You may have been in the delivery room to snip your baby's umbilical cord and the first to hold your new little bundle of joy. But before you don that "Proud Daddy" t-shirt you bought for the occasion of your child's birth, a proposed regulation in New Jersey wants to make you take a mandatory DNA test before you can legally call yourself DAD.
The measure, New Jersey A2609, calls on obstetricians or midwives -- or whoever delivers the baby -- to be responsible for conducting cheek swab DNA tests at the expense of patients or their insurers. Men "claiming" to be the father would be tested, babies would be tested and even moms. However, the creator of the regulation does admit that testing would "mostly... be geared towards the father because with the mother, of course, there is no doubt. Included in the bill is language that would allow a man who erroneously thought he was the dad to seek reimbursement or sue the "real father" for support and other expenses he incurred raising the child.
As someone who practices family law, I do see a faint glimmer here of how this could be viewed as a practical idea. Concerns over paternity, especially as they relate to clarifying who is responsible for paying child support, are issues I deal with every day. The writer of the bill views mandatory DNA testing as an "opportunity" to make sure every child born in New Jersey has the correct father on record. But is this the best way to go about defining who is -- or isn't -- a father? How will this affect families and what about the many other implications of mandatory DNA testing?
First, let's talk about women. Yes, we know that sometimes women have multiple partners, even when they are married. However, assuming that you can't trust any New Jersey mom to be honest about (or worse, to know!) who fathered her child seems like a giant step backwards, not to mention insulting. In my experience, paternity issues affect a minority of families, not the majority.
But what if a woman did cheat on her spouse around the time she became pregnant... and he doesn't know it? Is it now the state's responsibility to let men know their wives have been unfaithful? What about surrogate mothers or women who use donor eggs to become pregnant? Who is the "real" mother in these cases? And taking this bill to a potential extreme, what about women who become pregnant as the result of a sexual assault? If she chooses to have and raise the child as her own, she should not be reminded of the assault at the time of the birth, when it should arguably be one of the most joyous moments of her life. Does the government really intend to require that the rapist's name be identified as Dad on the birth certificate?
As for fathers, it's a psychological fact that men do bond with their children, sometimes even before they are born. And that bond doesn't require shared DNA. Even when they have suspicions that Mom isn't being absolutely honest, many men won't insist on a paternity test for one simple reason: because they want to be Dads. Blissful ignorance guarantees the ability to raise a child they may have loved from the very first ultrasound picture. And contrary to what the bill's sponsor may believe, men raising children fathered by someone else often do not feel any differently about the child once they learn that child isn't their genetic offspring. "It doesn't matter to me," one such father told his eight-year-old, after learning (in the course of a bitter custody battle) that he was not his son's biological father. "It's love, not blood, that makes people parents."
What about men who donated their sperm for this child to be born, but not much else? The bill takes the position that if your DNA is part of this child's genetic composition, you are a father, and thus financially responsible for that child. Where does this leave sperm donors?
The ramifications of this bill don't even stop there. If it's encoded into law that fatherhood equals shared DNA, where does that leave non-biologically based fathers -- and more importantly, where does it leave their children? What does this bill mean for adoptive fathers and gay fathers? This legislation flies in the face of adoptive parents and same-sex couples when one of the "parents" is clearly not biological. What about fathers (and mothers) who don't want testing done for any number of reasons, including religion or inability to make payment for the mandatory lab test?
It's hard to see who wins with this bill, except for perhaps the lab testing companies.
As for the non-biological father, he gets the dubious pleasure of knowing he's been cheated twice over -- cheated financially out of money he paid to raise a child for whom he's not responsible, and cheated emotionally of his status as a loving father. As for the child, I can't imagine that it's anything but painful to learn that "Dad" isn't your father -- especially once you're old enough to realize that Mom may have been hiding his "real" identity. And Mom herself? She gets to have her character called into question because she either didn't know or didn't say who her baby-daddy was. Basically, this law would be a lose-lose-lose-lose proposition for everyone involved.
