http://health.taragana.net/articles/germany-bans-secret-paternity-tests-as-part-of-new-law-on-genetics-use-on-humans-2/
WTF is going wrong in Germany and their silly laws, lately? Do you compensate for your ingrained need to create another World War or invade your neighbors? :huh:
Like sure, the mother will agree to the paternity test if putative daddy is asking for one... are you nuts?!
Quote
BERLIN — The German parliament approved legislation Friday limiting the use of genetic testing in an effort to prevent the technology's abuse.
The law, which was debated for more than seven years, must still go before the upper house of parliament, but it is not expected to meet any resistance.
Under the law, genetic tests can only be carried out by a doctor and require the full consent of all parties involved. That makes it illegal to conduct anonymous paternity tests and anyone found in violation could be fined up to euro5,000 ($6,525).
The law further limits the use of genetic testing on fetuses to purely medical purposes, meaning parents are prohibited from using it to determine the sex of their unborn children. In addition it prohibits the use of genetic testing for indications of a predisposition to illnesses that appear only later in life, such as breast cancer or diseases of the nervous system.
The law also addresses dissemination of information obtained through genetic testing, including preventing employers and health insurance companies from demanding an employee or potential client undergo a genetic test or accessing results from previous tests.
Insane.
Since Germans don't have babies anymore this is not going to be effecting very many people anyway.
Errr... how is it insane?
Are you guys saying that it should be legal for someone to get a DNA sample of another person and perform a genetic screening test on that sample without that person's consent? That would be a massive breach of privacy.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:29:16 AM
Errr... how is it insane?
Are you guys saying that it should be legal for someone to get a DNA sample of another person and perform a genetic screening test on that sample without that person's consent? That would be a massive breach of privacy.
I think Drakken is saying if the husband suspects his wife of humping the milkman he should be able to test the kid without her permission.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:29:16 AM
Errr... how is it insane?
Are you guys saying that it should be legal for someone to get a DNA sample of another person and perform a genetic screening test on that sample without that person's consent? That would be a massive breach of privacy.
First, this is not "another person", but one's child, so obviously he or she is a minor and thus as tutor until proved otherwise, the putative father has every right to request a DNA test. Otherwise it is the door is open for paternity
fraud.
Second, I am saying that a putative father should legally have the right to request a paternity test without the consent of the mother, because no mother in this world will accept to lose her fat daddy cashbag unless forced by the courts at the point of the bayonet.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:29:16 AM
Errr... how is it insane?
Are you guys saying that it should be legal for someone to get a DNA sample of another person and perform a genetic screening test on that sample without that person's consent? That would be a massive breach of privacy.
Yes it should be legal for parents to breach the privacy of their own children before age 18. I think a man has a right to know if a child is his child or not. Surely fathers have some rights yes? If you have lots of legal responsibilities as a father you should have some rights as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2009, 09:31:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:29:16 AM
Errr... how is it insane?
Are you guys saying that it should be legal for someone to get a DNA sample of another person and perform a genetic screening test on that sample without that person's consent? That would be a massive breach of privacy.
I think Drakken is saying if the husband suspects his wife of humping the milkman he should be able to test the kid without her permission.
I think it's a misconception. First of all, when it says "all parties involved", I am assuming it means the people whose genetic material is being tested - so unless you want to also take the wife's DNA for the test, you should be fine with just yours and your kid's without her consent (not sure how the issue of consent is addressed in case of minors, but that's another issue whatsoever).
Also, I assume this means out-of-court, anonymous tests. I presume he can still file a lawsuit in which such tests would be allowed.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:37:00 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2009, 09:31:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:29:16 AM
Errr... how is it insane?
Are you guys saying that it should be legal for someone to get a DNA sample of another person and perform a genetic screening test on that sample without that person's consent? That would be a massive breach of privacy.
I think Drakken is saying if the husband suspects his wife of humping the milkman he should be able to test the kid without her permission.
I think it's a misconception. First of all, when it says "all parties involved", I am assuming it means the people whose genetic material is being tested - so unless you want to also take the wife's DNA for the test, you should be fine with just yours and your kid's without her consent (not sure how the issue of consent is addressed in case of minors, but that's another issue whatsoever).
Also, I assume this means out-of-court, anonymous tests. I presume he can still file a lawsuit in which such tests would be allowed.
The problem is that the window to contest a paternity is very short. Here in Quebec it is two years for non-married couples and zero seconds for married ones.
So unless the father is able to request a DNA test very fast or he takes a hairlock and heads to a private laboratory, the judicial process makes it unlikely to obtain such a permission from the court. And of course, the mother will fight tooth and nail against it, with appeals and such.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 09:35:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:29:16 AM
Errr... how is it insane?
Are you guys saying that it should be legal for someone to get a DNA sample of another person and perform a genetic screening test on that sample without that person's consent? That would be a massive breach of privacy.
First, this is not "another person", but one's child, so obviously he or she is a minor and thus as tutor until proved otherwise, the putative father has every right to request a DNA test. Otherwise it is the door is open for paternity fraud.
Not really, no. Parental authority must always be exercised in the interest of the child. I fail to see how in this case the father "consenting" to such sample being taken is acting in the interest of the child. It's akin to a father "consenting" to the kid giving him away its personal assets (e.g. obtained via inheritance) - this would be illegal, too.
QuoteSecond, I am saying that a putative father should legally have the right to request a paternity test without the consent of the mother, because no mother in this world will accept to lose her fat daddy cashbag unless forced by the courts at the point of the bayonet.
The article is talking about "private tests". I assume this means outside of legal proceedings. If he files a lawsuit, and the court orders such tests to be made, I assume this is not considered a "private test".
Seems rational.
Unsure which side I'd fall on but its a fairly sane law.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 09:35:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:29:16 AM
Errr... how is it insane?
Are you guys saying that it should be legal for someone to get a DNA sample of another person and perform a genetic screening test on that sample without that person's consent? That would be a massive breach of privacy.
Yes it should be legal for parents to breach the privacy of their own children before age 18. I think a man has a right to know if a child is his child or not. Surely fathers have some rights yes? If you have lots of legal responsibilities as a father you should have some rights as well.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:37:00 AM
I think it's a misconception. First of all, when it says "all parties involved", I am assuming it means the people whose genetic material is being tested - so unless you want to also take the wife's DNA for the test, you should be fine with just yours and your kid's without her consent (not sure how the issue of consent is addressed in case of minors, but that's another issue whatsoever).
Also, I assume this means out-of-court, anonymous tests. I presume he can still file a lawsuit in which such tests would be allowed.
Ok I thought you were talking about the privacy of the child which sounded bizarre.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 09:40:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:37:00 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2009, 09:31:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:29:16 AM
Errr... how is it insane?
Are you guys saying that it should be legal for someone to get a DNA sample of another person and perform a genetic screening test on that sample without that person's consent? That would be a massive breach of privacy.
I think Drakken is saying if the husband suspects his wife of humping the milkman he should be able to test the kid without her permission.
I think it's a misconception. First of all, when it says "all parties involved", I am assuming it means the people whose genetic material is being tested - so unless you want to also take the wife's DNA for the test, you should be fine with just yours and your kid's without her consent (not sure how the issue of consent is addressed in case of minors, but that's another issue whatsoever).
Also, I assume this means out-of-court, anonymous tests. I presume he can still file a lawsuit in which such tests would be allowed.
The problem is that the window to contest a paternity is very short. Here in Quebec it is two years for non-married couples and zero seconds for married ones.
So unless the father is able to request a DNA test very fast or he takes a hairlock and heads to a private laboratory, the judicial process makes it unlikely to obtain such a permission from the court. And of course, the mother will fight tooth and nail against it, with appeals and such.
I don't know what the situation really is in Quebec, but in most legal systems I am aware of, such deadlines are suspended once the legal process begins; in other words, if you have a statute of limitation for some claim, it means you are safe as long as you file a lawsuit within this period, irrespective of whether you manage to obtain a court ruling before the deadline or not.
It is there to ensure that private individuals are not punished for events beyond their control (such as the duration of the legal process). I would be surprised if it was different in Quebec.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:41:37 AM
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.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Smoke crack much? It is not in the interests of the child to know who his or her fucking father is? Um...yeah I am glad we have tireless child advocates like you out there.
But anyway if paternity tests can still be done via court order than this is probably no big deal.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:41:37 AM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:29:16 AM
Not really, no. Parental authority must always be exercised in the interest of the child. I fail to see how in this case the father "consenting" to such sample being taken is acting in the interest of the child. It's akin to a father "consenting" to the kid giving him away its personal assets (e.g. obtained via inheritance) - this would be illegal, too.
