Men Unknowingly Raising Another Man's Child

[Severin]

"Research suggests that, as cases of teenage pregnancies, sexual infidelity and multiple partners increase, 1 in 25 fathers could unknowingly be raising another man?s child.

With improvements in genetic testing, thousands of fathers every year are discovering that ?their? child is someone else?s. A study by scientists from Liverpool John Moores University concludes that 4 per cent of all men are unwittingly bringing up a child they have not fathered.

The researchers, led by Mark Bellis, of the Centre for Public Health at Liverpool, analysed a wide range of international studies, looking at estimates of paternal discrepancy between 1950 and 2004.

Their findings, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, show that rates of cases where a father was not the biological father of his child ranged from 1 per cent in some studies to as many as 30 per cent. Experts generally agree that the rate is below 10 per cent. The Liverpool team said that their meta-analysis suggests a 4 per cent rate, meaning that about one in 25 families could be affected.

?For any father, identifying that the child they are raising as their biological progeny is actually sired by another man can have substantial health consequences,? the researchers said.

?Such knowledge can also destroy families, affecting the health of the child and mother as well as that of any man who is ultimately identified as the biological parent.?

---

Bearing in mind, some of these might be genuine mistakes. But there are also many women who lie about who got them pregnant so to choose a better father figure/husband, or to hide infidelity. And at the heart of this is not just fathers who are raising someone else's child, but children who do not know their true parentage - a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. This can lead to traumatic psychological issues, and prevent them from knowing what health risks they might be genetically disposed towards - so lack of knowledge of true parentage could prove fatal for the child.

Questions -

1. If men could somehow trick a woman into raising another woman's child, how would they feel? Would they feel the man deserved punishment, even legal consequences?

1. If one if four families are affected, would you agree that compulsory DNA testing should be used on all new births? Again, imagine if it was women who were unwittingly bringing up another woman's child.

1. Do you agree that it is one of women's greatest responsibilities to be honest about whose child they are carrying, and any woman that lies about it is committing a hugely immoral act?

ColdTruth - well the OP is saying "compulsory DNA testing should be used on all new births" - that's is a million miles away from "it should be done at the request of the father", and at a cost to the father himself.

I agree that people should know the truth about paternity, where they choose to go and get that information. And where they would hopefully receive counselling in advance to ensure they had thought through how they might feel about the possible results, and be able to weigh that up in advance.

That's nothing like what the OP is asking for.

this is such a daft thread, tbh

the current system, where an individual bloke can procure DNA testing at his own expense, is perfectly adequate (he risks his relationship with the child's mother of course...but his choice )

the state shouldn't be funding this kind of nonsense

men, keep it in your pants, or sort out your own mess is the approach I would take here

Pendeen When it comes to personal relationships we don't normally use the full force of the law to ensure honesty and trust. That's entirely down to the individuals. Obviously relationships should include honesty and trust as standard but, human beings being fallible, they don't. I don't want anyone telling me my child has to be DNA-tested to prove his Dad is his Dad any more than I want to be interrogated at the police station over whether or not I had an affair. The issue of dragging personal secrets out and demanding full disclosure on a mandatory basis is not one that I think the state should be involved in. The principle of privacy is one that should be respected - even if we use it to make mistakes.

Surely this is not the only way in which partners can trick one another? Would you be happy with mandatory tracking of all husbands at all times: after all, it is known that a percentage of men are unfaithful to their wives when out of sight? A compulsory tracking device would no doubt save a number of women from terrible disappointment when they find out that they have been living a lie for years.

Should society step in and save them? Or -a revolutionary idea, this- just let everybody use their own judgment as to whether they trust their spouse or not?

Cogito please tell me your not using the it's evolution excuse I am sure there are many things which can be given the 'evolution' excuse and they are totally unacceptable and rightly so.

AMumInScotland I don't see why It has to either/or I don't have to fully agree with the OP.

Cogito

The OP raised several points and asked three questions. I was concentrating upon what I felt was the most important - the issue of trust and honesty. There have been several red herrings introduced into this debate which I believed were not helpful and in one or two cases have trivialised an interesting exchange.

For the record, no I don't think compulsory testing of every child is the right way to go

ColdTruth - no of course you don't have to fully agree with the OP. It's just that you hadn't ever disagreed on the thread and said "OP - no I don't think what you are suggesting is a good idea", all your statements had been broadly agreeing with the OPs position. So it was not at all obvious that you were in fact disagreeing with the major component - mandatory testing of all new born children.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the availability of testing for those who choose to use it, only against the presumption of guilt inherent in mandatory testing.

Coldtruth No, of course not. Simply matching an essentially ridiculous suggestion with an equally ridiculous answer.

i think the answer is to give every man a vasectomy as soon as he is capable of fathering a child, and store some of his sperm in a lab so that in future he will be able to impregnate someone without any risk that some other man's child could be unknowingly raised as his own.

Good point sprogger. The 99% of people telling the truth would be paying for that dna database.

as has been spotted by several posters on this thread severin had a massive agenda in posting what he did

whilst masquerading as a woman

he should just come out as a bitter, cuckolded crossdresser and be done with it

that's why my posts were deleted

i'm not proud of having so many deleted posts, but someone accused me of being one of his sock puppets!

are you going to delete it now?

why were our posts deleted??? makes it look like we were flinging insults about.

my latest one should go, then

surprised to see it still there, tbh

i asked if 2 posters knew each other outside of MN, and then confirmed it was not my usual style of MNing

i named no names, but someone must have taken offence...

If in any individual case a man asked to pay support for the child of a woman to whom he was not married denies paternity he should be entitled to DNA testing before any order is made; the mother or CSA must meet the cost upfront but he must repay if paternity is established.

If they are married he must pay up front but the mother/CSA must repay if he is not the father.

Does that sound fair?

There are FAR, FAR, far, far more women like me. We know who the fathers of our children are, they know they are the fathers of the children, but they either walk away or refuse to pay or both or in my case an irritating combination of loitering around but never actually contributing anything practical or financial...... This is a much bigger problem, both for society and in terms of the amount of parents and children affected. So sort this issue out first and I bet you the small (yes, small) number of women who find some reason to lie about this issue will drop even further. I do not believe it is the HUGE problem severin believes it is.

I think that's the first post of mine that MN has deleted! Presumably it counts as "troll-hunting" when you comment about how long (short!) a time someone has been on MN, and express an opinion about their motives?

Anyway, I'm not surprising he turned out to be a known troll - he didn't even seem to know enough about his chosen topic to have a good discussion/argument about the implications