Compulsory DNA checks at birth ?

[Farm Boy]

If there's a marriage involved, then no. Getting married (or in a civil union) means agreeing to share such things. Basically, you preemptively agreed to support kids born during the marriage by marrying her.

Otherwise, it's murkier, but ultimately, the interest of the kid (like, say, having a father) trump the interest of the father. And that's as it should be: the father is a grown adult, far better able both mentally and legally to look after their own interest than the kid is. Thus, the law focus on protecting the defenseless party (kid), not the party able to handle themselves (father).

Of course, the biological father can still try to walk away. If another man claim the kid, or if the mother decides not to go after the father, then fine. But if the kid has no father, then the right of a kid to a father trumps the right of the father to not have a kid.

I question whether or not becoming married or part of a civil union actually expressly grants consent to being unknowingly ****olded. I very much doubt it does.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The father hasn't been deprived of anything, except perhaps in his own selfish reasoning.

I *think* you missed the point of the comment you quoted. What I think he meant, and what others and myself have noted, is that it is the general rule that the woman gets custory (usually sole custody) of the child upon divorce. Whether or not she is a fit parent is not considered except in extreme circumstances or if the father can fork out tons of money to a lawyer who can fight hard for custody. Therefore, the father is in fact deprived of his own child.

She gets custody, even when she is a terrible parent - often even in cases where she is a known, repeat lawbreaker. She gets the custody even when the father is a great dad and wants custody himself.

And as I said before, she often has sole custody and can set the visitation that the father is allowed. In fact, I believe this is the default except in cases where the woman agrees to some custody sharing agreement during the divorce proceedings. Absent that agreement, she gets full custody and even with such an agreement, it's almost never a true 50/50 custody split.

Now consider that it is completely lawful for a woman who has 100% custody to deny visitation to the father for any reason, even if only because of spite. To get any visitation in such circumstances, the man has to pay a lot of money to a lawyer to go through court proceedings to recieve visitation and even then the outcome is far from certain.

Now also consider that the father, now denied visitation, still must pay child support.

Then consider that he may have to pay child support even in cases where the mother makes more than him and where he is unemployed. Or she may spend all of the money he gives her on herself.

Finally, consider the fact that he may have found out that he is not the biological father but still wants to help raise the kid. Guess what, his wishes don't matter - the mother has custody and she sets visitation, if any, that he gets. And she still collects child support from him.

That's a lot to consider .

Have the past however many years been magically erased by the genetic history-switcher? No. The kid is still there, still alive, and still having the exact same feeling as before toward the father. The father is still the person who changed their diapers (hopefully), who fed them, who hugged them, who drove them to sports or ballet, who took them out to dinner, who was there for them throughout their childhood. The child is still the same person they did all that for.

Again, where do you draw the line between not being the father and being the father? A few days after birth? Months? A year? Where is it fair, in your opinion, to draw the line and say well now you have to help raise the child? Because the law in your country basically says the line is drawn when the window to challenge paternity closes. I personally don't think that's right.

I wouldn't give a father-of-the-year award to the guy who walks out on a child he's been raising for years. But I don't think it's quite fair to judge him either and I certainly don't think it's fair to obligate him, by law, to pay to raise the child.

It is, as others point out, much like going into a contract under false pretenses. Those kinds of contracts are null and void the minute the deception is found out; not in this case however. How is that right?

So the only cause of loss is...what's in your own head. Your own perception. Something that you can and should adjust for, not something that others should suffer for.

Who are you to say that? It's not your life we're talking about, so why do you feel so comfortable judging someone in this situation?

Your whole argument - much of the arguments here, really - seems to be built on the notion that child support is a punishment. It may be so in some country, but at least here (and I'd wager in a lot of place) this is bollocks.

No that is not the argument that is being made.

It's a matter of fairness.

Selfish bollocks at that. Child support is no more about punishment than making you pay taxes is about punishing you. It's about the fact that *someone* has to pay for that kid, and whoever the father is, socially speaking (and not genetically) is a pretty logical answer to that question.

Why is that logical? Again, he took on the burden of fatherhood under false pretenses. Yes, he's probably an asshat if he walks away, but who are you to judge? Why should he be obligated to continue paying for something he never would have agreed to do if he had known the truth from the outset?