This law brings into question several interesting problems to consider. Is fatherhood really established at the moment of conception? Or is it a bigger and more complex role than DNA can determine? And are decisions about who gets to be part of a family -- and who doesn't -- really the province of our political and legal system to determine?
Ky. prosecutor says DNA paternity test led to rape charges against 29-year-old man
Michael Jackson's Former Bodyguard Wants Paternity Test To Prove Blanket Is ...
Mandatory DNA tests for all parents are likely unconstitutional searches. Mandatory tests at the behest of one parent who has suspicions are a more practical approach.
Cool?
"As for the non-biological father, he gets the dubious pleasure of knowing he's been cheated twice over -- cheated financially out of money he paid to raise a child for whom he's not responsible, and cheated emotionally of his status as a loving father."
Because being an ignorant cuckold is so much better.
"As for the child, I can't imagine that it's anything but painful to learn that "Dad" isn't your father -- especially once you're old enough to realize that Mom may have been hiding his "real" identity."
The point of paternity testing at birth is to avoid such a situation in the first place.
"And Mom herself? She gets to have her character called into question because she either didn't know or didn't say who her baby-daddy was."
A woman who didn't know or didn't say who the father was but let her husband assume he was richly deserves to have her character called into question.
The offspring of an unmarried mother or father stands the best chance of having a birth record that is an actual medical record because the federal government requires that the State's go look for a child's biological parents and test as many guys as it takes to find the child's father or mother - if the suspect refuses to take a test the State is actually required to make one of their relatives submit to a test in order to get the truth down once and for all. So the idea that we trust people is hooey. Make the law uniform the same across the board.
I guess what I'm looking for you to address is why do you think its OK to gain parental rights over someone else's offspring without first going through court approved procedures that protect the child the relinquishing parent and the person who will be given the responsibility of raising another person's offspring to adulthood? Why would it be a bad thing to make sure more people get their parental rights over other people's offspring in an above board, on-the-record, court approved way that does not compromise medical records or cost a person his true identity as the offspring of the parents that created them?
I don't even care that this advances men's rights at all. (Though it's pretty damned gauche to make a man support a baby he didn't start, if he wouldn't be willing to do so. Again, you have no right to make that decision for him. He's an adult, and can make the decision himself.) I care about what this is doing to the kids. Save your social experimentation for adults who can consent to it.
What you may not realise is that of those who investigate, 1 in 3 men find themselves the victim of paternity fraud. On random samples taken it's 14% of men bringing up a child they haven't sired. Yet your only 'glimmer of hope' is to see other men paying for a woman's lies. How nice.
You seem upset that a father should know his wife (or soon to be ex) has been sleeping around, implying it is wrong he knows... Why? It's wrong that it's happened, which is HER fault, not his. She lied, she should pay. He has every right to know what animal he has been deceived by. Sleeping with someone else is one thing, but deceiving someone into investing a life-time of love and commitment - that is something quite, quite different.
"I have to correct you on this. During a genetic study with volunteer adult subjects and the two people they named as genetic parents, it was discovered that 1 in 7 (14%) were not related to the man they named. The study was on a genetic illness, not directly connected with paternity. Volunteers all knew that all information was confidential but there was also no coercion or incentive to take part, so women could easily stop the process of genetic examination by declining to take part, as could fathers who knew themselves not to be the genetic father even if the child was unaware.
It is possible that some of the men did know they were not the father but still took part. It is possible that some of the women knew the father was not the genetic father but still took part. More likely, men who knowingly had deceived a child would refuse and women who knew they had cuckolded a man would refuse. Subjects who had learnt that either parent was not their genetic parent would have no reason to lie or progress with the testing.
Therefore, if the sample were truly random, it is entirely reasonable to expect the figure to be much higher than 14%."
But this whole "it's insulting to women!" Bit? Tough. If you aren't cheating, then you have nothing to worry about. But I feel that men have a right to know (if it matters to them, that is) that the kids they're raising are really theirs. If nothing else, do it for proper medical histories
What a man DOES with the information is up to him. He doesn't have to split the relationship and he can seek to adopt or less formally accept parenthood. But at least he will do so with eyes open and with the best chance to medically care for the child.
