on anyway. It is sexism at it's best but because men arn't viewed as the minority no one complains.

Freedom only exists if you fall under cirtain criteria as things stand now. Laws like mandatory paternity testing would protect those whoes freedoms and rights are already getting screwed into the ground.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Raek, I agree with you in concept. NY supposedly requires mothers on AFDC to name dads, other than in the case or rape or incest, but I dont know how well it works.

I live a quiet little life -- I dont see why I should be intruded upon. Or my daughter.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"If a person has one child on public assistance and then chooses to have another, the second child should be taken away and given up for adoption"

Oh my. No, no, no. I can't agree with that.

I do think there is already a *cap* on how many children one can receive public assistance for (Ima, Doodle and others who have worked in this area might know for sure) and I do agree that the system should undergo a lot of reform.

But if this country started forcing poor people to give up their children, well, that is just a slippery slope I am not comfortable with. I'm not arguing that there ARE many people who abuse the system and have children for cash. But there are just as many, probably, that do NOT abuse the system, and who truly need a little help for awhile.


 o
love

I know somebody who is on welfare and is now on child #3...(in MO by the way)...has done drugs, while pregnant, smokes, etc. etc. I also think there should definitely be mandatory drug testing for all welfare recipients.

I think they would start making better choices if they couldn't depend on the taxpayers to pay for every bad decision they make. If there are no consequences and they actually benefit from continuing the cycle, what's to stop them?

I'm not saying force poor people to give up their children. If they want to do what it takes to take care of their families, they should. If they want us to pick up the tab, well that's another story.


 o
correction

I meant she is on child #5. 3 different daddies.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I think the problem is, with anything, there is not a one-size-fits-all-answer.

The woman pregnant with her 5th child who refuses to work, does drugs, and keeps having more babies for cash? Yes, there is something gravely wrong and I see what you mean.

But what about the single mom with a couple kids who is working & going to school and trying to better herself and who happens to use childcare assistance programs or food stamps or any other number of public assistance options? Has she made poor choices in her life? Maybe. But if she is doing something about and trying to make her life better so she can get OFF welfare, I don't think it is fair to penalize her. In fact, penalizing her would hurt no one but the kids.

It's hard to regulate the welfare system and I do agree there are many, many flaws but there has to be a better way.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I don't think it punishes the existing kids to take a baby who is unknown to them out of the care of the parent. And if they were adopted out as children, I think they would have a better chance at having a better life. Of course there is no easy answer, but there are far too many people slipping through the cracks on the backs of the taxpayers. They should not get unlimited chances and the children of these parents who use the kids as a meal ticket are def. not better off in their care.


 o
Ima

"Ashley, if the 16 year old had forced a DNA test in making him take responsibility, he would have probably willingly given up his rights so the dad of the 2nd kid could have adopted him. I can't really agree with sidestepping laws because the ends seem to justify the means. But, that's just my opinion..."

I'm surprised at this response from you, Ima. That's pretty high-and-mighty of you.

What good would it do anyone to track down this guy? He's a druggie on the run from the law. How would he "support" his child? Would they garnish the money he gets for his drugs? LOL! Seriously.......


 o
RE: DNA testing

Yeah! Let's start taking kids away and adopting them out if they are born on welfare! Heck, if you lose your job in this economy, your house is foreclosed on and you are struggling to feed your family... let's adopt out those kids too. That's the answer!!!!

Are you kidding me???

Yes, there are laws in my state regarding caps on welfare. The last I checked.. when I resigned in 2004... there is a 60 month limit on receiving welfare for the parents.. means the parents can get 60 months of aid, plus months they are exempted due to disability. (shocking, the number of people that became disabled when that law went into effect) and once their 60 months are up, the aid payment is lowered to just the amount for the kids. If the parents are felons or sanctioned for non cooperation, their aid payments are issued by vendor payments directly to the landlord & utility companies and any remainder is put on a gift card to Wal Mart or whatever store they want. They can continue to get aid until the children are 18 but only the children are aided. That means if mom & dad with two kids are on aid, after 60 months, mom and dad time out and no longer get aid so they will only get aid for two kids... four people living on aid intended for two. Hell, aid for four is not enough to live on and trying to stretch it to support four is ridiculous. Then of course they are forced to work under the table or illegal sources of income that are not reported. Anyone that thinks it's not a big problem needs to consider the numbers...

