Soon illegal to perform private paternity tests in Germany?

[crazy canuck]

But surely the courts would arrange for "adoptive" dad to get some relief from bio dad, in an ideal world.

I am not sure why that must necessarily be so.  It assumes that adoptive dad has sufferend some harm or damage.  If adoptive dad wanted the children where is the damage or loss?  He got want he wanted.  Whether they are genetically his should make no difference.

[Malthus]

I don't know the Quebec laws involved, but it doesn't strike me as outrageous that a man who treated a child for five years as her father should be held to be, for all intents and purposes, her father.

Think of it this way: I would find it quite outrageous should the bio-dad, years later, drop in and demand a father's rights - should non-bio dad really want to stay dad. He didn't raise her. He had nothing to do with her. Whatever the biological link, he's not acted in the role of dad. Between the two of them, non-bio dad has the rights (and responsibilities). 

Whatever mom's guilt in the matter, it is not the kid's fault, she is her own person. What kind of a man could raise a child to age 5 and then reject her totally because of something her mom did? If I found out Carl wasn't biologically "mine" I'd be right pissed at my wife but I certainly would not suddenly decide I didn't love him any more.

On the one hand, I agree with you to the extent that if I found out my daughter was not biologically mine, it certainly wouldn't change my relationship with her, including my willingness to provide financial support. I think most of the people who don't feel the same way don't have children.

But I disagree that it is best to maintain laws that in such a situation the law should go after the non-biological parent for child support first. Keeping in mind that if no father was around the court would stick the biological parent with the child support payments, why should the biological parent get stuck with a legal obligation just because he has provided love and support to the child? What would seem more reasonable is to first go after the biological father, and in the case of either nonpayment or incomplete payment to collect the remainder from the non-biological father.

That should mean the biological father should get some paternity rights, and I know splitting the kid's time among three parents may not be in the child's interest, but if courts have some latitude to adjust both the rights and the payments then they should be able to work out a somewhat equitable arrangement.

Well, no - that would necessarily mean that bio-dad, a total stranger, would have some paternal rights over a partly grown child (remembering that the child was 5 at the time). That seems quite unjust. For example, what if (as would I have absolutely no doubt would be the case in the vast majority of cases) "adoptive" dad wished to continue to be dad and did not want a total stranger, a grown man whom he doesn't know and probably doesn't much like, having access to his kid? Would he be able to say "no thanks, I don't want your money, please go away"? Could bio-dad now say "sorry bub, you raised that kid for five years, but now he's mine and I want him"?

To my mind it makes most sense and is most just for the courts to recognize as valid the actual relationship that exists.

[Malthus]

There is nothing social, sentimental or romantic when the wife cheats on a man, gives birth to the child, and asks him to pay her for it: What she wants is to maintain access to your resources for her own benefit, not your fatherly love.

I do not understand this at all. The love you give to a kid is dependant upon what the mother wants of you ?

It is dependent on whether it is my child or not, i.e. biological filiation.

Also, I argue that if the relationship is based on fraud and bad faith and that the damaged party has the option to opt out, the same should apply for filiation, which is a social contract. In this case, if the putative father learns that its whole relationship with his children is based on lie and deceit, he should have a right either to opt out and deny the mother any access to his resource in the future in return for renouncing his parental rights and tutelage forever (within a reasonable timespan, of course) or to retain them and continue to act as their father. Thus the responsability lies with the mother and the consequences of her personal choices, and her partners who partake in sexual intercourse with her despite the risks.

And in case you argue it would be an excuse for any father to escape for their responsabilities pending separation, DNA provides also the means to make sure such they can't. So in fact, it places fatherhood where it should belong: with biological fathers.

I guess that in our society we generally treat parenthood as a social as well as biological fact. I disagree that "fatherhood should belong with biological fathers". Fatherhood should belong with those who have the guts and the gumption to actually "father", a process that involves much more than mere donation of sperm.

Biological fatherhood is a fact it is true, but the relationship-bond between a father and child is also a fact. Over the life of a child, the fact of biology assumes less and less significance and the fact of the relationship assumes more and more. Certainly a case could be made that a "father" who finds out he isn't the dad at birth should not be required to assume rights and responsibilities. But equally certainly, a father who finds out he isn't bio-dad when the kid is five years old should in no way be relieved of his responsibilities, any more than a "legitimate bio-dad" should be allowed to just walk away because he's tired of being a dad, decides he hates his wife, etc. The "fact" of fatherhood is already well established by that point! 

[Zanza]

Interesting debate but I can tell you if I found out that I was not the biological father of my two sons it would not mean a thing to me in relation to my sons.

On the one hand, I agree with you to the extent that if I found out my daughter was not biologically mine, it certainly wouldn't change my relationship with her, including my willingness to provide financial support. I think most of the people who don't feel the same way don't have children.

If I found out Carl wasn't biologically "mine" I'd be right pissed at my wife but I certainly would not suddenly decide I didn't love him any more.

That's really what the law is about. Before this law, the only way to legally challenge parenthood was having a paternity test ordered by court, but if it came back negative, you were automatically no longer related to the child, meaning you had absolutely no rights to even see the child ever again. This law now allows a legal way to get a paternity test without consequences for legal paternity, so you are still have custody for the child etc.
So it is an improvement for fathers I'd say.
Not legalizing private paternity tests fits with the rule of law doctrine. Infringing that much on a right either needs consent or a court order, not just the ability to do it.