"Interests of the child", my aching ass. More like "interests of the mom". Really, this expression justifies any and all encroachment of fathers' rights in Western societies, in which children are used as tools in a war for money, property, and outright pain.
I am talking about fraud and false pretenses, which unless it has changed lately are still crimes under any criminal code. If mommy says that the guy is the daddy while she knows or has doubts that he really is, it is a fraudulent contract, especially one which the poor sod is almost forced to sign. And all this law makes is that the father has even less recourses to find the truth unless he passes by the courts, which is by definition an all-out declaration of war against the mother.
I think anyone who ever tries to breach the privacy of another person, in any way, should be shot into the sun in old Russian rocket boosters.
Haven't we had this debate before?
The patchouli-brigade concluded that the father should not have the right to reject a child on the basis that it is not biologically "his" and that paternity tests are an abomination.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2009, 09:45:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:41:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 09:45:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:41:37 AM
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.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Smoke crack much? It is not in the interests of the child to know who his or her fucking father is? Um...yeah I am glad we have tireless child advocates like you out there.
Well, in this case the father is not acting to find out who the real father is, but just to confirm or deny whether he is a real father. So the outcome of this test would be to either (i) confirm that he is a father, in which case nothing changes, or (ii) deny his fatherhood, in which case he would no longer be legally obliged to pay alimonies etc. Clearly the outcome is not to the interest of the child (not to mention, if he is not the real father, then he would not have the parental authority to "consent" to such test on behalf of the child in the first place).
Now, most jurisdictions (I assume Germany is not different in this from Poland) have a legal process to determine/deny fatherhood. However, in such cases, the child is formally a defendant, and is represented by a specially appointed attorney (a
curator) because clearly the child's legal interests are different than those of the father and the father cannot be assumed to act in the interest of the child.
Quote from: Slargos on June 26, 2009, 09:49:32 AM
Haven't we had this debate before?
The patchouli-brigade concluded that the father should not have the right to reject a child on the basis that it is not biologically "his" and that paternity tests are an abomination.
But mothers can reject their child anytime they want, even though it came through her nostr... I mean uterus.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:37:00 AM
I think it's a misconception. First of all, when it says "all parties involved", I am assuming it means the people whose genetic material is being tested - so unless you want to also take the wife's DNA for the test, you should be fine with just yours and your kid's without her consent (not sure how the issue of consent is addressed in case of minors, but that's another issue whatsoever).
You don't need the mother's material. Just the child and the father. This is prohibiting that without the mother's consent.
Anyway, it's good news for would be latharios. You can fuck German housewives without a condom with no consequences.
Since when did Marty give two shits about teh childern? :huh:
Wtf is it with Germany & stupid laws these days?
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 09:49:41 AM
All of this would be solved with only three simple words: Mandatory, paternity, test.
If we had this we could do away with that silly fidelity fetish.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:50:45 AM
Well, in this case the father is not acting to find out who the real father is, but just to confirm or deny whether he is a real father. So the outcome of this test would be to either (i) confirm that he is a father, in which case nothing changes, or (ii) deny his fatherhood, in which case he would no longer be legally obliged to pay alimonies etc. Clearly the outcome is not to the interest of the child (not to mention, if he is not the real father, then he would not have the parental authority to "consent" to such test on behalf of the child in the first place).
What about my fucking rights asshole?
Sure I support gay rights my whole life but you just cheer on shitting all over mine "in the interests of the child" because forcing men to be parents of children that are not theirs is so fucking just.
Go fuck yourself asshole. Seriously.
QuoteNow, most jurisdictions (I assume Germany is not different in this from Poland) have a legal process to determine/deny fatherhood. However, in such cases, the child is formally a defendant, and is represented by a specially appointed attorney (a curator) because clearly the child's legal interests are different than those of the father and the father cannot be assumed to act in the interest of the child.
Yes because when I was a kid I dreamed of the state forcing a father on me who was not my real father. If only I had had awesome lovers of children like that looking after me.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 09:49:41 AM
All of this would be solved with only three simple words: Mandatory, paternity, test.
Society would come crashing down!
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 09:46:38 AM
"Interests of the child", my aching ass. More like "interests of the mom". Really, this expression justifies any and all encroachment of fathers' rights in Western societies, in which children are used as tools in a war for money, property, and outright pain.
I am talking about fraud and false pretenses, which unless it has changed lately are still crimes under any criminal code. If mommy says that the guy is the daddy while she knows or has doubts that he really is, it is a fraudulent contract, especially one which the poor sod is almost forced to sign. And all this law makes is that the father has even less recourses to find the truth unless he passes by the courts, which is by definition an all-out declaration of war against the mother.
Again, you have a legal process to determine whether you are a father or not. This is subject to certain restrictions, because in parenthood tests there are numerous conflicting interests at stake, and not just that of the father.
In any case, I really can't get worked up over a situation in which you have two guys fucking one woman, and she gets preggers with one of them, but could have equally well got preggers with the other.
Btw, the law rules out secret testing. The same law gives fathers the right to have the paternity officially tested. If the mother refuses a court can order a testing. The law is a result of fathers being unable to request genetic testing without resorting to secrecy if the mother refused. The constitutional court decided that fathers must have a legal way to have the biological paternity of their legal offspring tested.
We nuked the wrong Axis power...
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 09:54:08 AMWhat about my fucking rights asshole?
Sure I support gay rights my whole life but you just cheer on shitting all over mine "in the interests of the child" because forcing men to be parents of children that are not theirs is so fucking just.
Go fuck yourself asshole. Seriously.
Whoa. You really are emotional about the whole issue. That's rather surprising and disturbing, considering you just got married. Already afraid that your wife is being fucked by other guys?
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:57:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 09:54:08 AMWhat about my fucking rights asshole?
Sure I support gay rights my whole life but you just cheer on shitting all over mine "in the interests of the child" because forcing men to be parents of children that are not theirs is so fucking just.
Go fuck yourself asshole. Seriously.
Whoa. You really are emotional about the whole issue. That's rather surprising and disturbing, considering you just got married. Already afraid that your wife is being fucked by other guys?
Well, duh.
As husband, if the wife gets pregnant it is over for him, no recourse, no right, no mercy. He is the father forever even if the child ends up black with an afro on his head, and gets to pay child alimony
to the mother while she parties with her gangbang brothas and have laugh about how a stupid twit of a cuckold he is.
Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2009, 09:56:50 AM
Btw, the law rules out secret testing. The same law gives fathers the right to have the paternity officially tested. If the mother refuses a court can order a testing. The law is a result of fathers being unable to request genetic testing without resorting to secrecy if the mother refused. The constitutional court decided that fathers must have a legal way to have the biological paternity of their legal offspring tested.
Exactly. So I can't really see what the problem is.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 09:59:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:57:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 09:54:08 AMWhat about my fucking rights asshole?
Sure I support gay rights my whole life but you just cheer on shitting all over mine "in the interests of the child" because forcing men to be parents of children that are not theirs is so fucking just.
Go fuck yourself asshole. Seriously.
Whoa. You really are emotional about the whole issue. That's rather surprising and disturbing, considering you just got married. Already afraid that your wife is being fucked by other guys?
Well, duh.
As husband, if the wife gets pregnant it is over for him, no recourse, no right, no mercy. He is the father forever even if the child ends up black with an afro on his head, and gets to pay child alimony to the mother while she parties with her gangbang brothas and laugh about how a stupid sod he is.
Are you currently in a long term stable relationship with a woman?
The thread title is wrong: it has always been illegal to conduct private paternity tests (of minors obviously) without consent of the mother in Germany. There are two rights that stand against this: the mother's custody and the informational self-determination of the child. The latter is covered by custody, i.e. the mother can decide on it. Against this stands the right of the legal father to know whether he is actually the biological father. Now, to know that, he needs either consent of the mother (they have shared custody) or he needs a court to override that consent.
The only way to legally challange paternity was to file a case in court which then ordered a paternity test. The downside of that was that if it came back negative, there was no way to stay the legal (if not biological) father. Rather, you were immediately no longer related at all to the child legally. This law now opens a way to have a paternity test ordered by court against the will of the mother without the automatic consequence that you are no longer the legal father.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:00:47 AM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 09:59:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:57:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 09:54:08 AMWhat about my fucking rights asshole?
Sure I support gay rights my whole life but you just cheer on shitting all over mine "in the interests of the child" because forcing men to be parents of children that are not theirs is so fucking just.