Also, if the family is on aid and the mother becomes pregnant, the only thing the new baby is eligible for is food stamps and medicaid.. no cash. So, again the family is forced to stretch the dollars to support everyone. The kids are the ones losing out because people continue having more kids while on welfare. It was interesting to see the number of women that became pregnant when the notices were sent out 10 months before the law was to be implemented. Talk about baby boom! and if the family goes off aid for 24 months, they can come back in and get aid for everyone... including the kids that were born on aid. Also, if they close their cash aid case for the month the baby is born... the baby is not born on aid so they can come back in the following month and get aid for that baby... yeah.. lots of tricks to working the system!

I was a worker. I worked in a county that had seven offices. In my office (as well as the others) there were about 3-4 units handling cash aid cases in my office. There were 5-7 workers in each unit... so let's say 15-32 workers handling cash assistance cases in each office. The standard case load is 200-300 cases per worker.. I never had the standard... it was usually around 325-350 cases. That is 325 families that I handled and multiply it by the number of workers and offices and you'll see that in just one county, there are literally thousands of families on aid. California has 58 counties... you do the math, it boggles MY mind. In our county, we had ONE welfare fraud investigator in each office. You get the picture???

When they implemented SFIS, the State wide fingerprinting Identification system.. mandatory fingerprinting to receive aid... new applications dropped dramatically. Prior to that, people could bounce from county to county, apply for aid and get aid in several places at once... overlapping and it would take a month or two to catch it online... sometimes several months. Then, by the time you catch it, they have moved on to new counties or another state... the state never recoups that money... the fraud in the welfare system is rampant and lying about who the baby daddy is.... is only the tip of the iceberg. Those are your tax dollars!

So, yeah I think requiring DNA at birth would probably impact the number of welfare fraud cases being committed and no, I don't think DNA taken in the hospital is as unreliable as transferring or shedding DNA in regard to a crime scene. If its taken by medical personnel in a hospital setting, there's less opportunity for error. Of course, no technology is perfect.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I am going to date myself with this post, but here goes...nearly 40 years ago, I took my first child psychology class. The professor pointed out the existing research at the time which indicated that adults who were abused as children were more likely to become abusers themselves. He then posed a rather provocative question to the class: If this research is accurate, in order to end child abuse should it not be the policy of the government to sterilize all individuals who had been abused as children?
I was horrified. How could the government be granted that power...the power to decide if individuals could have children, become parents? How could the government be granted the authority to invade people's privacy in such a profound and fundamental manner?

Fast forward 35 years...that's how long I have been toiling as a professional in the mental health field, most recently (after many hours of additional professional training) as the designated early childhood mental health consultant for the county in which I work. As such, I have provided mental health consultation to the local child advocacy center (these centers investigate child abuse --- sexual and physical) and also to early childhood education centers (including but not limited to Head Start). This is in addition to my practice in providing outpatient mental health counseling to adults.

This is now my stance: some people need to agree to voluntary sterilization...please feel free to engage in all the sex you want, with as many whomevers you want, doing whatever you want, as often as you want, using whatever substances you want to consume...but,

FOR GOD'S SAKE, DO NOT BRING CHILDREN INTO THIS WORLD YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO CARE FOR....financially, emotionally spiritually....

Somedays I go home and feel like the child with their finger in the dyke...there are so many innocent kids out there who are suffering because the adults in their lives are selfish,irresponsible, and (more often than any of us would like to admit)abusive in horrendous and unimaginable ways...completely unprepared to be parents to the children they bring into the world.

I'd be willing to support a program that would pay people a stipend to have a vasectomy or get their tubes tied and NOT have children...

When I think about the cost to society...but even more, when I think about the suffering these kids are almost certainly doomed to endure, it breaks my heart.

I know this does not actually respond to the question of mandatory DNA testing, but my thought is if you offered folks the option of a stipend for agreeing to a voluntary snipping, maybe the need for DNA as a means to verify parentage would become a moot issue...and the number of defenseless children, kids at the mercy of selfish adults, lacking in the resources (both external and internal) and capacity to be parents...maybe the number of those kids would be greatly reduced...and more children in this world would be raised by people capable of loving them, making appropriate sacrifices for them, providing for them, helping them grow into healthy and happy adults.

IMHO.


 o
ashley

""Ashley, if the 16 year old had forced a DNA test in making him take responsibility, he would have probably willingly given up his rights so the dad of the 2nd kid could have adopted him. I can't really agree with sidestepping laws because the ends seem to justify the means. But, that's just my opinion..."

