ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
to be (reluctantly) thinking that all babies and fathers should be DNA tested at birth(686 Posts)
Inspired by another thread, which I'm not going to link to because it would be very, very unfair. And if anyone notices the link, please don't point it out.
I always thought this was ridiculous, suggesting that all babies be DNA tested. But having seen people advising someone to "don't tell him you slept with someone else, he will leave you, it's probably his baby looking at the dates" I am horrified to think that there are children being born all over the place where the mum doesn't think it's important to check whether or not she knows who the father is .
If my teenage dd got pregnant (and there was any doubt), I would definitely encourage her to make absolutely sure she was claiming support from the baby's actual father. Not from the man she thought would do best by him/her.
I think if one of my teenage ds(s)' girlfriend(s) got pregnant I would want them to be sure of the paternity before getting involved, emotionally and financially.
I think the whole thing is very sad.
To say I'm disgusted by something would normally involve a fair bit of hyperbole, but going back to that thread I really do feel disgust at those posters advising her to say nothing.
It is infuriating that that they don't give a fuck about the man involved, the right of the child to know their parentage and (right now, selfishly) it's mostly bloody infuriating that they are playing right into the hands of those who despise women.
Very good points made by Fakebook.
Has anyone considered rape victims in all this?
If a woman is pregnant from a rape, and has agreed privately with her husband/partner that he will be named as father on the bc, then who is the state to suggest they can't do that?
I don't need to provide proof. Firstly because my DH and I trust each other and, secondly, because we are married any our child is therefore deemed to be a child of our marriage
Imagine if more women than men were shoplifters. Would you think it appropriate therefore that all women were therefore searched when they left a shop. No - you wouldn't. This is exactly the same type of thing
" And for you sanctimonious lot, walk a mile in another womans shoes."
Or...........walk a mile in the (alleged) fathers shoes............
My DH has just called it "state sanctioning of Jeremy Kyle politics"
Gobbo you did need to provide proof to the registrar that you are the child's mother, it comes through from the hospital or other medical professional in attendance. Why should the same not apply to the father?
I can't see anything particularly wrong or offensive about the idea. It could be just a routine thing along with all the other things you do that are just routine.
If people think it suggests that women are inherently untrustworthy, surely that could apply to anything where you have to provide proof. If I ring my bank they ask me a few security questions before they'll talk to me. Someone who applies for a first passport needs a person of standing to vouch for them. To get your post redirected you need to provide I.D. and bills for the old address. If the police stop your car they won't just take your word for it that you have insurance and a licence and no one takes offence at being asked to prove it. It's necessary because some people are dishonest and checking a child's DNA at birth could be said to be necessary because some women are dishonest, just like some men are. Some men only admit to being the biological father when a DNA test shows they are.
The law about a child born within a marriage being that man's child is archaic and ought to be changed anyway since it's so common for children to be born to unmarried parents now.
I can see your point but why tarnish the majority because of the cover ups and lies of the minority?
Not everyone can know who their biological father is. Sad but true and inevitable.
Maryz - I know that DH is my DS's father.
I would find having to provide DNA evidence insulting, because in effect, the state would be saying that they don't believe women can be trusted to be truthful about who fathered their child.
And I would find it insulting that the state is assuming that some women lying about their children's paternity means that all women should be treated as liars, unless proven otherwise.
Yoni I may be wrong but I think it's illegal to name someone on a birth cert if you are aware that they aren't the biological parent, private agreements don't override that although it's obviously an incredibly sensitive topic.
But why would it "enshrine the myth that women are inherently untrustworthy in law"? If no women were lying about paternity, it wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that some are, sadly.
I really genuinely don't get why it is ok for some (even if it is very, very, very few) children to be lied to about that parentage. I think it is wrong.
And I also think it is sad to say "the man can challenge it if they want to". Why should they? It is unfair, because the fact that they challenged can be used as proof that they didn't want the child, whereas in fact they may have very much wanted the child, but also wanted to know the truth.
Gobbolino, if all women were trustworthy, this wouldn't be an issue. But some aren't.
If a man (any man) turned up at a registry office to register the birth of a baby, the first question they would be asked would be the name of the mother and proof of the birth.
I haven't seen the thread in question btw - but I would never advise the "don't tell him" line either. To live a lie like that cannot be good advice for anyone.
But that doesn't justify state intervention like compulsory paternity testing.
" secondly, because we are married any our child is therefore deemed to be a child of our marriage"
I think any bringing in of Jezza into it, on any side, is enough to kill the idea stone dead
bruthus - don't know where you registered your children but I didn't need to prove any proof I was DS' mother. I just turned up with him. Nothing was "sent through" from the hospital
So in your registrar's office you turn up and can register a birth with no evidence that a birth has even taken place? That's strange and startlingly open to fraud.
YABU because the costs would be massive for very little return. If the figures were 60/40 or even 70/30, I might agree with you. But the fact is that for the vast majority of the population, paternity is known.
I don't mind DNA tests when needed, but compulsory tests on the whole nation would be a waste of time and money that the NHS could put to much better use.
There was no way that my DD wasn't DH's apart from the fact that he is my only partner she was ( and still is ) his double. I read somewhere ages ago that babies are born looking like their Dad so they can bond with them and know they are theirs. I know this isn't what you are asking OP and its a good point you make.
things - read my earlier post regarding the legal position. Any child born to married parents is deemed to be the child of the husband unless proved otherwise. I could have registered DS' birth without my DH present (with DH not present) simply by producing my wedding certificate
If the parents are unmarked, the father must be present before his name can be entered on the birth certificate. This is why Ed Milliband was not named on his first child's birth certificate - he was not married at that time to his now wife, Justine Greening, and was not present at the registration
" the state would be saying that they don't believe women can be trusted to be truthful about who fathered their child."
Clearly, however, some women can't. And would be supported in their deceit by many MN'ers. If t'other thread is anything to go by.
Wrt compulsory DNA testing I cannot think about it rationally, it's too entangled in misogynistic ideology.
I think, though, that looking at it with that thread in mind, your reasoning is pretty solid Maryz. And I imagine it could just (eventually) be seen as a perfectly standard part of the birth/registration process.
But I just can't bear to think about that, and about the knuckle daggers claiming it as a win. I don't want it to happen but the fuckwits on that thread hand over all the ammo the MRAs need.
Here's a scenario.
Mum is married, has a fling. Gets pregnant. Regrets fling, tells nobody, resolves to repair marriage and put it behind her and never be so stupid again, which she does.
With no DNA test, child grows up in stable home with loving parents.
DNA test, dad divorces mum, this child never knows a father and the two older siblings lose their dad too.
I do know someone in more or less the first situation and I honestly can't see the second is better, even taking the child's right to know the father into account. I'm not talking about the good of the mother or father here, btw, just looking at the good of the children.
Same here Gobbolino. I didn't even have the baby with me! She stayed in the car with grandad while me and ex went in. No proof that she existed whatsoever with us.
Read your post. Seems, as another poster has said, archaic.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.