Go fuck yourself asshole. Seriously.
Whoa. You really are emotional about the whole issue. That's rather surprising and disturbing, considering you just got married. Already afraid that your wife is being fucked by other guys?
Well, duh.
As husband, if the wife gets pregnant it is over for him, no recourse, no right, no mercy. He is the father forever even if the child ends up black with an afro on his head, and gets to pay child alimony to the mother while she parties with her gangbang brothas and laugh about how a stupid sod he is.
Are you currently in a long term stable relationship with a woman?
Of course I am.
I was just pointing, very exaggeratedly, that contrary to fathers in non-married couples, husbands cannot contest the paternity of his child even if all signs point to a negative. He is the legal father without any appeal or recourse. It's all or nothing.
So in a way, I perfectly understand Valmy's stress.
Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
The thread title is wrong: it has always been illegal to conduct private paternity tests (of minors obviously) without consent of the mother in Germany. There are two rights that stand against this: the mother's custody and the informational self-determination of the child. The latter is covered by custody, i.e. the mother can decide on it. Against this stands the right of the legal father to know whether he is actually the biological father. Now, to know that, he needs either consent of the mother (they have shared custody) or he needs a court to override that consent.
The only way to legally challange paternity was to file a case in court which then ordered a paternity test. The downside of that was that if it came back negative, there was no way to stay the legal (if not biological) father. Rather, you were immediately no longer related at all to the child legally. This law now opens a way to have a paternity test ordered by court against the will of the mother without the automatic consequence that you are no longer the legal father.
Alright that sounds good to me.
Before everyone gets more worked up, is this even enforceable? What would stop me from getting a do-it-yourself paternity kit based out of another country?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 10:04:13 AM
Before everyone gets more worked up, is this even enforceable? What would stop me from getting a do-it-yourself paternity kit based out of another country?
Interesting nobody even cares about the fact you cannot use genetic testing to test for diseases and stuff anymore :P
I am also rather confused by the gender thing. Can't you usually tell the gender of a child simply via ultra-sound?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 10:04:13 AM
Before everyone gets more worked up, is this even enforceable? What would stop me from getting a do-it-yourself paternity kit based out of another country?
Well, you would be fined as the article states.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 10:05:36 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 10:04:13 AM
Before everyone gets more worked up, is this even enforceable? What would stop me from getting a do-it-yourself paternity kit based out of another country?
Interesting nobody even cares about the fact you cannot use genetic testing to test for diseases and stuff anymore :P
I am also rather confused by the gender thing. Can't you usually tell the gender of a child simply via ultra-sound?
I assume that by the fact that ultra-sound can tell you the gender of the child, the fetus is developed enough to prevent abortion-on-demand, usually.
I assume this law is there to prevent parents from aborting a child simply because it is the wrong gender, early on in the fetus development.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 10:03:38 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
The thread title is wrong: it has always been illegal to conduct private paternity tests (of minors obviously) without consent of the mother in Germany. There are two rights that stand against this: the mother's custody and the informational self-determination of the child. The latter is covered by custody, i.e. the mother can decide on it. Against this stands the right of the legal father to know whether he is actually the biological father. Now, to know that, he needs either consent of the mother (they have shared custody) or he needs a court to override that consent.
The only way to legally challange paternity was to file a case in court which then ordered a paternity test. The downside of that was that if it came back negative, there was no way to stay the legal (if not biological) father. Rather, you were immediately no longer related at all to the child legally. This law now opens a way to have a paternity test ordered by court against the will of the mother without the automatic consequence that you are no longer the legal father.
Alright that sounds good to me.
I was saying that from my first post in this fucking thread, you fucking drama queen.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 10:04:13 AM
Before everyone gets more worked up, is this even enforceable? What would stop me from getting a do-it-yourself paternity kit based out of another country?
It's of course hard to enforce, but that doesn't mean you should legalize it.
But a foreign test is not admissable as evidence in a German court - which was what the original case in the Constitutional Court was about. Thus the Constitutional Court decreed that the legislators must make a legal way for a father to demand a paternity test (without the automatic consequence of ending paternity if it is negative). This is really just about the rule of law in Germany. You can't infringe upon the informational self-determination of the child without either all custodians (usually the mother and the father) consenting or a court ordering it.
Now this thread really got ugly out of fucking nowhere. :huh:
Anyway, judging from some posts in this thread, the title should be changed to:
Pudgy, unremarkable guys scared shitless of being cuckolded, freak out.
Come on now, wouldn't it be better if you got to raise kids of someone with a superior genetic material? :D
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:09:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 10:03:38 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
The thread title is wrong: it has always been illegal to conduct private paternity tests (of minors obviously) without consent of the mother in Germany. There are two rights that stand against this: the mother's custody and the informational self-determination of the child. The latter is covered by custody, i.e. the mother can decide on it. Against this stands the right of the legal father to know whether he is actually the biological father. Now, to know that, he needs either consent of the mother (they have shared custody) or he needs a court to override that consent.
The only way to legally challange paternity was to file a case in court which then ordered a paternity test. The downside of that was that if it came back negative, there was no way to stay the legal (if not biological) father. Rather, you were immediately no longer related at all to the child legally. This law now opens a way to have a paternity test ordered by court against the will of the mother without the automatic consequence that you are no longer the legal father.
Alright that sounds good to me.
I was saying that from my first post in this fucking thread, you fucking drama queen.
When the stakes are as high as to wreck your life, your finances, and your future family forever, he can afford being a drama queen.
I see more and more future fathers getting worked up about their rights as father (or lack thereof), and it is a good thing IMHO.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:14:18 AM
Anyway, judging from some posts in this thread, the title should be changed to:
Pudgy, unremarkable guys scared shitless of being cuckolded, freak out.
Come on now, wouldn't it be better if you got to raise kids of someone with a superior genetic material? :D
That's easy for a childless homo to say, but we are breeders. We are wired to want OUR genes to pass. :contract:
Quote from: The Larch on June 26, 2009, 10:13:11 AM
Now this thread really got ugly out of fucking nowhere. :huh:
I feel bad, because I take a lot of pride out of it that, for once, it's one of my threads. :blush:
If only this guy had access to paternal testing, he'd know for sure if he's the father.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newmenstime.com%2Fimages%2Fblack-baby-white-parents.jpg&hash=71c1dc475e02c5df38ece49767ca4503bba645c1)
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 10:20:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:14:18 AM
Anyway, judging from some posts in this thread, the title should be changed to:
Pudgy, unremarkable guys scared shitless of being cuckolded, freak out.
Come on now, wouldn't it be better if you got to raise kids of someone with a superior genetic material? :D
That's easy for a childless homo to say, but we are breeders. We are wired to want OUR genes to pass. :contract:
I've seen your pictures and had an insight into your psyche. I think it's in the interest of the society that you do not pass on your genes.
QuoteI was saying that from my first post in this fucking thread, you fucking drama queen.
That is not true at all dude. Zanza was talking about legal processes, not principals on how righteous it is to force people to be parents of somebody elses kids. How that is all in the kids best interests. Yep sure it is.
And of course I am a drama queen. I flame almost completely on emotional outbursts. But you do the same thing.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 26, 2009, 10:22:58 AM
If only this guy had access to paternal testing, he'd know for sure if he's the father.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newmenstime.com%2Fimages%2Fblack-baby-white-parents.jpg&hash=71c1dc475e02c5df38ece49767ca4503bba645c1)
That kid is almost certainly adopted :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:23:00 AM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 10:20:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:14:18 AM
Anyway, judging from some posts in this thread, the title should be changed to:
Pudgy, unremarkable guys scared shitless of being cuckolded, freak out.
Come on now, wouldn't it be better if you got to raise kids of someone with a superior genetic material? :D
That's easy for a childless homo to say, but we are breeders. We are wired to want OUR genes to pass. :contract:
I've seen your pictures and had an insight into your psyche. I think it's in the interest of the society that you do not pass on your genes.
That's actually a good one, I'll add that line to my book of insults to start barfights into gay clubs. :lmfao:
Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2009, 10:09:54 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 10:04:13 AM
Before everyone gets more worked up, is this even enforceable? What would stop me from getting a do-it-yourself paternity kit based out of another country?
It's of course hard to enforce, but that doesn't mean you should legalize it.
But a foreign test is not admissable as evidence in a German court - which was what the original case in the Constitutional Court was about. Thus the Constitutional Court decreed that the legislators must make a legal way for a father to demand a paternity test (without the automatic consequence of ending paternity if it is negative). This is really just about the rule of law in Germany. You can't infringe upon the informational self-determination of the child without either all custodians (usually the mother and the father) consenting or a court ordering it.