I'm surprised at this response from you, Ima. That's pretty high-and-mighty of you.

What good would it do anyone to track down this guy? He's a druggie on the run from the law. How would he "support" his child? Would they garnish the money he gets for his drugs? LOL! Seriously......."

I'm not trying to be high and mighty. While I may not always agree with the laws, I have respect for them. The answer isn't self help and sidestepping laws, it's changing the laws if they are not good ones. What is a 'druggie' doing having sex with and impregnating a 16 year old? and to turn the other cheek and basically give him a free ride... no consequence? Who's protecting or standing up for the girl... the deadbeat druggie should be in jail (statutory rape?) as far as I'm concerned, but he gets to walk away, Scot free because he's a loser druggie? I can't agree with the other guy stepping in and laying claim. I think it's honorable to want to take on the legal responsibility but it's still a lie. What will the child be told? I wonder what the kids think of the parents' decisions when they grow up. My kids are old enough to make their own minds up over the stupid things I did as a young adult... it's hard as hell to face it and I never lied to my kids. From the day my son came home with a family tree project and wanted to know his father's name.. I told him the truth. When he was old enough to understand, he learned that I put the wrong name on his birth certificate and he was also told the reason why.. along with my 'reason' and my admission that I was wrong to do it... and my apology. The fact that I was always honest with my kids and I have done everything I can to correct my mistakes, may be the reason they believe me when my son's father tried to tell him that it was me that was responsible for his (my son's father) never acknowledging our son. and of course, my daughter is smart enough to figure out that her dad is a liar & deadbeat when she found her half brother that their dad had also abandoned and never saw or supported. Her dad has lied to her repeatedly, so much that she changed her last name to be rid of his... but these kids grow up and if they live with lies, who will they be able to trust?

If I had not put names on the birth certificates or never told my kids about their father's or never filed a court case and if I had always had an unlisted number, etc. and did things that might appear to support a father's claim that it was me that kept the child from him... I'd have a lot of explaining to do. If I allowed another man to sign on the dotted line for a child that wasn't his (well, I sort of did) but if I had lived the lie by not telling my kids the truth and then when they were 20 or 25, they learn it was all a lie... who would be hurt? My exBF found out when he was 22 and trying to get into the police academy that his mom misspelled his last name on the birth certificate because the father was married and she was TOW. She raised my exBF with HER last name while his birth certificate had a different last name.. so he didn't learn any of this until he was going into the police academy. It's no wonder he had issues trusting me... trusting women! His mom loved him and probably did it to protect him (and protect herself) but she lied to him all his life... he is now 45 and has issues trusting women.... and hard time in relationships.

I can't apologize enough to my kids for the heartache I caused with my stupid mistakes/decisions, but I sure don't think it's right to compound that with lies or pretending some loving stepfather is the bio father so they don't have to go through the legal channels of terminating the jerks rights and having the loving stepdad adopt the child. Who's to say the loving stepdad that signed the birth certificate won't someday demand a DNA test to prove it's not his kid if the marriage doesn't last and he decides to have another family and no longer wants to pay support? Fortunately, in CA if a man holds himself out as a father of a child... he cannot walk away from the financial aspect of raising the child, even if DNA proves he is not the bio father. and yes, in CA there is a declaration of paternity that is signed while in the hospital so a man can just come in and sign that he is the father without a DNA test. but that doesn't prevent him from walking out emotionally which is more devastating for the child.


 o
ima

"Yeah! Let's start taking kids away and adopting them out if they are born on welfare! Heck, if you lose your job in this economy, your house is foreclosed on and you are struggling to feed your family... let's adopt out those kids too. That's the answer!!!!"

...talk about twisting words. That is not AT ALL what I said. If you are on welfare, you should not continue to get pregnant. That point is pretty much supported by the rest of your rant, so I'm not really sure what you are getting at.