And how do you not see all of the issues that have been raised with respect toward the uneven treatment between mothers and fathers with respect to custody as relevant? You haven't addressed them AFAIK and IMO they really change the calculus of the answers you would arrive at when considering this issue.

It's the mothers fault if the child doesn't have a father if she can abort or give it for adoption in her jurisdiction

I tend not to agree with this because a society, in most cases, should encourage procreation for the continuation of the health of the overall society and not discourage it. Making it completely the mothers fault will discourage procreation.

Your rule here also means that women who are abandoned by the father after the child has been born will be faulted for that.*

*And I don't mean abandoned by ****olded fathers, I'm talking about run-of-the-mill douchebaggery where the dad skips out because, well, they're douchbags.

I question whether or not becoming married or part of a civil union actually expressly grants consent to being unknowingly ****olded. I very much doubt it does.

Exactly! I don't see how he keeps missing out on this and related points. Oda doesn't seem to acknowledge that these kinds of points have any weight whatsoever and I can't understand why.

Plus, a woman can terminate an unwanted pregnancy, the father can't. If two people get married and they have agreed not to have children, and the mother renigs on this agreement, the father has no real choice in the matter. It's not fair to require that he stop having sex with her. And if she's stopped taking her birth control without his knowledge, guess what? He's stuck paying for the kid he didn't want, the kid they both previously agreed they would never have.

In this case, as it his kid, I do think he should contribute (i.e. pay child support). Making him not pay it would open the door to say that other 'never intended to be a father' men could get off the hook for child support. But it's something to think about.

It's also yet another reason why the custody/child support laws are stacked against fathers though.

____________________________________


I would like to note that the fact that mothers get default custody is a pretty recent development, IIRC. Until fairly recently, whenever there was a divorce the father would default get custody and their were even harsher restrictions on visitation and custody sharing for mothers than there are against fathers now.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Sorry for the double post, I have a lot to say and if I keep adding stuff in through edits, people will miss it.

I have a question:
If a man is paying child support and the mother either
a) remarries
b) moves in with another man who shares financial obligations with her
-but-

the new partner does not adopt the kids, then:

Does the biological father still have to pay child support?

If so, why?

If there's a marriage involved, then no. Getting married (or in a civil union) means agreeing to share such things. Basically, you preemptively agreed to support kids born during the marriage by marrying her.

Otherwise, it's murkier, but ultimately, the interest of the kid (like, say, having a father) trump the interest of the father. And that's as it should be: the father is a grown adult, far better able both mentally and legally to look after their own interest than the kid is. Thus, the law focus on protecting the defenseless party (kid), not the party able to handle themselves (father).

Of course, the biological father can still try to walk away. If another man claim the kid, or if the mother decides not to go after the father, then fine. But if the kid has no father, then the right of a kid to a father trumps the right of the father to not have a kid.

People do not have a right to a father. They have a right to support and that support can come in many forms. It can come from a father through parenting, through a father by child support payments, through support by a grandparent raising them, through support from the state through foster parenting and orphanges.

But no one has a right to have a father and this mindset is keeping you stuck on the assumption that every man who is in any way involved with raising a child is legally responsible for supporting it forever. That's pretty much what your arguments come down to.

Yes any biological father should have a chance to walk away before the "real" parenting begins. A father can't force a mother to have an abortion. I have never personally seen people involved in a divorce outside of this loud minority you speak of

No that is not right, IMO.

My logic from my past post applies:
a) The state should encourage, and not discourage, childbirth.
b) It's not fair because it does take two people to make a child and they both are responsible for the child they created. Allowing a father to walk away means that he could walk away the day before birth, when the mother is already committed to it, and leave her stuck with no support from him.

Really, it does suck that a guy has no choice in wether or not a child is born from an accidental pregnancy. But that's (one of) the risk of sex and there is no fairer way to handle it, IMO.

 

[mrt144]

Guys should have some way to abort their fatherhood. It's unfair a girl can stop it but the guys future depends on what a hormonal girl decides

Lets just ignore the misogyny implied and focus on the logistics.

 

[mrt144]

Also, I wish that people against him paying child support didn't have so much women hating baggage. I dont think he should pay child support for these children but I dont think its a grave injustice caused by feminism and misandry

 

[Patroklos]

That same logic applies to the woman, it's just the risk of sex so she should have to deal with it if thebiological father doesn't want it but she decides to have it anyway. If you can't force her to be a mother, neither should she be able to force a man to be a father using consistent logic.