Going for a full blown test where you need the permission of the mother or a court order is probably going to be both expensive and relationship straining. A lot of guys would probably be much more prone to get a test that could be done without the knowledge of anyone else and was $150. A test like that could then be used as a basis to proceed to a test by a reputable lab and take up the matter with the mother.
Those tests may be illegal--but I don't see any practical way of enforcement. If I get mailed a kit, mail in the samples, and check the results online, it seems I could only be reasonably caught is if someone saw the father with the package--at which case I doubt it would be illegal to just be holding a testing kit that has yet to be sent back in. Perhaps the kid could also speak up--but you aren't going to make a case out of "daddy put a cotton swab in my mouth."
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:08:31 AM
I assume that by the fact that ultra-sound can tell you the gender of the child, the fetus is developed enough to prevent abortion-on-demand, usually.
I assume this law is there to prevent parents from aborting a child simply because it is the wrong gender, early on in the fetus development.
That is an interesting assumption but what are the limits of abortions in Germany? I presume you don't have to give a reason for an abortion and could easily have it if you wanted to just keep aborting until you got your gender of choice, but really is this even a problem in Germany?
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:14:18 AM
Pudgy, unremarkable guys scared shitless of being cuckolded, freak out.
Yuk yuk yuk.
I have no interest in ever having a paternity test but please. Everybody should have a right to find out if they are the parents of a child before being forced to take on the responsibilities.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 10:28:23 AMGoing for a full blown test where you need the permission of the mother or a court order is probably going to be both expensive and relationship straining. A lot of guys would probably be much more prone to get a test that could be done without the knowledge of anyone else and was $150. A test like that could then be used as a basis to proceed to a test by a reputable lab and take up the matter with the mother.
Those tests may be illegal--but I don't see any practical way of enforcement. If I get mailed a kit, mail in the samples, and check the results online, it seems I could only be reasonably caught is if someone saw the father with the package--at which case I doubt it would be illegal to just be holding a testing kit that has yet to be sent back in. Perhaps the kid could also speak up--but you aren't going to make a case out of "daddy put a cotton swab in my mouth."
All true, but I don't quite get your point. Are you saying it should be legal because it is so easy to do despite it being illegal? Or is your point just that it can't be enforced anyway so we should not care about it being legal or illegal?
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 10:31:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:08:31 AM
I assume that by the fact that ultra-sound can tell you the gender of the child, the fetus is developed enough to prevent abortion-on-demand, usually.
I assume this law is there to prevent parents from aborting a child simply because it is the wrong gender, early on in the fetus development.
That is an interesting assumption but what are the limits of abortions in Germany? I presume you don't have to give a reason for an abortion and could easily have it if you wanted to just keep aborting until you got your gender of choice, but really is this even a problem in Germany?
You would be surprised, but most European countries, while allowing abortion-on-demand, have very strict time limits on abortions. Usually we try to find a middle-ground compromise here, rather than adopting an all-or-nothing approach that seems to be the case in the US. I think late term abortion are uniformly illegal, unless mother's life is in danger.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 10:31:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:08:31 AM
I assume that by the fact that ultra-sound can tell you the gender of the child, the fetus is developed enough to prevent abortion-on-demand, usually.
I assume this law is there to prevent parents from aborting a child simply because it is the wrong gender, early on in the fetus development.
That is an interesting assumption but what are the limits of abortions in Germany? I presume you don't have to give a reason for an abortion and could easily have it if you wanted to just keep aborting until you got your gender of choice, but really is this even a problem in Germany?
There was an interesting article on slate.com that showed statistics indicating that it is a problem in the US.
Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2009, 10:33:25 AM
All true, but I don't quite get your point. Are you saying it should be legal because it is so easy to do despite it being illegal? Or is your point just that it can't be enforced anyway so we should not care about it being legal or illegal?
The second one.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:33:55 AM
You would be surprised, but most European countries, while allowing abortion-on-demand, have very strict time limits on abortions. Usually we try to find a middle-ground compromise here, rather than adopting an all-or-nothing approach that seems to be the case in the US. I think late term abortion are uniformly illegal, unless mother's life is in danger.
Well we probably would have eventually found a middle ground eventually as well. But, unfortunately, it seems we have the system we do.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 10:34:08 AM
There was an interesting article on slate.com that showed statistics indicating that it is a problem in the US.
Depressing but not terribly surprising. Having legal abortion means a certain number of people are going to get abortions for petty reasons.
What sort of stats? Our gender ratios at birth don't seem out of wack with what other countries have.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 10:31:45 AMThat is an interesting assumption but what are the limits of abortions in Germany? I presume you don't have to give a reason for an abortion and could easily have it if you wanted to just keep aborting until you got your gender of choice, but really is this even a problem in Germany?
Abortions are only legal in the first 12 weeks and only after the woman has gotten consultation (not by the performing doctor) and waited three days. Abortions after the 12th week are only legal for medical reasons that directly threaten the life of the mother.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 10:40:53 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 10:34:08 AM
There was an interesting article on slate.com that showed statistics indicating that it is a problem in the US.
Depressing but not terribly surprising. Having legal abortion means a certain number of people are going to get abortions for petty reasons.
What sort of stats? Our gender ratios at birth don't seem out of wack with what other countries have.
The gist of the article was that if you break down gender ratios among ethnic groups that have a longer history in the US, they are consistent among the first, second, third, etc. children. But among certain ethnic groups--basically a couple of them from Asia--later children skew male at a significant rate when the other children born were female.
Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2009, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 10:31:45 AMThat is an interesting assumption but what are the limits of abortions in Germany? I presume you don't have to give a reason for an abortion and could easily have it if you wanted to just keep aborting until you got your gender of choice, but really is this even a problem in Germany?
Abortions are only legal in the first 12 weeks and only after the woman has gotten consultation (not by the performing doctor) and waited three days. Abortions after the 12th week are only legal for medical reasons that directly threaten the life of the mother.
Are abortions free? That is probably a factor that pushes a lot of abortions in this country later term--people don't have the money on hand.
Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2009, 10:42:59 AM
Abortions are only legal in the first 12 weeks and only after the woman has gotten consultation (not by the performing doctor) and waited three days. Abortions after the 12th week are only legal for medical reasons that directly threaten the life of the mother.
Man I wish we had something similar over here. Of course all the mother would need to do would be to find a doctor willing to say it was a threat to her life is that right?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 10:46:07 AMAre abortions free? That is probably a factor that pushes a lot of abortions in this country later term--people don't have the money on hand.
From Wiki: Abortions for medical reasons or because the woman was raped are paid for by the health insurance. Abortions on demand have to be paid for by the woman (apparently it costs about 500 euro) unless they are too poor in which case the welfare office will pay for them.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:14:18 AM
Anyway, judging from some posts in this thread, the title should be changed to:
Pudgy, unremarkable guys scared shitless of being cuckolded, freak out.
Come on now, wouldn't it be better if you got to raise kids of someone with a superior genetic material? :D
Valmy is not pudgy.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on June 26, 2009, 10:22:58 AM
If only this guy had access to paternal testing, he'd know for sure if he's the father.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newmenstime.com%2Fimages%2Fblack-baby-white-parents.jpg&hash=71c1dc475e02c5df38ece49767ca4503bba645c1)
How do you know that kid wasn't adopted?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2009, 10:58:16 AM
Valmy is not pudgy.
Nor do I really care or worry about about being cuckolded. I rely on relationships with people, not legal shit, to manage my life.
But still there are principals involved here.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 10:51:37 AMMan I wish we had something similar over here. Of course all the mother would need to do would be to find a doctor willing to say it was a threat to her life is that right?
Sure. But if it comes out both the doctor and the woman may be charged with abortion which carries imprisonment or fines as punishment. And the doctor would almost certainly lose his license to practice too.
Reading the law, it is apparently possible to get an abortion on medical reasons for psychiatric complications, not just life-threating conditions. Not sure what that covers though.
Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2009, 11:02:04 AM
Sure. But if it comes out both the doctor and the woman may be charged with abortion which carries imprisonment or fines as punishment. And the doctor would almost certainly lose his license to practice too.
How would they determine that? I mean theoretically our abortion is based on the same idea: protecting doctors and their judgements on when a baby should be aborted. But in practice it just means legal abortions for all.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 10:51:37 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2009, 10:42:59 AM
Abortions are only legal in the first 12 weeks and only after the woman has gotten consultation (not by the performing doctor) and waited three days. Abortions after the 12th week are only legal for medical reasons that directly threaten the life of the mother.