Of course if you lose your job, due to the economy, you will be able to get unemployment for some amount of time. That amount of time has been increased recently by the government and I am not opposed to that. I am opposed to people who continue to have kids, live off of the support they get from taxpayers for those kids, pay no attention to those kids (because they see those children as a paycheck rather than an innocent child) and the kids suffer for it. If a family is going through a rough patch and needs a little help, that is one thing...living on the system and continuing to have children while on the taxpayer's tab is something entirely different. And you are right about the disability thing. I know of people who are able to get disability for anxiety. What a load of crap! We all have anxiety, esp. when we have to get up every day and go to work and support our own families along with paying over 1/3 of our paycheck to take care of the families and deadbeats who have to much "anxiety" to do it themselves.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Well, I am not employed.. I am self employed. If my phone does not ring and customers cannot afford my service (which is why many businesses are failing), then my income is non existent. No, there is no unemployment for me. No, not everyone is in my boat and I chose to be self employed but if it got so bad that I had to go get assistance with a bunch of kids... would it be okay to make me feel bad about having that many kids? Would it make a difference if the kids were all from one father or several? In today's world of 60% divorce rate and remarriage... and the acceptance of living together... it's very possible to have several legitimate fathers for children without being a whore.

I get what you are saying and I agree that it's wrong what some people do... but I totally agree with wrychoice1 on the voluntary sterilization and encouraging preventing kids from being born into the situation... taking them away once they exist, well CPS already does that but by then the children are already suffering. How would anyone determine which children should be taken and which ones will be okay if left with the parent? and some parents get it together and some parents that have it together may fall apart down the road... who would decide?

No, when I had an 18 year old girl that was pregnant with her fifth child, living in a motel with two and relatives had the other two kids... and there were three assistance units... three checks being doled out for all these kids this little girl had had since she was 13 or 14... I was infuriated. I reported it to CPS. I notified the DA and law enforcement because no matter how you look at it, she was being sexually abused at 13... and nobody had stepped up to say 'this is wrong!' and there are now 5 kids (and her) suffering for it and she should have been sterilized and someone should have gone to jail... the guys that got her pregnant or her mother who didn't protect her or do anything about it... her mother had one of her kids and was collecting a check off that kid. But, because this is America and we have civil rights, nobody is going to force anyone to be sterilized and nobody is going to take kids away 'just because' the mom is popping 'em out to get a check. There aren't enough foster homes or adoptive families for all the kids in the system that would be better off...

so, I kinda agree but I don't think it's realistic.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I was self-employed for awhile too, but set up my payroll to pay into unemployment. If you choose not to, I think that is on you.

It may not be realistic, but it makes more since to me than the current system. It is stupid that we continue to reward those who make bad decisions by supporting them and we punish good decisions by taking income away from people who do what it takes to earn that money.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...Karl Marx


 o
RE: DNA testing

"What good would it do anyone to track down this guy? He's a druggie on the run from the law. How would he "support" his child? Would they garnish the money he gets for his drugs? LOL! Seriously......."

They may not be able to get any money out of the pathetic waste of space but when he gets bustd his a$$ would be in the clink. At least while he's there he wouldn't be able to be slumming around and knocking up 16 year old kids anymore. That would be WELL worth it IMHO.


 o
Profession

I don't think anyone not working in the area of Human Resources could get the picture. I think alot of ladies here are very good people. Very idealistic. That being said they are a little naive about how the system really works and what kindof people take advantage of it.

I very rarely see the woman who is honestly struggling her butt off walk through these doors. It is almost always Cleopatra with the hair and the nails and the six kids (and pregnant again) driving the Impala working the MINIMAL hours to get services who, miraculously, doesn't know who ANY of the children's fathers are.

Miss Cleo also gets nasty when you tell her she doesn't have the needed paperwork. She acts like it is a huge inconvienience to have proof of address. Why doesn't she have it? Because she is living with one of the kids FATHERS and isn't reporting it! His income would be factored in if we know they are living together you see. She'll get flat out Bi*chy if you tell her you can't refer her because she's missing pay stubs. Absolutly LIVID if her services get cancelled because she was too busy to show up to her appointment.

It is expected. People expect Uncle Sam to raise their children. There is something very very wrong with that. So many of women feel INTITLED to services. They are single mothers after all so it's on everyone else to raise their kids. Let me give you an example of someone who NEEDED services.

This very elderly black lady came in one day to apply for food stamps. She had no car and walked for an hour in the heat of summer to her appointment. She was such a tiny frail little thing how the heat didn't kill her I'll never know. This woman got approved for the stamps and was so excited. How excited was she? The next week this sweet little old lady made the hour long treck in the heat AGAIN to tell us about a roast she had bought. She was so excited. She went on and on about how tender it came out and even mpore exciting she had plenty to put in her freezer to eat later.

This woman needed services! She appreciated them from the bottom of her tired heart. I find it difficult to feel sorry for Miss Cleopatra when she can't even show up to her appointment after getting to know folks like this lady.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Doodle, you're right. I don't have a clue how it really works. I can look up how it is supposed to work -- but that is it.