It's just another example of the lopsided law regarding children you were talking about either.

Also, I wish that people against him paying child support didn't have so much women hating baggage. I dont think he should pay child support for these children but I dont think its a grave injustice caused by feminism and misandry

Was the logical backwardsness of that post on purpose, because it is really impressive?

 

[Evie]

And yet, your "fairness" still boils down to condemning a kid that has nothing to do with the divorce pay the price (as in, be raised on a single parent's income rather than two) rather

Yeah, making the kid pay rather than the adult sure is fairness, isn't it?

That's a one-sided, "It's all about MEEEEEE" view of fairness. It's all about how the situation is unfair to the parent, and completely ignore any fairness or unfairness to the child. And yet, having to grow up on the revenue of a single parent is immensely unfair to the kid, who will be severly disadvantaged compared to a kid growing up on the revenue of two parents (which, you know, is still supposed to be the norm). Far more disadvantaged than a parent who end up...paying for the child they've been raising. Which...is also the norm.

I mean, if you hadn't divorced the woman, would you be paying for the kid (in part)? Of course you would.

There is an issue with custody and visitation rights in modern societies. It's a serious issue (and an inversion of the issue that used to exist, as you noted. A bias combined with poorly written law. There's a lot of work to be there. There is an unfairness, and it needs to be lookd at.

But what you propose is trying to make a right with two wrongs. Replacing one unfairness with another doesn't create a fair situation. In this case, it would make the situation even less fair because instead of the situation being unfair to an adult who has at least some control over who they are and what they do, the situation is unfair to a child who has no control in the matter.

And, again, the interest of the child come first. It may not be in the interest of the child, for example, to have alternating custody between the parents.

And that's what everything boil down to.

You have a child, who cannot stand up for themselves, who cannot look after their own interest, who is at the mercy of others and entirely dependant on them.
You have an adult, who can stand up for themselves, who have mastery of their own action, who can look after their own interests, and who is not entirely dependent on others.

Of course the law is going to be all about protecting the interest and well-being of the first.

 

[mrt144]

That same logic applies to the woman, it's just the risk of sex so she should have to deal with it if thebiological father doesn't want it but she decides to have it anyway. If you can't force her to be a mother, neither should she be able to force a man to be a father using consistent logic.

It's just another example of the lopsided law regarding children you were talking about either.




Was the logical backwardsness of that post on purpose, because it is really impressive?

Wheres the backwardness? You can think this situation sucks without blaming feminism and misandry as the root cause. People that complain about misandry are by and large women hating s.

 

[Patroklos]

And yet, your "fairness" still boils down to condemning a kid that has nothing to do with the divorce pay the price (as in, be raised on a single parent's income rather than two) rather

I thought it was in vogue topoo poo the nuclear family. If yiu are so insistent on this right to a father why are single mothers allowed to get artificially inseminated? Why don't we force single males to support kids who have fathers who died?

Are you saying being raised by a single parent is a bad thing?

Wheres the backwardness? You can think this situation sucks without blaming feminism and misandry as the root cause. People that complain about misandry are by and large women hating s.

So feminist policy initiatives can never have negative consequences? In any circumstance? Feminists are always correct not only in ideological dogma but also in every implementation program down to the last detail? The loses lose situation doesn't manifest itself under the rubric of "feminism" under any circumstance.

Every massive social initiative, regardless of correct intent or even overall positive effect have many negative (often unexpected) consequences. Feminist informed initiatives are no different. And it should be noted that while feminism in the abstract might be (and I believe it is) a force for good, individual or groups of self described feminists don't automatically achieve good for women just based on good intentions, they may simple be wrong in their particular lane.

The backwardness of your logic is assume that their positions are based on hating women, at the same time doing to them exactly what you were acusing them of doing to women.

 

[TomYo689]

The governments fertility policy is a different topic. The mother can abandon ship just like the father, it just might take an extra medical procedure depending on when. We definitely have gender discrimination if this is forgotten

 

[mrt144]

I thought it was in vogue topoo poo the nuclear family. If yiu are so insistent on this right to a father why are single mothers allowed to get artificially inseminated? Why don't we force single males to support kids who have fathers who died?

Are you saying being raised by a single parent is a bad thing?




So feminist policy initiatives can never have negative consequences? In any circumstance? Feminists are always correct not only in ideological dogma but also in every implementation program down to the last detail? The loses lose situation doesn't manifest itself under the rubric of "feminism" under any circumstance.

