to want DP to ask for a DNA test for his DC?

[SashaFierce99]

DP had three DC when we met who are now aged 10 and DTS aged 8. His wife was unfaithful multiple times throughout their marriage; she has admitted this openly. The children look nothing like DP, each other or our DC together. He hasn't seen them regularly for several years because his ex moves around and refuses to tell him where etc.

Yet he is still paying over £500 p/m maintenance for them. Obviously this would be the right thing to do if they were biologically his or even if he just had a relationship with them, but he has admitted he isn't sure at all that they are actually his and realistically we can't afford to keep applying to the court to find out where the DC are while also paying so much maintenance.

Aibu to think he should ask for a DNA test in these circumstances?

And I think stopping payments (if you so wish) will be way less cruel than a DNA test.

"They are his, regardless of DNA."

Wow.

"I think in these circumstances he may as well find out as the dc have a right to know; both his and ours"

Except the right to know what? Assuming, as you seem to want to believe, that they are not his children, that leaves them without any father whatsoever, what is the supposed benefit of that?

Dontdrinkandfacebook my dc was conceived by rape but my dp will always be his dad. Would you force my child to have a dna test? Or simply call me a cheat for refusing one?

Of course not, don't be silly. you obviously didn't read what I said properly.
Nobody would be 'made' to have a DNA test on their child - it could be offered as routine just like any other routine test given to newborn babies. Anyone should have the right to refuse although I don't really see what the motivation to refuse such a quick, simple and painless test would be, other than knowing or suspecting that the answer might cause major complications and wishing to avoiding that.

In your case I am going to assume that the man who parents your child has always done so happily and willingly as a conscious choice and in the full knowledge that the child is not biologically his. That's the very important difference.

Ditto the person who mentioned sperm donation. It's irrelevant - unless you have deliberately mislead your partner and had a child by sperm donation without telling him then the DNA results are going to be no surprise to him whatsoever.

If a woman gives birth to a baby and its bio father is not in the picture at all at that point for whatever reason then of course the test could only be carried out on mum and baby, so it would be incomplete as far as naming and identifying the bio father goes, but it would still provide useful genetic information. And if a man wanted to deny or avoid accepting paternity further down the line (for example when faced with requests from the CSA) then how could it possibly hurt to already have two out of three required elements to establishing paternity are already there and done?

I know it's a very very rare phenomenon these days but testing at or soon after birth would rule out the possibility for example of being given the wrong baby to take home from hospital, or would make it harder for women to borrow, steal or buy babies and pass them off as their own without going through the correct procedures for adoption etc. It would also be useful on a central government and NHS databases, just like fingerprinting or dental records for accurate identification purposes. I really can't think of a single reason why routine testing could be considered a bad thing, other than for people with a vested interest in keeping the outcome a secret.

Dontdrink, there are lots of reasons why people wouldn't want a DNA test. My children are the product of fertility treatment and there can be absolutely no question over their paternity unless the clinic massively fucked up.

I would not have my children DNA tested for privacy reasons alone (I don't want their DNA on file somewhere held by the state).

But what about women who've had children naturally? Should they face the choice between doing something they don't feel comfortable because the alternative is to face a cloud of suspicion over them because they refused testing?

Men have rights to challenge paternity if they wish. Not a huge amount do. That's enough, we don't need to subject infants to invasive and intrusive tests to satisfy a tiny number of people.

But WHY would they not feel comfortable with it? What is the big issue with having your child's DNA on file? It's just going to be a random string of numbers and letters that mean nothing to anyone until there is a good reason to need to know it. And the tests are NOT invasive or intrusive - that's the whole point. They are no more invasive or intrusive and certainly a whole lot less painful than many of the routine things we do to babies.

The vast majority of people have no need to question paternity or to prove it but i still don't see how it can be a bad thing to just routinely take that information and store it anyway.

And there is a shitload of information about all of us and our children ALREADY out there in the state ether. It's ridiculous to think that collecting DNA data is somehow much more sinister and invasive than all of the other information that can be pieced together on each and every one of us, should anyone choose to do so. We already have no privacy or anonymity whatsoever in that sense.