Man I wish we had something similar over here. Of course all the mother would need to do would be to find a doctor willing to say it was a threat to her life is that right?
I am not sure how it works in Germany, but I would assume it's not a matter of "opinion shopping" but rather you get directed to some independent doctor or commission that gets assigned to your application.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 11:03:16 AMHow would they determine that? I mean theoretically our abortion is based on the same idea: protecting doctors and their judgements on when a baby should be aborted. But in practice it just means legal abortions for all.
No idea, I guess there are precendents set by high level courts which conditions do or do not constitute a medical reason. As with all malpractice it is probably hard to prove though.
Also note the addition to my previous post: medical reasons can also be psychological/psychatric conditions which are not life-threatening. The usual case for that is that there are serious genetic disorders in the child and the psychological stress of the mother would be too much. In those cases, the child may be aborted - for the health of the mother.
Medical reasons account for about 4% of all abortions in Germany apparently (the rest being almost all on-demand-abortions in the first 12 weeks), so I guess the criteria are sufficiently stringent.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 11:16:26 AM
I am not sure how it works in Germany, but I would assume it's not a matter of "opinion shopping" but rather you get directed to some independent doctor or commission that gets assigned to your application.
Our systems really are dramatically different. I cannot even imagine how that work.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 11:16:26 AMI am not sure how it works in Germany, but I would assume it's not a matter of "opinion shopping" but rather you get directed to some independent doctor or commission that gets assigned to your application.
For an on-demand abortion in the first 12 weeks you need consultation by a third party (doctors or licensed organisations, usually social, sometimes religious) and the wait time.
For medical indications I don't know how it works in detail. It's not in the law, but I am sure there are some kind of administrative rules. In the end, judges can't make doctor's jobs, so I guess a single doctor to sign that you have a medical indication is enough.
By the way, there was an article on abortion for medical reasons on Spiegel Online today. In the case described there, the fetus was in the 34th week and had a very serious disorder of the brain. The parents wanted an abortion as they thought that they would not be able to cope with a severaly handicapped child and that would constitute unbearable psychological burden for them. The doctors (in form of an ethics committee) denied the abortion and as there is no legal right for parents to demand one, the child was eventually born.
Apparently there is an unwritten rule among doctors - at least in Bavaria - that children that will be able to live are not aborted after the 22nd week.
The article goes on to describe that parents are often left alone with caring for their handicapped children after being denied such an abortion.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:59:56 AM
Exactly. So I can't really see what the problem is.
I thought that this was in response to Drakken's diatribe and LOLed.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 10:33:55 AM
You would be surprised, but most European countries, while allowing abortion-on-demand, have very strict time limits on abortions. Usually we try to find a middle-ground compromise here, rather than adopting an all-or-nothing approach that seems to be the case in the US. I think late term abortion are uniformly illegal, unless mother's life is in danger.
You would be surprised, but the European way is the way it is in most the the US as well. There are several states that allow late-term abortions on demand (CA, I know, is one) but abortion after 20 weeks is quite rare in the US (as elsewhere).
On the subject...
Today we heard of a "magnificent" story of love, honesty and paternity through
La Presse.
A man is in a relationship with a woman, who falls pregnant. Unbeknownst to him, the woman shags at least one other man. Even more, the woman boasts at her workplace, behind his back, that she doesn't know who the real father is.
She gives birth to a daughter, and tells him that he is the father, knowing full well that it is not certain at all. He believes her and raises her as his child. After three years, they separate.
The poor cuckold takes his responsabilities, respect the custody laws, pays the child alimony and continues to take her as her father. One day, the biological father himself comes out of nowhere and calls him to warn him that our poor sod is not the father. His pals also hint to him that she might not be his child after all. He takes a DNA test and, surprise surprise, it comes negative.
Obviously shocked, he immediately cut any contact with the daughter. He went through the courts to have the birth certificate amended and, of course, the child alimony payment stopped.
It went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and what was its decision? They decided yesterday not to hear the case. In short, "fuck you, pal, you are still his father, there was no fraud, so pull out the wallet and pay her skank of a mommy."
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc30/2009scc30.html
I am sorry, BB, but our fucking judicial system sucks ass. By this decision, paternity fraud has effectively become legal in Canada at least in jurisprudence. <_<
Quote
33131 G.R. v. I.B., R.R., Directeur de l'état civil
(Que.) (Civil) (By leave)
(Publication ban in case) (Publication ban on party)
Family law - Filiation - Possession of status consistent with act of birth - Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting art. 530 C.C.Q.
The Applicant, G.R., and the Respondent I.B. were de facto spouses from December 1998 to June 2005. On May 7, 2002, I.B. gave birth to a daughter, the Respondent R.R., who has the Applicant's family name. The act of birth states that the Applicant is the father. The Applicant cared for R.R. as if he were her father and provided for her support. After the separation, he continued to exercise access rights regularly. Shortly after the separation, however, the Applicant received a call from D.B., who stated he was the child's father. But the Respondent I.B. said that she did not know D.B. and that the Applicant was in fact the child's father. Other acquaintances of the Applicant subsequently suggested to him that he was not R.R.'s father. In late 2006, the Applicant had a DNA test done. He learned in January 2007 that the test proved there was a greater than 99.99 percent chance he was not R.R.'s father.
At that point the Applicant cut all ties with the child. He then served a motion for rectification of an act of birth and contesting filiation. He alleged that the fraud committed by the mother had prevented him from giving free and informed consent to the act of birth and that he had acknowledged paternity of the child by mistake. The Superior Court judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the child had always had possession of status consistent with her act of birth and that art. 530 C.C.Q. prohibited anyone from contesting that status in such circumstances. The Applicant appealed the decision and applied to adduce new evidence to establish that his signature on the act of birth had been forged. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce new evidence and affirmed the trial judgment.
July 24, 2008
Quebec Superior Court
(Gendreau J.)
Neutral citation: 2008 QCCS 3471
Motion for rectification of act of birth and contesting filiation dismissed
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 03:49:37 PM
On the subject...
Today we heard of a "magnificent" story of love, honesty and paternity through La Presse.
A man is in a relationship with a woman, who falls pregnant. Unbeknownst to him, the woman shags at least one other man. Even more, the woman boasts at her workplace, behind his back, that she doesn't know who the real father is.
She gives birth to a daughter, and tells him that he is the father, knowing full well that it is not certain at all. He believes her and raises her as his child. After three years, they separate.
The poor cuckold takes his responsabilities, respect the custody laws, pays the child alimony and continues to take her as her father. One day, the biological father himself comes out of nowhere and calls him to warn him that our poor sod is not the father. His pals also hint to him that she might not be his child after all. He takes a DNA test and, surprise surprise, it comes negative.
Obviously shocked, he immediately cut any contact with the daughter. He went through the courts to have the birth certificate amended and, of course, the child alimony payment stopped.
It went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and what was its decision? They decided yesterday not to hear the case. In short, "fuck you, pal, you are still his father, there was no fraud, so pull out the wallet and pay her skank of a mommy."
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc30/2009scc30.html
I am sorry, BB, but our fucking judicial system sucks ass. <_<
Quote
33131 G.R. v. I.B., R.R., Directeur de l'état civil
(Que.) (Civil) (By leave)
(Publication ban in case) (Publication ban on party)
Family law - Filiation - Possession of status consistent with act of birth - Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting art. 530 C.C.Q.
The Applicant, G.R., and the Respondent I.B. were de facto spouses from December 1998 to June 2005. On May 7, 2002, I.B. gave birth to a daughter, the Respondent R.R., who has the Applicant's family name. The act of birth states that the Applicant is the father. The Applicant cared for R.R. as if he were her father and provided for her support. After the separation, he continued to exercise access rights regularly. Shortly after the separation, however, the Applicant received a call from D.B., who stated he was the child's father. But the Respondent I.B. said that she did not know D.B. and that the Applicant was in fact the child's father. Other acquaintances of the Applicant subsequently suggested to him that he was not R.R.'s father. In late 2006, the Applicant had a DNA test done. He learned in January 2007 that the test proved there was a greater than 99.99 percent chance he was not R.R.'s father.
At that point the Applicant cut all ties with the child. He then served a motion for rectification of an act of birth and contesting filiation. He alleged that the fraud committed by the mother had prevented him from giving free and informed consent to the act of birth and that he had acknowledged paternity of the child by mistake. The Superior Court judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the child had always had possession of status consistent with her act of birth and that art. 530 C.C.Q. prohibited anyone from contesting that status in such circumstances. The Applicant appealed the decision and applied to adduce new evidence to establish that his signature on the act of birth had been forged. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce new evidence and affirmed the trial judgment.
