Should Paternity testing be mandatory?

^This by the bucket load, no way do I trust the government not to fuck this up and I bet the fuck up won't be to my advantage.

What brought you to mumsnet to share your views on a 6 year old thread today?

That is an interesting point of view. Men are just pay piggies? There to enable a percentage of women to be irresposible and unaccountable for their actions. Meanwhile the men being abused in this way are denied their reproductive rights. I suspect it the shoe was on the other foot all of the women on here would scream blue murder and rage about how unfair it was. Whilst the vast majority of women do not behave in this way , it has always been an issue and if government makes it mandatory it is not a husband questioning his wifes fidelity it is the state ensuring that all parties are protected. Men are not required to pay for infidelity and women dont have to worry about future issues within their marriage relating to the issue because the father knows and has no reason to wonder or doubt. In addition we now have issues where the government / NHS often become aware that the man is not the father whilst treating children for genetic disorders and unless absolutely unavoidable do not reveal this. Women sit there and say so what , meanwhile men have to put up with medical treatment from an organisation they have no reason to trust.

No I love all human beings, I hate lies

You really hate women, don’t you @MrsP1111.

I know of one married woman who told her husband "if you really loved me you wouldn't need a DNA test, others may be making accusations, but we know the truth"
You can guess the outcome. Knowing years before would have been easier on everyone. If she hadn't have objected he would probably never have got the test done.

No it works on the assumption that some women are liars which is true as some men are also liars.
The liars will be found out.
Also some women may have several candidates and genuinely don't know which one is the father.
Why fear truth?

Thanks for explaining

@mrsp1111 a zombie is dead but walking around....a zombie thread is a dead conversation restarted. This is from 2018. Start a new thread to discuss your point.

I should have noticed that, @PurpleDaisies.

This is an old thread.

Sorry I don't know what you mean by a zombie thread? I know a lot of people who have been devastated by paternity fraud and the perpetrators get away scot free so feel strongly for them.

@MrsP1111 this thread is a zombie thread....look at the date.

When a man has spent several years bonding with a child to find it isn't his I can guarantee you it would save money.
Less likely to suffer mental health issues loss of business etc.
Men are on NHS apps Facebook etc DNA to prove a child is theirs is fine if it gives certainty that is is theirs or proves it isn't

100% of women know it is their child.
0% of men know.
If there is nothing to hide what would be the objection?
People who object the most in my experience have something to hide.

Currently sitting with DH to my left and pre-school DD by sperm donor on my lap!

Very much yes to your last para. there Princess.

Where it would potentially be useful is cases where a woman's evidently been attacked but it was by a stranger.

I don't see the proposal in the OP happening any time soon, quite apart from anything else it would be fantastically expensive and save no money anywhere. This is even before we consider the legal costs when people sue for wrong results. Which will happen because humans make mistakes, and also because it would end up being outsourced to Crapita or similar for a bargain basement price.

But I do think it's interesting to reflect on the way in which some men are willing to place their distrust of women above their own privacy, and not even think about any implications that might disadvantage men as a group. Says a lot, doesn't it?

Underage cases are not generally prosecuted.

As long as the girl is around puberty or over, it's taken as consensual in our society, and I can't see that changing, even with all that happened in rotherham etc. There just isn't any interest in it.

Even when girls are under 13 (supposed to be "no excuses") you get "I thought she was older" and sympathy from the judge.

There's just no appetite for it.

Ah there's this bit as well:

"a commitment that it be used whenever a sex crime with DNA evidence is reported, and prosections to the max of the law,"

So not just saying they'll use it, and then shoving it on a shelf and forgetting all about it (hello USA)

But changes to the attitude of the polcie etc as well.

Given that the head of the met recently said she isn't interested in investigating historical rape cases (ie pretty much all child abuse as it often isn't reported until the victim has grown up) or cases where the victim know the assailant, I don't see this happening any time soon.

Sadly it's an idea, nothing more. Same as this mandatory testing of all births in the UK (not so sad about that idea not happening, vast expense and for what exactly. Won't make a jot of difference to child poverty, not sure why anyone thinks it would).

SardineReturns definitely a misunderstanding, sorry I wasn't being clear.

I meant that even when rape is reported, the onus seems to be placed on the woman to prove she didn't consent, I'm not that hopeful that having definite proof intercourse occurred will also dramatically increase prosecution rates.

Absolutely invaluable for underage cases obviously, but I expect that's mostly how it already is right now- if they have a DNA sample (and they know who it is) and an underage victim you'd hope it would be pretty bloody straightforward.

No. YABU.

Miswording

"Certainly in the case of women and girls who report rape, underage girls who are pregnant, and incest, a crime has been committed...."

Should probably be that in the case a women and girls who report rape, almost certainly a crime has been committed (false reports are low).

It has been found that rapists tend to have serial behaviours. This would stop a lot of very dangerous men.

So maybe, maybe I'm more on board. Interesting to see if the MRA who want "mandatory paternity testing" will wibble and back down at that suggestion...

"If the guy refuses because he is blindsighted by love, he should be given the option further down the road , should he become suspicious"

Well, that will be nice for the child. "Sorry, James, as long as your dad was in love with your mum he was happy to believe you were his son, but now he isn't he doesn't see the point of being your dad any more, so could we just do a little scrape from the inside of your mouth."

What kind of a shit would let a child believe he was his dad and rely on him- and then just tell him he wasn't when it didn't suit him any longer?