Even people working amaze me. There is a woman who hs worked for my company as a receptioist and does next to nothing. We have had layoffs. I spoke to her. She has no documents. She has lost her birth certificate, SS card and never had a license. I told her take a vacation day and start getting this stuff. Yes it is annoying to wait in line. She says if she get layed off, she'll go on unemployment and get it then. I said, but then you wont be able to even interview for a job.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Doodle, you're right. I don't have a clue how it really works. I can look up how it is supposed to work -- but that is it.

Even people working amaze me. There is a woman who hs worked for my company as a receptioist and does next to nothing. We have had layoffs. I spoke to her. She has no documents. She has lost her birth certificate, SS card and never had a license. I told her take a vacation day and start getting this stuff. Yes it is annoying to wait in line. She says if she get layed off, she'll go on unemployment and get it then. I said, but then you wont be able to even interview for a job.


 o
kkny

KKNY

It boggles the mind what people will do to try and get and get free handouts. I have had parents try and tell me their child has a developmental delay when they obviously DO NOT so they can get free daycare. It's sick.

I have had parents with children who DO have delays but the mother (no joke) the parent refused therapy because they don't want the child to improve since they might lose the dissability check. They want the kid to stay "dissabled" so they can comtinue to get the money!!!!


 o
RE: DNA testing

Okay, absolutely the system is hugely flawed (welfare) and no doubt there are huge amounts of people that are taking advantage of the system. But, forced adoption for those on welfare.... no way.

But, for arguments sake... if dd had wanted to find dear old dad later in life and he told her woppers of lies... and she blindly believed him... then I didnt do my job right for a long time... building a trusting open relationship with my daughter. And even if that did happen. I know the truth and I know that I did what was right. Just because I wanted to have the child does not make the sperm donor automatically responsible. It's not like he can go get the abort. or give the kid up for adoption... he at the whim of the female. Personally, I dont think that is right. Personally, I didnt think it was right to demand fatherhood and a pay check.

And to answer the questions re assistance: I did live at an income restricted apartment property (positively beautiful in a great area) But, cs or anything else wouldnt have counted anyways. I did get fs for about 3 maybe 4 months at one time. But, that is when I got laid off from my job... and long after dear old sperm donor had reappeared for about 6 months before taking his own life.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Ima - first of all, no one is lying to my neice. She is 9 and doesn't need all that information right now, especially since her "dad" is on deployment in Africa. Believe-it-or-not, she doesn't even ask. She says little thinsg like "when I met Daddy he had a tongue ring". LOL! But she doesn't care beyond that.

Secondly, she has a stable family that she never would've had if the government demanded DNA tests.

Thirdly, it wasn't statutory rape since he was a minor also.

Fourth, my parents could not afford to jump through all the hoops and continue paying an attorney just to get continuances because he wouldn't show or whatever. Just plain and simple. No funds. There were huge medical bills (my sister had toxemia and the baby had to be taken 6 weeks early resulting in a 2-week NICU stay), still supporting their daughter, now supporting a baby, and day-to-day life expenses. AND TRYING TO STAY OFF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT, which they wouldn't have been able to qualify for anyway since my father is a hard-working, tax-paying American who provides health insurance for his family. Believe-it-or-not, but the judge refused to hold his mother accountable for the CS and refused to order a DNA test. Their attorney was a high-profile person in the area we lived in and the judge was buddies with him.

Fifth, it's not our job to make someone get the punishment they deserve. That's God's job. If it would've been the right time for loser, druggie, a**hole to be held accountable, it would've been done with all the petitions and court appearances and blah, blah, blah that he was served with. Believe-it-or-not, but the judge refused to hold his mother accountable for the CS and refused to order a DNA test, basically because their attorney was a high-profile person in the area we lived in and the judge was buddies with him.

If it was God's plan that governments have control of such personal information, I'm sure it would've been done by now. Sure we have civil liberties and there are a lot of people who get away with things they shouldn't. But don't you think the problem is loss of moral values more than it is the government not doing enough? Look at these sleeze-bags that run things! They can't tell te truth to save their lives! And we want them to decide who is a good parent and who is not? Maybe we should teach our kids moral values instead of teaching them to rely on others to help them out.

I'm in no way saying that my sister is innocent. But she did what she felt like was the best thing for her daughter and now she is thriving in a loving home, instead of being forced to visit a man that doesn't want anything to do with her in the first place.


 o
RE: DNA testing

These arguments are so fascinating to me, I don't know if there will ever be a workable answer.