July 24, 2008
Quebec Superior Court
(Gendreau J.)
Neutral citation: 2008 QCCS 3471
Motion for rectification of act of birth and contesting filiation dismissed
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.
This was why wire hangers was invented.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 26, 2009, 04:09:12 PM
This was why wire hangers was invented.
Kinda hard to use on a five-year-old. They scream and run too much.
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2009, 04:08:15 PM
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 because you're a swell guy. People shouldn't be legally forced into being swell guys, though.
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2009, 04:14:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 26, 2009, 04:09:12 PM
This was why wire hangers was invented.
Kinda hard to use on a five-year-old. They scream and run too much.
Just run faster. They still ain't the best runners at that age.
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2009, 04:08:15 PM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 03:49:37 PM
On the subject...
Today we heard of a "magnificent" story of love, honesty and paternity through La Presse.
A man is in a relationship with a woman, who falls pregnant. Unbeknownst to him, the woman shags at least one other man. Even more, the woman boasts at her workplace, behind his back, that she doesn't know who the real father is.
She gives birth to a daughter, and tells him that he is the father, knowing full well that it is not certain at all. He believes her and raises her as his child. After three years, they separate.
The poor cuckold takes his responsabilities, respect the custody laws, pays the child alimony and continues to take her as her father. One day, the biological father himself comes out of nowhere and calls him to warn him that our poor sod is not the father. His pals also hint to him that she might not be his child after all. He takes a DNA test and, surprise surprise, it comes negative.
Obviously shocked, he immediately cut any contact with the daughter. He went through the courts to have the birth certificate amended and, of course, the child alimony payment stopped.
It went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and what was its decision? They decided yesterday not to hear the case. In short, "fuck you, pal, you are still his father, there was no fraud, so pull out the wallet and pay her skank of a mommy."
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc30/2009scc30.html
I am sorry, BB, but our fucking judicial system sucks ass. <_<
Quote
33131 G.R. v. I.B., R.R., Directeur de l'état civil
(Que.) (Civil) (By leave)
(Publication ban in case) (Publication ban on party)
Family law - Filiation - Possession of status consistent with act of birth - Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting art. 530 C.C.Q.
The Applicant, G.R., and the Respondent I.B. were de facto spouses from December 1998 to June 2005. On May 7, 2002, I.B. gave birth to a daughter, the Respondent R.R., who has the Applicant's family name. The act of birth states that the Applicant is the father. The Applicant cared for R.R. as if he were her father and provided for her support. After the separation, he continued to exercise access rights regularly. Shortly after the separation, however, the Applicant received a call from D.B., who stated he was the child's father. But the Respondent I.B. said that she did not know D.B. and that the Applicant was in fact the child's father. Other acquaintances of the Applicant subsequently suggested to him that he was not R.R.'s father. In late 2006, the Applicant had a DNA test done. He learned in January 2007 that the test proved there was a greater than 99.99 percent chance he was not R.R.'s father.
At that point the Applicant cut all ties with the child. He then served a motion for rectification of an act of birth and contesting filiation. He alleged that the fraud committed by the mother had prevented him from giving free and informed consent to the act of birth and that he had acknowledged paternity of the child by mistake. The Superior Court judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the child had always had possession of status consistent with her act of birth and that art. 530 C.C.Q. prohibited anyone from contesting that status in such circumstances. The Applicant appealed the decision and applied to adduce new evidence to establish that his signature on the act of birth had been forged. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce new evidence and affirmed the trial judgment.
July 24, 2008
Quebec Superior Court
(Gendreau J.)
Neutral citation: 2008 QCCS 3471
Motion for rectification of act of birth and contesting filiation dismissed
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.
Well, this standard of altruistic paternity isn't the standard of everyone, nor in the animal species, not even in the human species within our social mores.
It is perfectly possible that the pain and the shock is so great to alter one's perception of our relation toward a loved one, even a young child, especially as it is a constant reminder that he was cheated and defrauded, and that no recourse is possible even if his state is due to deceit.
Is it really in the interest of the child to have a legal father who will have nothing but contempt and hatred toward him or her because her mother was a whore?
his, I can surely see whyhe wouldn't want to have anything to do with him or her anymore from now on. It is NOT his child. It would be foolish to pretend that this changes nothing in the relationship; he or she is the product of a fraud with criminal intent.
And the only person he or she will have to blame is the mother. The father here is clearly the victim.
Is it callous? Yes. But there aren't only the interest of the child at stake, but the notion of justice.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2009, 04:15:18 PM
That's because you're a swell guy. People shouldn't be legally forced into being swell guys, though.
Of course they should. We have all sorts of rules and laws against entering agreements in bad faith.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 04:20:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2009, 04:15:18 PM
That's because you're a swell guy. People shouldn't be legally forced into being swell guys, though.
Of course they should. We have all sorts of rules and laws against entering agreements in bad faith.
Not when it concerns birth certificates, it seems.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:20:06 PM
Well, this standard of altruistic paternity isn't the standard of everyone, nor in the animal species, not even in the human species within our social mores.
It has been the standard of most human societies for thousands of years and DNA testing has only been available just now. So I would argue we are «socially wired» to preserve a social standard of paternity.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:21:47 PM
Not when it concerns birth certificates, it seems.
A kid is not a piece of property.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 04:22:09 PM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:20:06 PM
Well, this standard of altruistic paternity isn't the standard of everyone, nor in the animal species, not even in the human species within our social mores.
It has been the standard of most human societies for thousands of years and DNA testing has only been available just now. So I would argue we are «socially wired» to preserve a social standard of paternity.
But DNA testing changes everything, and it should modify the standard of paternity. Unless, of course, cuckolds have no right to justice because it has been always so.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 04:22:53 PM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:21:47 PM
Not when it concerns birth certificates, it seems.
A kid is not a piece of property.
It is a means to money and property. That is why child alimonies are not paid to the child, but to the skank without any responsability oversight.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:23:28 PM
But DNA testing changes everything
Why ? Genetic material, which meant nothing to us until now, is suddenly supposed to mean *everything* ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 04:25:18 PM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:23:28 PM
But DNA testing changes everything
Why ? Genetic material, which meant nothing to us until now, is suddenly supposed to mean *everything* ?
Absolutely. Fathers have reproduction rights as well, and we *have* access to the information now, it is within our reach, and we didn't hundreds of years ago.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:24:12 PM
It is a means to money and property. That is why child alimonies are not paid to the child, but to the skank without any responsability oversight.
Who cares ? If I love the kid (for I am not in love with my DNA but with a human being), I won't mind paying and I will argue for custody. You would rather have the child pay to have the immense privilege of saying your gf was unfaithful ? You would cut your bonds with your daughter because she didn't happen to have the right genes ?
The consequences are that social bonds mean nothing in the face of genetics, and should mean nothing. A development I will always try to fight.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:28:41 PM
Absolutely. Fathers have reproduction rights as well, and we *have* access to the information now, it is within our reach, and we didn't hundreds of years ago.
Suddenly your obsession with being ethnically Swede makes much more sense.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 04:29:39 PM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:24:12 PM
It is a means to money and property. That is why child alimonies are not paid to the child, but to the skank without any responsability oversight.
Who cares ? If I love the kid (for I am not in love with my DNA but with a human being), I won't mind paying and I will argue for custody. You would rather have the child pay to have the immense privilege of saying your gf was unfaithful ? You would cut your bonds with your daughter because she didn't happen to have the right genes ?
The consequences are that social bonds mean nothing in the face of genetics, and should mean nothing. A development I will always try to fight.
Good, fight for the right to be a willing cuckold, then. But don't impose it on all fathers.
I am in favour of the exact opposite: the opt-out clause. If I am not biologically his or her father, well it is MY choice whether or not I don't want to do anything with him or her, not a choice imposed on me (and my wallet) by a lying bitch or by society as a whole.
Families are contracts as much as social bonds, and as such victims of reproductive scams should have legal recourses against fraudulent acts.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 04:31:06 PM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:28:41 PM
Absolutely. Fathers have reproduction rights as well, and we *have* access to the information now, it is within our reach, and we didn't hundreds of years ago.
Suddenly your obsession with being ethnically Swede makes much more sense.
I thought you were way over logical fallacies, my friend. Guess I was wrong.
Cute strawman, though. It's a three-in-one: strawman, non sequitur AND ad hominem.