Every massive social initiative, regardless of correct intent or even overall positive effect have many negative (often unexpected) consequences. Feminist informed initiatives are no different. And it should be noted that while feminism in the abstract might be (and I believe it is) a force for good, individual or groups of self described femi jets don't automatically achieve good for women just based on good intentions, they may simple be wrong.

The backwardness of your logic is assume that their positions are based on hating women, at the same time doing to them exactly what you were acusing them of doing to women.

Read the goddamn comments on the article or GTFO.

 

[Patroklos]

You didn't say anything about comments in the article. Did you expect peopele to randomlyguess thats what you were talking about? Maybe you should learn to communicate better because you failed miserably at it

 

[Farm Boy]

And yet, your "fairness" still boils down to condemning a kid that has nothing to do with the divorce pay the price (as in, be raised on a single parent's income rather than two)

This presumes that all children actually have an innate right to be supported by two working parents. While I think more adult involvement in a child's life has indeed been shown to pay good dividends I don't think this right innately exists. Children with one dead parent certainly don't enjoy that right. Children raised willingly alone by a single mother who has not pursued child support payments do not have that right. Depending on how you read your statement then children raised in households with one working parent(either intentionally or through unemployment) don't have that right.

 

[Akka]

The father hasn't been deprived of anything, except perhaps in his own selfish reasoning.

So the non-father leave, it means the child is deprived of a father and is a poor victim.
The guy learn that the child was never his own, but somehow he still has his child (despite the child not being him) and on top of that he's a bastard.

Check your double-standards, mate, they're showing.

Have the past however many years been magically erased by the genetic history-switcher? No. The kid is still there, still alive, and still having the exact same feeling as before toward the father. The father is still the person who changed their diapers (hopefully), who fed them, who hugged them, who drove them to sports or ballet, who took them out to dinner, who was there for them throughout their childhood. The child is still the same person they did all that for.

=>
exactly like you can be married to a woman, and one day learn she cheated you, and you end your relationship with her, despite having loved her for years before.

The past don't change, but your feeling toward it does change radically when you learn it was all a lie.

More, society has no issues with the notion of "the man who raise the kid is the father". After all, we accept adoption, and we're even starting to accept the notion of same-gender parenting (eg, a kid having two father and no mother or no father and two mothers). No, genetic linking is not necessary to be considered the father.

=>
Note : I'm pretty sure that anyone who has raised a kid for years will not simply throw him away and forget him. I'm pretty sure that despite the pain, they will still love the kid and want to raise him. In which case they would most probably accept to still be the official father.
Still, suddendly learning your kid is not your kid change completely the situation, and people shouldn't be expected to keep the same relationship than before when the parameters have completely switched around

So the only cause of loss is...what's in your own head. Your own perception. Something that you can and should adjust for, not something that others should suffer for.

So the suffering of the non-father is only in his head, which means it's no big deal.
Unlike the suffering of the others which are... err... only in their head too ? But that means it's a big deal ?

Hello ? What kind of argument is this garbage ?
/facepalm

Your whole argument - much of the arguments here, really - seems to be built on the notion that child support is a punishment. It may be so in some country, but at least here (and I'd wager in a lot of place) this is bollocks.

Your whole argument is built on the notion that someone who has accepted to raise his child has henceforth accepted to raise the child of anybody.
That's not only bollock, that's completely idiotic too.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Also, I wish that people against him paying child support didn't have so much women hating baggage. I dont think he should pay child support for these children but I dont think its a grave injustice caused by feminism and misandry

I really hope you weren't refering to myself with this post.

And yet, your "fairness" still boils down to condemning a kid that has nothing to do with the divorce pay the price (as in, be raised on a single parent's income rather than two) rather

Yeah, making the kid pay rather than the adult sure is fairness, isn't it?

That's a one-sided, "It's all about MEEEEEE" view of fairness. It's all about how the situation is unfair to the parent, and completely ignore any fairness or unfairness to the child. And yet, having to grow up on the revenue of a single parent is immensely unfair to the kid, who will be severly disadvantaged compared to a kid growing up on the revenue of two parents (which, you know, is still supposed to be the norm).

No one is taling about purposely disadvantaging the kid. The kid is entitled to support, but is not entitled to a specific source of support. I talked about this before yet you skipped that point as well.