I tend to agree with PJB about DNA testing, I have nothing to hide but I certainly want big brother to mind their own business lol. Also, I don't really understand how it would work. The mother can still give a fake name and they would have no one to test the childs dna against. Or even if they were able to build up a database in 50 years or so, entire families would be scrutinized for matching so closely to the childs dna and I don't think that's right either. I don't know, I may be confused on how dna works though.

And I tend to agree with Raek concerning welfare. I'm not entirely sure on the adopting out, there's a lot of adoption reform going on right now because the adoptee's from the big push on single poor mothers back in the 60's and on are now adults reuniting with their birth mothers and believe they should've never been sold into the billion dollar adoption industry cause their mothers were young, single and poor.

So who knows what the right answer is? Obviously welfare needs to be rehauled but no matter what, I think certain people will always be able to get around the system and I don't know the answer to that.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Ashley, the lie is when the guy certified or declared on a legal document that he is the father of a child he knows is not his... It's not for me to judge whether your sister's situation is right or wrong, I have my opinion on it because I have personal experience and in my situation, I now know how my kids feel as adults. That doesn't mean every situation is comparable to mine... that's why I said, it's just my opinion. At 9 is not the same as 18 or 19. I can only offer what I've learned through what I've done in my life and share my experiences. That doesn't mean every situation is going to be the same... but I can share that I felt differently when my kids were young... they are now grown and if I could go back in time, I would do things differently because we cannot predict how a child will feel as they grow up and while WE may think we are doing the right thing for the child, nobody knows until the child grows up what the outcome of our decisions will be... and I was just offering my insight to give food for thought.

At this point in my life, I don't believe it's right for a woman to refuse to give the father's name and I don't think it's right to lie and say a child is yours if that's not true... unless you go through legal channels to make it true... adoption. That's just my opinion on those issues based on my life experience. It's not a personal attack on anyone's specific situation. Sorry if you took it that way.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I tend to agree with ashley. even though i support the law I think sometimes what benefits the children is more important. maybe by law this rapist, criminal who doesn't even want to acknowledge his daughter, should be her father but how would that benefit anyone? maybe it somehow would benefit this deadbeat father (maybe in old age he would rely on his daughter) but why putting these morons on pedestals?

as about the law. By law i believe, Ima, that your rapist had to serve sentence but he did not. he never received punishment that should be there by law. You probably had a reason (as ashley' sister had hers). then why do you talk about respect for the law?

and if ashley's niece's deadbeat father wanted to be a father he would contest it by now. we can of course ruin her life by dragging her to see that guy by force (he doesn't want her and she doesn't know him) but what for?


 o
RE: DNA testing

"You probably had a reason (as ashley' sister had hers). then why do you talk about respect for the law?"

In all honesty.. my rapist was not the same as a 'statutory' rapist and the law does not usually exempt a boy because he's a minor... the laws are usually written to say it is unlawful to have sex with a girl under 18, though I am not going to look up the laws in all states to see if minor boys are excused from the laws. I do believe that even if it is unlawful, boys are not always prosecuted for it... in the county where I worked, they would not prosecute if the boy was less than four years older than the girl... even if she was 16 and he was 19. IMO, that is wrong but that's not my call. and in both cases.. I was 17, her niece was 16... it's the parent's job to push for prosecution, not the minor's. But, comparing statutory rape to forcible rape is comparing apples to oranges. NOT the same thing.

Respect for the law? I talk about respect for the law because I have learned through my mistakes. I SHOULD have had the courage to report my rape.. at the time. My parent's SHOULD have asked more questions, had a better relationship with me and maybe it would have turned out differently. That does not mean I didn't respect the law.. then or now.

Regardless of what anyone says, we don't have the right to unilaterally decide what laws are good/bad or who has to follow them, we don't get to decide what parents are good/bad or who should have parental rights, unless we are God or a sitting Judge. We can all agree there are some people we would not want to have children with.. then don't have children with them. I didn't choose my son's father... but he was still given his parental rights. I didn't like it but my life was not ruined by it, neither was my son's. I think my son may have been better off without him in his life, but I didn't get to make that decision. My son is grown up now and he can decide for himself if he wants to have a relationship with his father.


 o
RE: DNA testing

I think you should check your facts. I don't think if a 15 Year Old Boy has sex with a 15 Year Old girl it would be considered Statutory Rape in any State. That would be completely sexist.


 o
California Penal Code section 261.5

Section 261.5.
(a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.

