to be (reluctantly) thinking that all babies and fathers should be DNA tested at birth(686 Posts)
Looking into the statistics the rate of 1 in 10 is highly unlikely. One study of 1,628 men in the UK puts the non-paternity rate between 1-2%, this is not a large enough study size to say with any confidence, but coupled with other studies around the world I believe it is safe to say the 1 in 10 is highly unlikely.
That said given the UK population if for sake of argument it's at the low end at 1% there are as many as 631820 people in this country walking around without the biological father they think they do. The question is: Is that a large enough number to risk marginalising half a population (31591000 of women), by institution a standard legal test that almost assumes feminine deception? At this stage I think probably not.
However in response to the OP I would like to join her in her exasperation that such deception exists.
All these links make it very clear that with a child born to a man and a woman in the absence of donor situations father means natural father.the top link shows the Penalties for intentionally naming someone who is not the natural father
nooka, I agree. Obviously the actual dna test is said to be 99.99% accurate - but I can imagine the human error rate would increase by quite a margin if the already stretched NHS were to take on dna testing of every baby. Lab mix-ups in these cases would cause devastation to otherwise happy and trusting families - and could severely interfere with loving relationships, and father-child bonding with a child that is actually biologically his.
IntheFrame has just said that in her case it took about two months, so not a huge amount of time really.
That BC form just says: 'the person acknowledging himself to be the father', nothing about biology or genetics. The form can be downloaded from a Gov.uk site which provides no further clarification.
I linked to a piece on a metastudy earlier which showed that only about 1.6% of fathers (in European studies) who thought they were fathers with no element of doubt were found to not in fact be the biological father. Where there was doubt (so the Jeremy Kyle type case) it was closer to 30%. Essentially if you have enough doubt to take a paternity test then it's much much more likely that you are not the father than if you have a genetic test for any other reason when only very small number of people get a nasty surprise.
That's not to say that the surprise is excusable, just that you'd be unnecessarily testing 197 father/child pairs for every 3 mismatches. I had a quick look to see what the error rate was for paternity testing, and found 'less than1%' quoted on one site (but no other). Most of that will be human error, although it is also possible for fathers to be chimeras and also for DNA to mutate (both rare).
Doctrine, I would just hope that a certain number of men would think twice about careless sex if they thought they would have to be tested, no matter what. It seems to take a long time before the CSA forces men to do the tet. Routine testing could shorten the angst for northers who have been ditched.
The sperm thief thread was really not nice, I wouldn't recommend looking for it
I would be very interested to read the sperm thief thread do we have a link to it?
Ok, I have an issue with the taken it as read...spreading their seed ...women are designed for monogamy statements also, but that's off topic and there isn't world enough and time.
Kickass, the legal position at present is that if a woman says a man is the father and the man denies it to the CSA, he has to provide DNA to prove otherwise. I don't see how the "sperm thief" thing comes in because in that case the guy wasn't denying the DNA, just how it was obtained - that couldn't be tested.
Just a thought. When dh and I went into hospital to have dd, no-one checked who he was. They took our word for it that he was dh. When we registered dd, we had our marriage certificate, but I don't remember taking any photo id.
I'm not saying that this would justify DNA tests, but the current system seems to rely on trust quite a lot.
Also,could the law force men to give their DNA? It might make some men more aware of possible responsibilities if they knew they could be proved to be the father. I M thi king about a thread where a woman was coerced into unsafe sex, then the man accused her of being a sperm thief. I would love to see men like that having to at least be financially responsible.
"Some women deploy subterfuge" does not equal "Women are just better at subterfuge than men"
But that was the obvious indication-for years it has been taken as read that men are made for spreading it around (for apparent evelotionary reasons) whereas supposedly women are designed for monogomy. Quite clearly this is not so. It does take subterfuge if 1 in 20 women is bearing a child to be raised by a different man. That is not a value judgment.
Doctrine yes I was referring to the subterage part. I highly doubt that was a conclusion of the study.
IfNot, I think it was the subterfuge comment rather than the study Flora was addressing.
Have only read the OP, so has probably been mentioned, but apart from the rights and wrongs of it, who would finance all of these DNA tests?
Look, I didn't do the study! I am not making some anti-woman comment, far from it. I do remember that there was something about how the qualities needed to make strong children were often different from the qualities needed to actually raise them. There might be something in that.
Women are just better at subterfuge than men
what a load of shit.
Not read whole thread, but I beleive that a few years ago, a scientific study about genes discovered accidentally that 1 in 20 of their test subjects did not have the father they thought they had.
So it wasn't based on people already questioning paternity.
This led the researchers to come to the conclusion that, contrary to poplular beleif, it wasnt just men who are programmed to spread their seed far and wide, and that women may have evolutionary reasons for choosing one man to actually provide the genes, and another man to be a parent.
Women are just better at subterfuge than men (who tend to get caught.)
You phone the CSA. They contact him and see whether he disputes paternity. If yes, they send the stuff through from Cellmark the DNA testers give him 2 weeks to contact a doctor. Then when his test is back you get 2 weeks to do it also.It then takes 10 days or less to get a result back. About 2 months start to finish. He had to reimburse CSA as the test came back positive that he was the father.
Compos, the NRP could do all that refusing to pay, hiding earnings etc etc stuff regardless of DNA. I'm guessing more non-paying NRPs do that than insist on DNA tests.
Thanks for the info edam but how long on average does it take for the case to get to court and the process to be gone through (with the potential of the father not turning up/using delaying tactics etc)? In the meantime, the child is going without.
I really don't know what I think about this issue, I can see both sides, I agree that it affects a comparatively small number of cases, but the results for both parent and child could be so traumatic that there may be some merit in it - I don't t I'd also worry about it used to create a national DNA database by stealth and all the implicaitons of theat.
I really don't know. I will ponder this during part 2 of Corrie.
I've only read your OP but going on that YABU. A lot of people are in situations that you described but there's a lot more that aren't. I know my DP is 100% the father of my child because im faithful so why should have to do a DNA test?
No reason why you would Bruthas, I only know it because of being an immigration lawyer. I didn't before that!
Compos, that's not a solution that is required. Where a man denies parenthood, a court can order a DNA test. Why should everyone be forced into an intrusive, unnecessary and expensive test because the OP arbitrarily decides to call all women liars until proved otherwise?
That's really interesting Chunderella, not something I know a great deal about obviously .
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.