[DontSayBanana]

See, Zanza, that's an issue we'd have a hard time relating to in the US; legal guardianship is not necessarily linked to the biological parents (fiscal dependency is actually shown by percentage of time over the year living with the custodial guardian).

Without having the statistics at hand, I'd guess that in the US, the majority of paternity tests are ordered by "fathers" who have a questionable child support claim leveled against them. In that case, the system Germany's adopting wouldn't work, since it would suddenly jam the court system further with administrative cases filed by doubting, non-custodial "parents" trying to disentangle themselves from a bad claim.

[crazy canuck]

Without having the statistics at hand, I'd guess that in the US, the majority of paternity tests are ordered by "fathers" who have a questionable child support claim leveled against them.

I can see the logic of a man who has had nothing to do with the child requesting a paternity test if a claim is being made against him for child support simply on the basis that he contributed sperm.

[Scipio]

Again as I said, parental authority must always be exercised in the interest of the child. In this case I fail to see this being done in the interest of the child, and as such can't see how this breach of privacy would be justified.

Isn't the point of the test to determine who is the parent?

All of this would be solved with only three simple words: Mandatory, paternity, test.

It would all be solved by putting birth control chemicals into the water supply, and requiring a permit to have a child, and the release of a chemical to negate the birth control chemicals.

[ulmont]

It would all be solved by putting birth control chemicals into the water supply, and requiring a permit to have a child, and the release of a chemical to negate the birth control chemicals.

Nothing could go wrong with your plan.  I endorse it wholeheartedly.

[alfred russel]

Well, no - that would necessarily mean that bio-dad, a total stranger, would have some paternal rights over a partly grown child (remembering that the child was 5 at the time). That seems quite unjust.

Why would it necessarily mean that? Why can't you have a moderate divorcing of parental rights and child support?

In any case, I don't see why it is horrible that the biological father is given some rights--for example, once a month visitation rights.

For example, what if (as would I have absolutely no doubt would be the case in the vast majority of cases) "adoptive" dad wished to continue to be dad and did not want a total stranger, a grown man whom he doesn't know and probably doesn't much like, having access to his kid? Would he be able to say "no thanks, I don't want your money, please go away"? Could bio-dad now say "sorry bub, you raised that kid for five years, but now he's mine and I want him"?

To my mind it makes most sense and is most just for the courts to recognize as valid the actual relationship that exists.

We are all discussing the example from the perspective of married men with stable jobs and probably a bit more willingness to take on responsibility than most. My understanding is that collecting child support is very difficult despite increasingly draconian laws against nonpayment and that children from broken homes often don't have relationships with their noncustodial parents. There are numerous reasons this could happen--suppose Carl was determined not to be your child, and you filed for a very messy divorce that left you on very rotten terms with your wife. Your wife gets custody and moves to another part of the country or otherwise obstructs your ability to interact with Carl. Any meeting time you have is forced under a legal mandate, and feels that way.

I don't think that the situation above is rare or even unlikely, and the effect would be that your constructive relationship with Carl would end with the divorce. Ten years from now you may start to wonder why you are turning over large portions of your compensation to a child you have little relationship with, when if you had never been a caregiver to the child in the first place it would be the biological dad on the hot seat. 

[crazy canuck]

In any case, I don't see why it is horrible that the biological father is given some rights--for example, once a month visitation rights.

So, if some guy comes up and proves that he is the biological father of my children he gets to see them once a month.

Over my dead body.

[alfred russel]

In any case, I don't see why it is horrible that the biological father is given some rights--for example, once a month visitation rights.

So, if some guy comes up and proves that he is the biological father of my children he gets to see them once a month.

Over my dead body.

Then what would be wrong with you making that case to the judge and agreeing to pay 100% of the support?

But if the guy is interested, the mother doesn't mind, and/or the kid is interested in knowing his/her biological father, you aren't going to have much say on the matter.

[Valmy]

So, if some guy comes up and proves that he is the biological father of my children he gets to see them once a month.

Over my dead body.

That's impossible as your children obviously have your talent, intelligence, and good looks.  How could they possibly be anybody else's?

[crazy canuck]

Then what would be wrong with you making that case to the judge and agreeing to pay 100% of the support?

Isnt it up to the person who is trying to change the status quo to have to make the case that they should be given some parental rights?  Do you think a Court would have any time for someone showing up years after the fact and demanding the Court recognize some kind of parental rights?

[crazy canuck]

That's impossible as your children obviously have your talent, intelligence, and good looks.  How could they possibly be anybody else's?

I was trying to put myself in the kind of world that would be created if AR's view was reality.  I would have to shoot someone because I would never give up custody of one of my children to some stranger who happened to have sex with my wife.

All hypothetically speaking of course.

[alfred russel]

Isnt it up to the person who is trying to change the status quo to have to make the case that they should be given some parental rights?  Do you think a Court would have any time for someone showing up years after the fact and demanding the Court recognize some kind of parental rights?

I'm assuming that we are looking at this from the other angle first: support payments. As I said before, it makes some sense to hold both the biological and "adoptive" fathers as liable, and divide payment in a manner that the court sees as most appropriate. In your case, if you don't have any objections to paying all the support, I don't see why you shouldn't get the full parental rights.

I would say though that if you are negligent in making payments or it would be a burden you can't meet, it does make some sense to go after the biological father rather than forcing the mother to go on the dole/do without.