(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the following amounts:

(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).

(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

********************************************************************** ***

Raek,

Yes it is illegal for a 15 year old boy and a 15 year old girl... even if it is sexist.


 o
RE: DNA testing

Technically, according to the law you sited, they would both be in violation of the law under section (a), not just the boy.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"I didn't choose my son's father... but he was still given his parental rights. I didn't like it but my life was not ruined by it, neither was my son's."

he was given his parental rights and unsupervised visitations only because you chose not to report the crime. If you would report it, you do not know what rights he would be given, maybe he would not have rights or maybe only supervised visitations etc. I am not sure why HIS rights are some important, why even worry about HIM? and who decided that he has parental rights? You? what about the law? or what about your son?

Your life was not ruined, it is true.

But ashley's sister life was not ruined either by the fact that her daughter has a normal father in her life instead of someone who doesn't even want it and never acknowledged her. as about your child choosing to have a relationship wiht his father, it is possible it only happens because information was withheld from him. Possibly knowing what really happened to you would alter his relationship with his father. Possibly he would never want that relationship. He was not given a choice.

If a child was conceieved as a result of assault and rape, i do not understand what parental rights are you talking about. Why would rape victim even worry about parental rights of a rapist. If courts give them that right, oh well, that sucks, but law is law. But other than that who cares about their rights? They have rights for a lawyer etc

I have a friend who was a victim of a group rape and was injured badly (thrown out the window), she did become pregnant and she kept the baby for number of reasons. Do all these men have parental rights or just the one who accidentally became sperm donor during rape? and should we worry that they recieve their parental rights? why? what for? and whose interest are protected here? the rapist's?


 o
RE: DNA testing

Wow, FD! That's a terrible story about your friend! I feel so bad for her, but I'm glad she decided to let the baby have a chance.

Ima - so then why don't the police arrest or ticket every underage mother that comes in to have a baby at the hospital? Or ticket the parents?

And, yes, it would've ben my parents responsibility to prosecute the boy, but then my sister would've been prosecuted as well by his parents and my neice would've suffered through that.

There's a difference in having "rights" and forcing something on someone. "Rights" are like gifts given to us. We can choose to accept them or not. Like we have the "right" to bear arms as citizens of the USA. I don't own a gun so I don't exercise that right. And no one is forcing me to own a gun just because I have rights.

This boy didn't want the "rights" to his child. So why force them on the men who don't want the "rights"? Seems more detrimental to the child.

My BIL didn't lie by putting his name on the birth certificate. Why go through all the legal channels and pay all the fees and put everyone through hell if it's that simple?

If the father ever wants to be recognized as her father, HE can spend the money and time that it will take. HE is the one that flaked out. HE can request DNA. My parents tried and ran out of funds. Why should they have spent more money trying to get a man to be responsible for a child he doesn't want when there's a man that DOES want the child to be his own and is fully prepared for the responsibility?

Oh, BTW, my neice's deadbeat sperm-donor's sister was just incarcerated for drug-dealing. Nice family, huh?


 o
RE: DNA testing

FD, she kept the baby???? wow...i know many woman who would have terminated it...but even as terrible of the ordeal she went through..i can also understand why she kept the baby....its not the babies fault it was conceived in that manner. BUt i would never tell my baby how they were concieved if that were the case for me. Never.
What would you do if they asked you????


 o
RE: DNA testing

"If the father ever wants to be recognized as her father, HE can spend the money and time that it will take. HE is the one that flaked out. HE can request DNA"

I absolutely agree.

Now-if we are talking about a woman who never tells the man she is pregnant (and I am excluding rape/violent scenarios here) then I do think that is perhaps not the best thing to do morally.

A man should at the least have the knowledge that he is a father and then he can decide what rights he wants to exercise. Likewise, if the woman needs/wants monetary assistance in raising the child, regardless of whether or not he is "involved,"she has the right to take whatever legal channels are available to make that happen.

But I just don't think it is ever the woman's responsibility to take all measures to force a dad to accept his rights. Why should that all be on her?

If he wants his rights/responsibilites, then HE can take the proper steps to make that happen.


 o
RE: DNA testing

LH, I agree -- other than a guy who ships off to the gulf after the child is conceived -- what excuse does a guy have for not taking any steps.


 o
reply

"If the father ever wants to be recognized as her father, HE can spend the money and time that it will take. HE is the one that flaked out. HE can request DNA"

I absolutely agree.