I am ethnically that one group that is kinda cool, but didn't do too much bad in the past, and maybe has some with darker skin in it too, so that's ok.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 04:31:06 PM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:28:41 PM
Absolutely. Fathers have reproduction rights as well, and we *have* access to the information now, it is within our reach, and we didn't hundreds of years ago.
Suddenly your obsession with being ethnically Swede makes much more sense.
I thought you were way over logical fallacies, my friend. Guess I was wrong.
Cute strawman, though.
I don't find it that way off - in both cases, it is ascribing to genetic material a superior quality («nature») that would trump «nurture».
In any case, what else is there to say ? We hold diametrically different opinions. There are no wrong or right answers, only answers that pertain to what «being a father » is about. You want to ground this in a supposed animal nature ; I want to see the triumph of a social and sentimental conception of paternity. There are no possible common ground other than that which we already have.
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2009, 04:08:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 04:44:26 PM
I don't find it that way off - in both cases, it is ascribing to genetic material a superior quality («nature») that would trump «nurture».
In any case, what else is there to say ? We hold diametrically different opinions. There are no wrong or right answers, only answers that pertain to what «being a father » is about. You want to ground this in a supposed animal nature ; I want to see the triumph of a social and sentimental conception of paternity. There are no possible common ground other than that which we already have.
The institutions of child support are really monuments to the abdication of both the animal and sentimental conceptions of paternity.
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 04:44:26 PM
In any case, what else is there to say ? We hold diametrically different opinions. There are no wrong or right answers, only answers that pertain to what «being a father » is about. You want to ground this in a supposed animal nature ; I want to see the triumph of a social and sentimental conception of paternity. There are no possible common ground other than that which we already have.
You mean a "supposed" social and sentimental conception of paternity. Just like mine: supposed.
Sure, everyone can be one's "father". Hell even the whole community can be a father to a child if we believe Plato. But biologically there is only one is: the one with the DNA and the XY to back it up. We cannot simply put this fact aside: Biology counts. We are overevolved primates, and our instincts back our behaviors. We just don't act like chimpanzees: we don't exterminate children which aren't ours.
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 04:48:55 PM
The institutions of child support are really monuments to the abdication of both the animal and sentimental conceptions of paternity.
In a way you are right. If we were animals as per Drakken's invocation, guys would only be content in knowing that their genetic offspring were «out there». Yet Drakken wants to have (or at least I presume so) an emotional connection with his kid - he only wants it to be dependant upon the presence of his DNA in the little one's cell. Which is, to me, the worst of both world.
As for people leaving their child, it has existed for long years (along with child support). But we have laws against lots of things we deem immoral, despite the fact that immoral things have existed for thousands of years...
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:52:08 PM
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 ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 05:00:00 PM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:52:08 PM
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.
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.
Put another way. If someone came forward and tried to claim he was the father of my sons simply because he had sex with my wife, I would fight him tooth and nail.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2009, 05:20:40 PM
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.
Put another way. If someone came forward and tried to claim he was the father of my sons simply because he had sex with my wife, I would fight him tooth and nail.
Would you feel the same if you found out that they were not yours say, a week after their birth (rather than years)?
Quote from: Kleves on June 26, 2009, 05:27:08 PM
Would you feel the same if you found out that they were not yours say, a week after their birth (rather than years)?
It is hard to put myself in that situation. By that time I had put nine months of effort into bringing them into the world. At the time of their birth I fell utterly and completely in love with them. I think even at that early stage it would have been very hard for me to give them up.
As I think about this, for Drakken's view to be correct, it would also have to be true that adoptive parents necessarily love their adopted kids less then biological parents love their biological kids.
I dont think that is true.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2009, 05:43:56 PM
As I think about this, for Drakken's view to be correct, it would also have to be true that adoptive parents necessarily love their adopted kids less then biological parents love their biological kids.
I dont think that is true.
Adoption warrants a conscious decision by the parents, and indeed sometimes it is the only option available.
Read again that I mention the word choice, which in this current case is totally denied to a father cheated both by his former common-law wife for years on end, and the judicial system for denying him justice because of sheer legalism.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2009, 05:20:40 PM
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.
Put another way. If someone came forward and tried to claim he was the father of my sons simply because he had sex with my wife, I would fight him tooth and nail.
To be fair though it may well mean a lot in your relationship with your wife...
In the case at hand, there are surely two conflicting interests: that of the child, and that of the "adoptive" father. Where those collide, the courts have to sort them out.
I agree that "adoptive" dad should be happy to support the child whom he believed to be his own, if indeed he had that bond with his "adopted" child. If he doesn't feel that way, though, he surely is entitled to some justice, isn't he?
The mother and biological father also have some responsibilities here. Bio dad owes child support, and bio mom has possibly committed a crime (though the statute of limitations has almost certainly expired, if she did knowingly falsify the paternity).
When we discussed this last year, Malthus convinced me that the interests of the child should come first, and I remain convinced of that. But surely the courts would arrange for "adoptive" dad to get some relief from bio dad, in an ideal world.
Drakken seems to be struggling with some deep psychosis here. It's kinda disturbing, I must say.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 06:31:24 PM
Drakken seems to be struggling with some deep psychosis here. It's kinda disturbing, I must say.
although i lean to his side of the agruement (ie duped dad shouldn't have to pay) i must admit he's coming across as one of those guys that's on the verge of snapping and shooting up a womans college :lol:
Quote from: HVC on June 26, 2009, 07:18:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 06:31:24 PM
Drakken seems to be struggling with some deep psychosis here. It's kinda disturbing, I must say.
although i lean to his side of the agruement (ie duped dad shouldn't have to pay) i must admit he's coming across as one of those guys that's on the verge of snapping and shooting up a womans college :lol:
At least the news will be interesting when he does.
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2009, 04:14:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 26, 2009, 04:09:12 PM
This was why wire hangers was invented.
Kinda hard to use on a five-year-old. They scream and run too much.
:lmfao:
That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time.
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:57:31 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2009, 09:54:08 AMWhat about my fucking rights asshole?
Sure I support gay rights my whole life but you just cheer on shitting all over mine "in the interests of the child" because forcing men to be parents of children that are not theirs is so fucking just.
Go fuck yourself asshole. Seriously.
Whoa. You really are emotional about the whole issue. That's rather surprising and disturbing, considering you just got married. Already afraid that your wife is being fucked by other guys?
He's right though. You're two-faced scum who doesn't deserve any rights. Every gay who is persecuted all over the world deserves it, because you are just that big of an asshole.
Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2009, 06:00:23 PM
To be fair though it may well mean a lot in your relationship with your wife...
That may be but I didnt want to conflate what it might mean for my children. I think that is what Drakken is doing.
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2009, 06:26:44 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 04:45:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2009, 04:08:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 05:09:24 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2009, 05:00:00 PM
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 04:52:08 PM
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!
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 26, 2009, 05:20:40 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 26, 2009, 04:45:23 PMOn 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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2009, 04:08:15 PMIf 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.
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.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 27, 2009, 01:56:34 AM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on June 26, 2009, 09:49:41 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 26, 2009, 09:45:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 26, 2009, 09:41:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Scipio on June 27, 2009, 12:44:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 26, 2009, 11:03:47 PM
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.
QuoteFor 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2009, 02:33:12 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 03:29:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2009, 02:33:12 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 03:29:56 PM
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 03:52:19 PM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 04:01:29 PM
That's impossible as your children obviously have your talent, intelligence, and good looks. How could they possibly be anybody else's?
:lol:
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 04:04:28 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 04:07:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 04:01:29 PM
That's impossible as your children obviously have your talent, intelligence, and good looks. How could they possibly be anybody else's?
:lol:
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.
Do you have any choice in the matter, regardless? Once you are divorced, if she has the kids their primary male figure will be any guy that happens to stay with her.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 04:18:12 PM
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
Yes, this is the problem with your logic. You assume that this idea has merit. And then assuming your idea has some merit you come to the conclusion that since the sperm donor is paying they should also get some custody rights.
But you have assumed away the problem. On what basis would a sperm donor have to claim any parental rights in the first place. I would fight hard against the implementation of any system that gave parental rights simply on the basis of whether a person was willing to pay in order to obtain those rights.
Its seems you have it backwards. You first need to establish the right to be a parent. Only then do the obligations of parenthood become relevant.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 04:20:00 PM
Do you have any choice in the matter, regardless? Once you are divorced, if she has the kids their primary male figure will be any guy that happens to stay with her.
You are talking about something else now. Of course divorce changes everything. As my kids would say "Duh!"
