Do your paternal testing today - better now then when you are 60 and realized your life
4 years ago by fashionista · 828 Likes · 31 comments · Popular
Report
Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
rosalinas
· 4 years ago
· FIRST
Just take DNA test
9
iccarus
· 4 years ago
doesn't matter, I know of a guy who is paying child support, when it came to light he wasn't the father, the DHS told him he still has to as his name is on the birth certificate.
1
guest_
· 4 years ago
Yes. That’s why it’s important to make sure you ARE the father before you sign any forms saying you are. It’s called an “acknowledgment of paternity,” it’s the document you sign when you sign a birth certificate or child support/court papers. They don’t feel the need to be. A DNA test if someone is sure enough they are a parent to sign a document that says they are. When you say you’re the father you assume a huge liability.
▼
Show All
guest_
· 4 years ago
The same as any other contract you should understand what you are signing BEFORE you sign and do your due diligence. It’s a tad late to get upset at the price or apr on a new car after you agreed to pay it.
▼
iccarus
· 4 years ago
so, when in a relationship, say married as this guy was, they have a baby, and he's to ask her for a DNA test as soon as the baby is born? you're single, right?
1
thekaylapup
· 4 years ago
That is the current law on the matter. Once you sign the paperwork the child is yours even if you did not father them biologically. On the other hand this does give fathers rights over said children. Even if the child isn't biologically yours, you can fight for custody of the child.
1
guest_
· 4 years ago
@iccarrus- not single, and not a stranger to long term relationships. Are you familiar of the concept of a prenuptial agreement? Two people- madly in love- likely about to pledge before their friends and family, the law, and possibly their deities that they are so certain of that love they’ll spend forever together- get a document that says how things will be divided up if they change their minds later. If you have any assets at all- even if you don’t and you just have ambition- hell- even if you have neither- forever is a long time let alone 10 years. Most people will agree that a prenup is smart, and if your partner can’t understand that it protects them too and is prudent- you probably aren’t marrying a very practical person to tie your life and legal well being to.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
Same principal. In law- marriage, credit cards, home rentals, jobs, and yes- kids- are all contractual. The basis of the meaning of a contract is useless if the concept of a contract isn’t in some form binding. You COULD say “well make a clause in the law so that if it isn’t your kid you are absolved...” that gets more complex than you’d think and creates problems when it comes to people taking parental rights for children that aren’t biologically theirs and they known and don’t care. The law assumes adults are adults and make decisions having reached satisfaction with their due diligence etc.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
As a non single person you’d been in long term relationships that are in no exaggeration longer than many on this site have been alive- communicate with your partner. Make it known before you have kids that as a principal that is how you feel regardless of who your partner is. It isn’t about them and if they want to make it about them that’s a red flag for me. Would I get a DNA test with my partner? Probably not. But I’m willing to take that risk. If the kid wasn’t biologically mine then I’d keep my responsibility and not bitch about it- because I agreed that I’d be a father to that kid no matter who’s it is when I signed a paper saying I would. If you think you might not want to raise and or be financially and legally responsible for a baby that doesn’t have your DNA- get the test.
▼
iccarus
· 4 years ago
good luck to you when you have a long term relationship and have a baby, i wish i could be there when you ask your partner "are you sure it's mine, i want a dna test before you put my name on the birth certificate"
1
guest_
· 4 years ago
I feel like you didn’t read anything I wrote since your entire comment overlooks literally everything I said.
▼
iccarus
· 4 years ago
i read the first two lines of your comments as mostly it's just ranting for paragraphs
1
guest_
· 4 years ago
Yeah. I guess all that extra “fact” and “context” just gets in the way. You should run for office. Trials go much faster without evidence or complexities to slow them down. Like all the ranting we have in books or law or science. Why can’t they just cut those pesky constitutions and what not down to like 2 lines of bullet point? I mean- why do we even have these huge books for religion when usually you can just read 5 or ten bullet points and get the whole story? Man. My eyes are open.
▼
·
Edited 4 years ago
iccarus
· 4 years ago
Man, all i read is blah blah blah. What you first said, was like all contracts before you put your name to it, is make sure the baby is yours. That'll be a quick exit strategy.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
To each their own.
▼
thekaylapup
· 4 years ago
I think it would be really difficult to prove it was intentional to trick them. I know a woman who got pregnant with twins from a man she thought was infertile. And we know the kids are his, but what if he had not be the only man who could be the father baised on timing. It would be so reasonable to assume the children were the other man's children.
6
guest_
· 4 years ago
Thank you. The danger with these sorts of laws is several fold. As stated- proving INTENT can be very difficult. That she KNEW and defrauded the father. How does she KNOW? Unless she got a DNA test or she knew she was pregnant before she slept with a guy (which how do you prove what a person knew or didn’t know...?) what case do you have that she was lying and not just wrong? How is she more guilty than you? YOU thought you were the father too didn’t you? So where is YOUR responsibility here? I mean- if I told you that you owed me $60 would you just do it- or would you ask questions?
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
But there is another danger there. Such laws create a liability even to women who don’t intend to cause harm or do fraud. A woman would then have to be very cautious in the language she used and the ability to use such suits or threat of such suits as a form of retaliation or harassment- or where they would serve as harassment for women is very real.