Nobody would be 'made' to have a DNA test on their child - it could be offered as routine just like any other routine test given to newborn babies. Anyone should have the right to refuse although I don't really see what the motivation to refuse such a quick, simple and painless test would be, other than knowing or suspecting that the answer might cause major complications and wishing to avoiding that.

Since this actually appears to be a serious suggestion...

The 'motivation' for me would be that it's fucking insulting. Investing however many millions it would cost to give DNA testing as standard at birth insinuates that women are, on the whole, unreliable, unfaithful creatures who simply can't be relied upon to provide a legitimate heir. It's one step up from the chastity belt.

(Also, there's no way I'd want my DNA results, or my children's, kept on file. You are kidding yourself if you think that kind of information is never going to be misused.)

dontdrink, you obviously don't understand the information DNA contains or what it can be used for or tell us. You're also assuming that we would always have a benign state who would never use it for nefarious purposes.

It's intrusive for children to have that level of information on their health, likely future health or origins held. Just because you don't understand or deny the risks doesn't mean other people should be obliged to submit their children to a policy based on other people's naivety or blind trust.

Maybe it's because of the negative perception of DNA tests in general? As we can see from this thread alone there are people who seem to think there are a multitude of sly, avaricious women trying to pass illegitimate children off on poor hapless, well meaning men folk and those posters at actually women. Certainly from my experience, out there in more mainstream society, this view is a regularly held one. Some people don't like the idea that women unilaterally hold the certain knowledge of the paternity of their child so insist that many of them are using this "privilege" for their own selfish ends and will think nothing of allowing some poor man to think children are his when they're not. Therefore it is viewed by many women to be insult to them and their integrity if they're forced to prove who the father of their child is, which is totally unsurprising really given the above.

Maybe it's because of the negative perception of DNA tests in general?

Yes Nicki I think that's it. Because ATM testing is only done when a relationship has broken down and the man is being a dick about paying to support the child, or when he thinks he has genuine grounds to suspect the child is not his, rightly or wrongly. So there is already an element of distrust, blame and conflict.

If it was routine and widespread and the vast, vast majority of people (who have nothing to fear or hide) cooperated without giving it a second thought and you had to opt out then no-one need feel that they are being singled out or being put under scrutiny or suspicion.

Goddess speaks sense here. It doesn't have to be constant battles.

I think chastity belts would be a better idea, DontDrink.

Only if you believe the only benefit to DNA testing is to prove or disprove paternity math

I read, some time ago, that random DNA testing threw up 10% of DCs as not be those of the presumed father.

So many shit stirrers on this thread talking absolute crud.

Shit stirrers because we have a different opinion?

It's no surprise that they're mostly step mothers who despise the ex wives though is it?

I'm quite interested in how you would even obtain reserch subjects for a study. Given that you are not allowed to covertly take DNA for no specified reason (perhaps there may be a country that lets you)

Or if you would just speculate

my DH used to raise this issue of "cuckoo" children, quoting stats on how common it is.
Really, nobody knows. But it looks higher than one might expect than it is in reality because the percentages given were the numbers of babies from those who were DNA tested.
Most babies are not tested. So the 10% (or whatever it was) would be from those who felt a reason to test the DNA or question the paternity. Pretty bloody small in that case.
Anyway, OP. A bit late for this I think.
At the time maybe he might have been wise to check paternity before now?
I think it is unreasonable to ask him to do so.
If you plan of having childrn you might want to rethink your choice of father for them as the conflict between you could grow.
When you met him he had three children. Now you want to see if you can erase them from his life.

Yes sockamnesty you are correct, I believe. "Random" DNA testing to demonstrate paternity does not happen.

Ah Nicki you do make me giggle :)
That chip must be really heavy on your shoulder.

You know how you always say "we're not stepmum bashing"? Well I'm not ex wife bashing. There are some nice ones and shitty ones.

A few years ago when we had the budget to do it we used to facilitate tests where service users were finding doubts over paternity were causing them to be at risk of harrasment or intimidation.

Out of the several hundred we funded I'm pretty sure it was only 2-4 that turned out not to be.

Due to the nature of the work every single one of the fathers were the ones to raise an issue usually as a form of abuse and usually as publicly as possible

Weather I didn't actually mean you...

And are you a step mother?

(I don't have step parents so no 'chip' before you start accusing, genuinely curious.)

I am a stepmum, yes.