What does that have to do with the ability of a sperm donor to claim parnental rights? Even ifmy wife and I did get divorced that still gives no parental rights to the donor. All rights still vest in the mother and I.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 04:26:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 04:18:12 PM
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
Yes, this is the problem with your logic. You assume that this idea has merit. And then assuming your idea has some merit you come to the conclusion that since the sperm donor is paying they should also get some custody rights.
But you have assumed away the problem. On what basis would a sperm donor have to claim any parental rights in the first place. I would fight hard against the implementation of any system that gave parental rights simply on the basis of whether a person was willing to pay in order to obtain those rights.
Its seems you have it backwards. You first need to establish the right to be a parent. Only then do the obligations of parenthood become relevant.
[/quote]
But in the current world, you already gain parental rights and responsibilities by being "a sperm donor." The issue at hand is whether you should lose them because another man took care of the kid for a few years (possibly under false pretenses).
I do agree that the rights and obligations should be made secondary to the person who actually served in the role of father, but in the real world that person often fails to meet their responsibilities.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 04:28:13 PM
You are talking about something else now. Of course divorce changes everything. As my kids would say "Duh!"
What does that have to do with the ability of a sperm donor to claim parnental rights? Even ifmy wife and I did get divorced that still gives no parental rights to the donor. All rights still vest in the mother and I.
If you aren't getting divorced, will apparently still cohabitate with the wife and kids, but now want someone else to foot the bill? I agree that would be ridiculous.
If you are getting divorced, see my post above this one.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 04:31:09 PM
But in the current world, you already gain parental rights and responsibilities by being "a sperm donor." The issue at hand is whether you should lose them because another man took care of the kid for a few years (possibly under false pretenses).
I do agree that the rights and obligations should be made secondary to the person who actually served in the role of father, but in the real world that person often fails to meet their responsibilities.
Really?
I missed it then. What rights and responsibilities does a biological father have if another man has been the father in fact. I thought it was just something you were asserting.
You want to create a system that assumes that father in fact will abdicate his responsibilities if he learns he is not the biological father. Why not create a system which is contingent on that rather then one that presumes that all fathers would act like Drakken.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 04:42:49 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 04:31:09 PM
But in the current world, you already gain parental rights and responsibilities by being "a sperm donor." The issue at hand is whether you should lose them because another man took care of the kid for a few years (possibly under false pretenses).
I do agree that the rights and obligations should be made secondary to the person who actually served in the role of father, but in the real world that person often fails to meet their responsibilities.
Really?
I missed it then. What rights and responsibilities does a biological father have if another man has been the father in fact. I thought it was just something you were asserting.
You want to create a system that assumes that father in fact will abdicate his responsibilities if he learns he is not the biological father. Why not create a system which is contingent on that rather then one that presumes that all fathers would act like Drakken.
:lol:
My point isn't incompative with the first sentence. I would abdicate my rights, personally, and kick the child and the mother out of my house, but it remains my personal choice nonetheless.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 04:42:49 PM
Really?
I missed it then. What rights and responsibilities does a biological father have if another man has been the father in fact. I thought it was just something you were asserting.
Obviously none--else there wouldn't be this thread. :p
But the biological father is put on the hook if the mother didn't find someone to take care of the child (which in some cases occurred through false pretenses). How is it fair to the mother, or in the best interest of the child, if the adoptive father is delinquent or unable to make payments but the biological father is able? If the mother didn't live with a guy the first couple of years of the child's life, the biological dad would have to provide funding through college, but because a deadbeat was there at the start he is off compelely free? Whose interest is that in?
QuoteYou want to create a system that assumes that father in fact will abdicate his responsibilities if he learns he is not the biological father. Why not create a system which is contingent on that rather then one that presumes that all fathers would act like Drakken.
I'm wanting to create a system that takes into account the fact that many fathers do abdicate their responsibility, and maximizes the opportunity of the child to receive support payments.
I think all children should be given a paternity test upon birth.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 04:54:36 PM
I'm wanting to create a system that takes into account the fact that many fathers do abdicate their responsibility, and maximizes the opportunity of the child to receive support payments.
But in doing so you would intrude on the rights of fathers who do no abdicate their reponsibilities. Not very sound social policy there. Why not create a system that only takes away the rights of fathers in fact, if they do abdicate their responsbilities. If that were so I would have no quarrel with you.
The only quarrel I have is that you propose a system that some sperm donor can, as of right, assert some limited form of custody rights. When I try to put myself in that kind of situation I shudder at the thought.
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 29, 2009, 05:26:28 PM
I think all children should be given a paternity test upon birth.
I think all prospective parents should be tested for suitability. This thread has done nothing to dissuade me of the correctness of that view. Indeed it has made me reconsider my views about opposing sterilization :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 04:54:36 PM
I'm wanting to create a system that takes into account the fact that many fathers do abdicate their responsibility, and maximizes the opportunity of the child to receive support payments.
But in doing so you would intrude on the rights of fathers who do no abdicate their reponsibilities. Not very sound social policy there. Why not create a system that only takes away the rights of fathers in fact, if they do abdicate their responsbilities. If that were so I would have no quarrel with you.
The only quarrel I have is that you propose a system that some sperm donor can, as of right, assert some limited form of custody rights. When I try to put myself in that kind of situation I shudder at the thought.
Okay, then I don't think we have any disagreement. I originally posted for this to be mediated by a judge, who presumably wouldn't be turning over a kid to a sperm donor parent when an actual parent was around and living up to his obligations.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 05:30:36 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 29, 2009, 05:26:28 PM
I think all children should be given a paternity test upon birth.
I think all prospective parents should be tested for suitability. This thread has done nothing to dissuade me of the correctness of that view. Indeed it has made me reconsider my views about opposing sterilization :P
I agree. Women should definitely stay at home and raise the kids rather than going to work. :alberta:
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 05:34:40 PM
Okay, then I don't think we have any disagreement. I originally posted for this to be mediated by a judge, who presumably wouldn't be turning over a kid to a sperm donor parent when an actual parent was around and living up to his obligations.
Which brings me back to the point of why the father in fact would even have to face that kind of process if he fufilled all his fatherly duties.
I can see no justification for any court interference unless he abdicates his responsibilities.
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 29, 2009, 05:35:47 PM
I agree. Women should definitely stay at home and raise the kids rather than going to work. :alberta:
Ok, not sure how you got from dads who would walk away from their kids if they found out they were not the biological fathers to that statement....
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 05:36:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 05:34:40 PM
Okay, then I don't think we have any disagreement. I originally posted for this to be mediated by a judge, who presumably wouldn't be turning over a kid to a sperm donor parent when an actual parent was around and living up to his obligations.
Which brings me back to the point of why the father in fact would even have to face that kind of process if he fufilled all his fatherly duties.
I can see no justification for any court interference unless he abdicates his responsibilities.
That is fine with me. The only reason I mentioned the idea of some visitation rights is because you and Malthus were saying how payment obligations needed to be matched with rights. Some visitation in that case does seem fair, but if he isn't paying there certainly isn't a reason to get involved there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 04:54:36 PM
I'm wanting to create a system that takes into account the fact that many fathers do abdicate their responsibility, and maximizes the opportunity of the child to receive support payments.
But in doing so you would intrude on the rights of fathers who do no abdicate their reponsibilities. Not very sound social policy there. Why not create a system that only takes away the rights of fathers in fact, if they do abdicate their responsbilities. If that were so I would have no quarrel with you.
The only quarrel I have is that you propose a system that some sperm donor can, as of right, assert some limited form of custody rights. When I try to put myself in that kind of situation I shudder at the thought.
It's an over-generalization, because you have 50 different state systems to deal with, but in most jurisdictions in the US, a biological parent will win a custody battle with an adoptive or foster parent in the vast majority of cases.
Of course, the typical case of this involves a biological mother, often a drug addict or with severe psychological problems (or both) who gave up a child for adoption at birth and shows up years later and tries to get back custody from the adoptive parents, so it's not the same situation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 29, 2009, 05:37:22 PM
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 29, 2009, 05:35:47 PM
I agree. Women should definitely stay at home and raise the kids rather than going to work. :alberta:
Ok, not sure how you got from dads who would walk away from their kids if they found out they were not the biological fathers to that statement....
You said: "I think all prospective parents should be tested for suitability". A suitable parent is one that is there for their kids (hence I agree). I then said that women should stay at home for the kids, rather than work, so they can definitely be there more for the kids. If fathers are more likely to walk out on their kids then the reduced responsibility by not having to be there as much as the mother would surely reduce the number of men doing this?
I guess I'm just old-fashioned.