Now-if we are talking about a woman who never tells the man she is pregnant (and I am excluding rape/violent scenarios here) then I do think that is perhaps not the best thing to do morally.

A man should at the least have the knowledge that he is a father and then he can decide what rights he wants to exercise. Likewise, if the woman needs/wants monetary assistance in raising the child, regardless of whether or not he is "involved,"she has the right to take whatever legal channels are available to make that happen.

But I just don't think it is ever the woman's responsibility to take all measures to force a dad to accept his rights. Why should that all be on her?

If he wants his rights/responsibilites, then HE can take the proper steps to make that happen.


 o
RE: DNA testing

"There's a difference in having "rights" and forcing something on someone. "Rights" are like gifts given to us. We can choose to accept them or not."

That is true. But, whether you agree or not... it's not forcing his rights, he has the same rights as the mother on the day the child is born if he is the biological father. A man should not have to go to court to obtain his parental rights any more than a woman should have to. Sharing DNA gives him the same rights as the mother, the child gets his/her DNA from BOTH parents and both parents have equal rights... until a court says otherwise. That comes with an equal responsibility... to support and have a relationship and parent the child. If a parent does not want to exercise their rights or accept their responsibility, they need to have a court, legally terminate those rights/responsibilities. It is not the same as your right to bear arms or your right to vote... you can choose not to carry a gun or not to vote, you cannot (legally) turn your back on a child... until a court terminates that relationship legally.

BTW, It is the child's rights, not the parents. The child has the right to both parents and the answer isn't for some people to pick and choose which 'sperm donors' get the right to be a father or get a pass on their responsibility... otherwise, I know a few mothers that don't deserve that title.... deadbeat egg donors. But a guy can't make that decision, why should a woman get to decide if a man should be given the same rights she has the day the baby is born?

I'm sure a Judge may not give a drug dealing low life deadbeat very much in the way of rights, but if he doesn't want the responsibility, then he can terminate rights and responsibility since they go hand in hand. and if a good man wants to step up and be named the father, and take responsibility and rights of a father to a child that is not his biologically, he should adopt.. just like a woman should adopt a child that isn't hers biologically if she wants the same rights and responsibility as a bio parent.

I'm not preaching that deadbeats SHOULD have rights but it's not for US to decide. I sure would not like it if someone made me fight to get the rights that are mine... just because they didn't like me or the way I live my life. A court would be able to, and that's why we have courts.


 o
who gets to decide????

"But I just don't think it is ever the woman's responsibility to take all measures to force a dad to accept his rights. Why should that all be on her?

If he wants his rights/responsibilities, then HE can take the proper steps to make that happen."

I agree. However, leaving a birth certificate blank (when you don't need to) or putting someone else on the birth certificate does force the father to jump through hoops (going to court) to get his rights. Why should he be forced to do that if the mother doesn't have to? If you put his name on the birth certificate, name him as the father.. he is automatically responsible and if he doesn't step up or take responsibility, she doesn't have to pursue it or force him to do anything in regard to the child.

We will have to just agree to disagree on this issue.


 o
RE: DNA testing

organic and ashley, she came form a horrible home (and she is not really a friend I just knew her when we were younger)- abusive controlling alchoholics. having a child meant for her that someone would love her and also maybe parents would back off, also I think she is fairly relgious, the other reason is she never ever had a date, she had this huge growth on her nose and other deformities, she felt she needed someone to love and be loved. at least that's what she told us. her DD actually was (I haven't seen them for like 12 years) the cutest girl.

Tha lady herself actually moved on nicely, she eventually did minor plastic surgery to remove those things from her face -like big moles, and overall last time i heard she is doing fine.

yes i always assumed women would never keep babies conceieved during such horrible events. Frankly i doubt I would, but apparently women do, and who would judge this woman?

Organic, you asked what would i do...Horrible thing to think about, knowing myself i think would not keep the baby. But i wonder what do women say to their children who the father is if it was a rape. It would be an awful thing to say. I agree. But i doubt I would want my daughter to hang out around rapist (if that would be the case) not knowing what he is capable off. If he assaulted a mother who knows maybe he would assault a daughter. I would worry about my child's safety. I think I would want my child to know to stay away from sex offenders. that's why withholding information could be dangerous, as painful as truth is.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Stepfamily Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here