▼
Show All
guest_
· 4 years ago
When you go to court you are talking about missed days of work, travel, etc. a single mother would likely need to find child care, she may have to spend time and money she doesn’t have going to court dates- and then there are potential legal fees. If I as a father contested paternity of my child- the mother would be forced to defend herself or face legal and financial repercussions. Inability to show could render a de facto verdict for the plaintiff- even if they WERE the biological parent. Unless of course we passed laws that essentially removed ones ability to refute to collection and examination of genetic or other material for evidence- eroding legal protections and freedoms of privacy for ALL citizens.
▼
·
Edited 4 years ago
guest_
· 4 years ago
Picture the scenario- you ARE the father, you may or may not have genuine doubts. You call on the court. Now this woman misses work- possibly hurting or ending her career or job, she has legal expenses and other expenses and hassles with evidence gathering, preparing a defense, transportation, tone and costs sunk into this and research and etc etc. she loses wages for time not working, and then what happens if you ARE the father? There is not a mechanism in law currently to recoup lost wages under such circumstances.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
And that’s exactly it- you’ve put ALL the burden on her. Where is YOUR burden? There is a birth certificate. There are papers from the DA for child support where you certify you are the parent. If you aren’t 100% sure you’re the father... don’t say you are. Get a DNA test before you agree to be a dad. In law this concept is called mitigation.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
It is the responsibility of all parties to mitigate their damages. If you ship a Picasso without a box or anything and it is damaged- the shipping company isn’t liable for the damage unless they promised you it would be fine. If your buddy clogs the toilet and you leave it for 6 months and get dry rot he isn’t liable for anything but MAYBE unclogging the toilet. If your wedding video shot on an iPhone is erased by me and you re hold a wedding and reshoot with Steven Spielberg I don’t pay that- because you could have prevented the damage with basic prudence, you could have remedied the damage with reasonable cost but went extravagant or foolish. Etc.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
Undoing fatherhood after the fact is far more costly than preventing it. Once you’ve taken the legal responsibility of a parent through your own consent you are a parent. That’s the basis of things like foster care. It doesn’t matter if a child is biologically yours once you’ve said “I agree this kid is mine...” so BEFORE you agree... KNOW, or accept the risk. You don’t have to read the employment contract for your new job- but if you don’t ask how much you’ll make and sign the contract- guess what? You agreed without asking a basic question you should have asked. You can’t sue later because you didn’t care enough to ask.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
On mitigation though- that’s where this gets even MORE complex and idiotic. A father would have a legal responsibility to mitigate his damages. That means he needs to PROVE that the mother defrauded him knowingly. Lied, not was mistaken, but knew he wasn’t the dad. But now- we have to prove when he first suspected he might not be the father to asses what if anything is owed. It’s not complex. The SECOND you think you aren’t the father or may not be, that is the SECOND that the clock starts. From that point on- you aren’t owed anything because you had doubts and did nothing- just kept doing what you were doing.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
Same with any other case. So Lucy’s attorney brings up the times she’s lied to you and you knew. The yikes Lucy cheated, the fact Lucy was dating your buddy when you met or some other guy and you knew she was cheating on him with you or left him for you. We say: “John had EVERY reason to suspect Lucy of infidelity and duplicity from the moment they met...” ok. So now in court We have to paint Lucy as a “lying ho” and you as an idiot with poor judgment. And guess what? Being an idiot isn’t protected by law. We paint a legal picture where you never should have taken her word and you get nothing for all the trouble.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
Because that’s all that’s required to prove you didn’t mitigate your damages- painting a picture you should have known better. It gets deeper. So Lucy has to pair herself a “lying ho” and you an idiot. You have to paint Lucy as a saint. Your lawyer had to show how you had every reason to believe her until she closed her devious trap. And guess what? All this...? It’s public record. So if you ARE the father- this can all be used in custody hearings. It can be used to determine visitation. Your statements of who did what, under oath, can be used as evidence in future court cases.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
This information can potentially be found by bosses, coworkers, future potential employers, friends, family- all this dirty laundry. If you ever are in civil or criminal court in the future- relevant information, character, history, can all be dug out of these hearings. If what you say here contradicts what you’ve said elsewhere- you could face perjury or just give opposing council an in to call your credibility into question.
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
What happens when Joe is dating Kelly and madly in love- maybe he KNOWS he isn’t the father, maybe he suspects? But he loooves her and wants to be together and agrees to be the dad so they can be a family. Well- months or years pass. He doesn’t feel that way now. But he’s stuck. Unless... he sues her. Fat payday and an out from child support. What a great option. Mad at your ex? Tie her up in court and cause her grief and anxiety by bringing a suit. A complete idiot who is the only likely father but hoping maybe the test wont show it? (They exist. How many people take drug tests knowing they’ll fail out of optimism? How many guys who know they are the dad or could be swear they aren’t and take the test to get caught?)
▼
guest_
· 4 years ago
Tl:dr The idea is patently absurd. It’s really really simple. The mother... knows who the mother is. The father... doesn’t necessarily know he’s the father. Get a DNA test before you agree to be a dad or take responsibility as a dad unless you want to be responsible for the child no matter what. A law like this causes complexity and devastation where it isn’t needed. Just get a fucking DNA test before you agree to be the dad and you’ll never spend a penny you don’t have to on a kid that isn’t yours.
▼
itsamemaria
· 4 years ago
Interesting. It is fraud. But, you would have to prove it was malicious or she just got confused
·
Edited 4 years ago
iccarus
· 4 years ago
i think imprisonment is a bit harsh, however, they need to refund the child support
1