Biological fathers - Archbishop Welby

[mrsmuddlepies]

Very brave of Justin Welby to go public with this story. I have always admired his compassion and humanity. However, it makes me wonder how common it is for fathers to unknowingly not be the biological parent of their child? There was a recent thread which suggested a surprisingly high percentage. I wonder how many other high profile and ordinary families have this kind of secret?

Oh dear. When you find yourself unwittingly quoting Joseph Goebbels (!) I think a little reading is definitely in order.

Also from the Guardian (5 years ago) which gives a statistic based on research carried out by Liverpool John Moores University,
www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/11/childrensservices.uknews
One in 25 fathers may not be the biological parent of the child they believe to be theirs, according to a study published today.

'Oh dear' ? Is there any end to how patronising and superior you can sound?

The daily telegraph are disgusting :(

Oh come now. There's no need for petulance and huffy little faces just because you're feeling a little foolish.

Well if it's anything like other Government or NHS errors then there will be mistakes.

It'll then only take one case of an assault or murder of a Mother or Baby and it'll be scrapped, after costing the country a fortune. Or suicide.

As for storing DNA for crime prevention, I think in light of cover ups etc, most people would be against this. There's lots of cases in other countries that have proven that DNA has been planted at the scene of a crime.

This would mean setting up a new department in Maternity hospitals, and behind the scenes. I'm not willing to pay for this, when there's so many cuts, tbh.

DNA testing would have many unexpected side effects. Many of our most vulnerable would forcibly have their pregnancies hidden to protect their abusers.

Many? Really? How many women do you estimate per year might have their PG pushed underground for fear of that? A DNA test would indicate that the presumed father volunteering his DNA for those purposes either is, or is not the father. Plenty of women will still present as PG without a man in tow to provide DNA and admit paternity, so nothing will change there. It's not like women will be turned away from giving birth if they can't prove who the biological father is.

I don't need to do any reading thanks - how patronising.

When you quote Goebbels in this context then you need to do some reading. If you find that patronising I'm sorry you feel like that.

But you still need to do some reading.

Those of you who want universal DNA testing for babies can be in charge of paying for it.

The nothing to hide comment is obviously fuckwittery writ large, but even a person with that mentality must surely comprehend the practical issues here. Namely, compliance. I can see that you might be able to force mothers to consent by withholding e.g. child benefit, but how does this work for a potentially reluctant or unknowing father?

Wow, irrelevant I know but he's the absolute image of his bio dad. Not surprised there were rumours.

Compulsory dna testing is at the heart of most men's rights activists campaigns which tells you everything you need to know about compulsory dna testing.

Tippy, I was thinking victims of incest, grooming gangs, etc. The birth of a child from such a situation would be evidence of the abuse, if all births came with a DNA test the abuser would ensure there was no live birth (would we DNA stillbirths, just to make sure a man wasn't grieving for a child that wasn't his?) and put the victim at even greater danger, maybe from beatings until they miscarried. I hadn't even thought of when test results are wrong, with all the emotion that comes with a new life, families would get ripped apart with the factually incorrect news. Look at the photo of Welby and his father, they could be the same person, they were in denial, no DNA test needed.

""Namely, compliance. I can see that you might be able to force mothers to consent by withholding e.g. child benefit, but how does this work for a potentially reluctant or unknowing father?""

A BC is a legal document, without a DNA test, you couldn't register the birth, so couldn't get CB or CTC.

We would have to restructure the whole Birth Registration and Child Law to accommodate this, because a married Father automatically goes on the BC and they automatically have PR.

This would cost billions.

I personally think it's a bit gross that he mother pointed out he was born 'almost exactly nine months after I was married'...which means he was actually created with a different man very close to her wedding which is pretty tacky no matter who you are.

I agree, he must have had strong suspicions for a long time as he looks very, very like his real Father. The man who raised him, but his own account, seems to have been a terrible 'Father' so I don't think he merits much consideration (even though he's been dead a long time)

Why am I silly MrsDeVere? I am way too intimidated by shouty posters to comment. All I did was quote directly from the Guardian and leave it to others to draw conclusions. Don't make personal and unwarranted attacks. Shout at the Guardian if you want to get uppity with someone.

I'm just thinking birds, there are legitimately women who've no idea who the father is to even be tested. What happens then, trace and round up every bloke who was in the club the night someone had a quickie with a stranger in the bogs and conceived?

Would the people advocating this Orwellian dream of babies being dna tested to find out who their fathers are, make an exception for people like me who didn't put the father on the birth cert?

Remember Blunkett - he introduced Blunkett's law when he was in charge at the home office. That says that a father ( the adulterour lover) of a child born within a marriage is allowed to force the married couple to DNA test their child. David Blunkett then used the new law to his advantage - his married lover had a baby in her marriage which in fact was his and he was able to force visitation rights and good for him. Genes are really important. Mind not good for him to sleep with a woman who was married.

AIBU in thinking this is absolutely nobody's business but Justin Welby's? I can't believe the amount of coverage this - effectively a private family matter - has had today. Feels like it's huge invasion of privacy and I am personally finding the coverage really distasteful - at least 10 minutes of wibbling on about it on this morning's Today programme, for example. Who cares?

MrsDeVere, Are you David Cameron telling me to calm down? You sound awfully like him.