We have all kinds of social services to ensure that the child is supported yet in some instances it is deemed acceptable to disadvantage a person who did not cause the child's existence simply because he was in some way involved with the kid.

You have yet to really define at what point it is acceptable for a man to walk away from a kid that isn't his. You quoted some laws and I went at length to say they weren't fair or even logical, yet you've yet to defend them other than to say that I hold a selfish point of view, in essence.

Far more disadvantaged than a parent who end up...paying for the child they've been raising. Which...is also the norm.

Yes, that he wanted to agree because he was under the false pretenses that it was his. He was decieved, sometimes purposely decieved. So now he's obligated to continue on with the charade when with any other kind of obligatory arrangement, he'd be entitled to walk away.


And you still haven't addressed cases of outright fraud where the women 'father shops'. You make no execptions and that alone is an untennable position to hold.

There is an issue with custody and visitation rights in modern societies. It's a serious issue (and an inversion of the issue that used to exist, as you noted. A bias combined with poorly written law. There's a lot of work to be there. There is an unfairness, and it needs to be lookd at.

But what you propose is trying to make a right with two wrongs. Replacing one unfairness with another doesn't create a fair situation. In this case, it would make the situation even less fair because instead of the situation being unfair to an adult who has at least some control over who they are and what they do, the situation is unfair to a child who has no control in the matter.

The adult who was ****olded never had any control over the situation. The child is looked after by the state and as I've said there are many ways for this to happen.

The father is under no obligation to be involved with the kid beyond paying for it. At that point, the state can (and does) provide services and funding to make up for financial shortfalls that a single mother may have raising the child.

If the father isn't obligated to parent, why should he be obligated to contribute financially to a child that isn't his when there exists mechanisms for the state to make those contributions instead? And in cases where there is no father, the state does make those contributions. Yet you'd stick a ****old with a bill he may not want in this case and I ask again:
Why?

And, again, the interest of the child come first. It may not be in the interest of the child, for example, to have alternating custody between the parents.

And that's what everything boil down to.

I agree. That's why we have social services, to pick up where one parent cannot provide enough. Why force a man to pay? Should a man who babysat a girlfriend's baby for free have to then pay for babysitting for the child when he moves away?
What is the difference between that and what we've been discussing?

You have a child, who cannot stand up for themselves, who cannot look after their own interest, who is at the mercy of others and entirely dependant on them.
You have an adult, who can stand up for themselves, who have mastery of their own action, who can look after their own interests, and who is not entirely dependent on others.

A ****old cannot look after their own interests by definition and he was dependent on another (the unfaithful woman) for putting him in that situation.

Of course the law is going to be all about protecting the interest and well-being of the first. Protecting the weak is what the law is all about

Yup, that's why the state provides food stamps, free school lunches, free healthcare for children, etc.

You have yet to provide a substantial argument for why a ****old must contribute monetarily. You basically repeat the same argument - it's for the kids best interest - while ignoring all counters.

 

[mrt144]

I was referring to most of the comments on the news article itself.

 

[Patroklos]

We get that now. I will take your word for it, article comments are always attrocious.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

=>
Note : I'm pretty sure that anyone who has raised a kid for years will not simply throw him away and forget him. I'm pretty sure that despite the pain, they will still love the kid and want to raise him. In which case they would most probably accept to still be the official father.
Still, suddendly learning your kid is not your kid change completely the situation, and people shouldn't be expected to keep the same relationship than before when the parameters have completely switched around

And let's not forget that if you decide to divorce the woman upon discovering the ****olding, you probably won't get custody of the kid, even if you want it and are the fitter parent. Yet somehow this is 'what's best for the kid'.

 

[Hehehe]

This thread is starting to go in circles, so this will likely be my last post in this thread.

I can't speak for other people, but what I am arguing for is that child support would be paid by the biological father. The surrogate father is free to participate, by paying child support for example, should he want to do so. If he doesn't, then he is not a father to those kids, in any sense of the word, and thus should not be forced to pay child support. The kid, who is innocent in this mess, does not lose financial support, but instead receives support from the biological father. The kid may or may not have a dad when growing up, but that is due to the divorce, not child support payments.

Also, most victims of parental fraud never even suspected it. They had no reason to demand a test.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not arguing for compulsory DNA checks at birth, that's just silly. But I do think it should be possible to release a man from child support obligations if he is not the father.