Personally, I think that the best gift a loyal mother can offer the father is a paternity test. SHE knows who the mother is (except in about 1 in 2000 cases, according to genetic tracing) but he has no such surety. Of course, he can be a Dad even if the child is not his but it would make a wonderful present to show him love and loyalty by presenting him with his 'certificate of fatherhood'.
But that will never happen, not if feminists and family law attorneys like the author have their way. Better to keep the staus quo where there is no consequence to the woman. Why is this such an issue with feminists and female family court attorneys? Because it gives a man a choice. Men don’t have many choices when it comes to children, often the only choice is whether he pays directly to the mother or to a state run child support agency. If a woman wants to abort a child, the putative father has no choice in the matter. If a woman wants to carry a child to term and offer the child for adoption, only a few states have Putative Father Registries and allow the putative father to petition for custody only after proving they gave support to the biological mom during and after the pregnancy. Of course how does a man know he should register and provide support if the woman doesn’t tell him she is pregnant? I’m waiting to see what happens when a bio dad contests an adoption, wins custody and then files a court case to get child support. And lastly, if a woman decides to keep her child, we all know what happens then.
Mandatory at birth testing would also do away with daddy shopping and guys being judged in default because the court summons was sent to the address that , yep, the mother gave to the court.
The cases where the man has raised the child as his own for years and then discovered the wife’s deception are the worst. Destroys the lives of both the man and the child(ren), but doesn’t do anything at all to the deceptive women. Why is that? The man could still have a relationship with the child and be divorced from the mother with no financial penalty. The mother and biological dad could support the child financially, the duped dad supports the child emotionally if he wishes to, and after the child(ren) is grown and financially independent, the fraudulent mother could then begin to pay back the duped dad financially for the child support that he paid. The child is not penalized by being deprived from while he/she is a minor in need of support, and the criminal mother could make arrears to the duped dad. Still doesn’t make up for the deception and emotional toll on the duped dad but it does give a modicum of justice.
When my first wife divorced me my attorney told me, the rules have nothing to do with fairness or justice. So plan and act accordingly.
My second wife was shocked by divorce law in the US. She is from Ukraine and noted that the Soviets were much more just - both with respect to divorce and responsibility for children.
A lot of people have asked him about this and he has said adamantly many times that he would NEVER have a DNA test because he loves her so much and it would break her heart if she found out she wasn't his. I'm not sure if I agree with him or not, because for her own wellbeing it may someday be important for her to know her genetic heritage, but I certainly admire him for exemplifying what a father's love really is. For too many on this board, fatherhood seems to be about two things - owning the child and/or not having to pay to support it. Actually LOVING the child and doing the hard work raising him/her is one thing I hardly ever hear a man on HP discuss.
There is indeed a difference between a Dad and a father. As an adoptive parent myself, I know that genetics aren't everything, as do my children. However, there is a world of difference between open and honest raising of a child and deceptive and underhand treatment of men to the probable long-term detriment of both Dad and child. If a man knows he is not the father and still chooses to be the Dad, that is a choice he can make but he can't make that choice when he doesn't know the truth.
Many women who have cuckolded and lied to a partner will later split up from them. They are almost certain to retain custody of the children and then demand finance from the cuckold even while denying him access to the children. It is entirely reasonable to view child-raising from the financial viewpoint and in doing so, nothing is taken from the love between children and the man they view as Dad.
If a man has been raising a child as his own and then there is a divorce, are you saying he should have the right to disown that kid financially after being financially responsible for him/her during the marriage? Wow. I guess there's a rationale to that, but it sounds like the same MRA thinking that fathers are more important than children. I'm guessing you think it doesn't matter so long as there's a way to blame the woman involved. But allocating blame won't mitigate the trauma to the child. People who love children would understand this without having to be told.