Are Paternity Tests Insulting?

[sally4sara]

If the kid is still inside her, I'm not sure how you're going to get a paternity test on the sly.

 

And if the kid is born already and you have not signed that birth certificate, I'm not sure how you're going to get her kid into a test without her knowledge.

 

If she has filed for child support - she is obviously willing to get the paternity established and trying to be sneaky is moot.

 

You can't just take some kid you are not the guardian of and get it poked with needles just to "be sure" without it's parent's consent.

[Taramere]

I'd agree to a test, in those circumstances, and for the sake of the child I wouldn't kick up a major fuss about it. I can't say, however, that everything would be peachy afterwards, that I wouldn't take it personally and that the discovery that the other person didn't trust me wouldn't impact a great deal on my feelings for them. That's just how life is. You can't openly mistrust other people without some spoilage resulting. It would be very naive for anyone to suppose otherwise, I think.

[BUENG1]

If the kid is still inside her, I'm not sure how you're going to get a paternity test on the sly.

 

And if the kid is born already and you have not signed that birth certificate, I'm not sure how you're going to get her kid into a test without her knowledge.

 

If she has filed for child support - she is obviously willing to get the paternity established and trying to be sneaky is moot.

 

You can't just take some kid you are not the guardian of and get it poked with needles just to "be sure" without it's parent's consent.

 

Actually a few follicles of hair is all that is necessary. And no you do not need the other parents consent to perform this test.

[Woggle]

It depends on the woman you date..

 

If you date an old fashioned girl who holds sex to a high regard, I could see this as being extremely insulting and not necessary.

 

If you date a modern type girl who admittedly had dozens of partners , she should understand AND it might be necessary. Especially if she is pregnant relatively early..I have known many women who have FWB's , are cheating and married, or playing the field when they become pregnant. I also heard that when 2 men's semen are in a woman they sort of "fight each other" and there is more of a chance of her becoming pregnant.

 

Yuo. If women want their men to trust them they should be more trustworthy but they want to cheat on us left and right then get insulted when we qiestion it.

[sally4sara]

Actually a few follicles of hair is all that is necessary. And no you do not need the other parents consent to perform this test.

 

directly from wiki:

 

In the US, AABB regulates DNA paternity and family relationship testing industry. Only the DNA test results produced by an AABB-accredited laboratory [2] are legally admissible and accepted by government child support agencies, welfare benefits offices and immigration authorities such as USCIS and U. S. embassies overseas in a family-based immigration petition.

 

The DNA parentage test that follows strict chain of custody can generate legally admissible results that are used for child support, inheritance, social welfare benefits, immigration, or adoption purposes. To satisfy the chain-of-custody legal requirements, all tested parties have to be properly identified and their specimens collected by a third party professional who is not related to any of the tested parties and has no interest in the outcome of the test.

In recent years, immigration authorities in various countries such as U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, France and others have been requesting immigration petitioners and beneficiaries in a family-based immigration case to voluntarily take the DNA parentage test when primary documents such as birth certificate to prove biological relationship are missing or inadequate.

In the U.S., immigration applicants bear the responsibility of arranging and paying for DNA testing. The U.S. immigration authorities require that the DNA test, if pursued, be performed by one of the laboratories accredited by the AABB (formerly American Association of Blood Banks).

The U.S. Department of State[3] and USCIS[4] provide information concerning the DNA parentage test request for immigration purposes.

Although paternity tests are more common than maternity tests, there may be circumstances in which the biological mother of the child is unclear. Examples include cases of an adopted child attempting to reunify with his or her biological mother, potential hospital mix-ups, and in vitro fertilization where the laboratory may have implanted an unrelated embryo inside the mother.

Other factors such as new laws regarding reproductive technologies using donated eggs and sperm and surrogate mothers can mean that the female giving birth is not necessarily the legal mother of the child. For example, in Canada, the federal Human Assisted Reproduction Act provides for the use of hired surrogate mothers. The legal mother of the child may, in fact, be the egg donor. Similar laws are in place in the United Kingdom and Australia.

 

In the UK, there were no restrictions on paternity tests until the Human Tissue Act came into force in September 2006. Section 45 states that it is an offence to possess without appropriate consent any human bodily material with the intent of analyzing its DNA. Legally declared fathers have access to paternity testing services under the new regulations, provided the putative parental DNA being tested is their own.

Tests are sometimes ordered by courts when proof of paternity is required. In the UK, the Ministry of Justice accredits bodies which can conduct this testing. The Department of Health produced a voluntary code of practice on genetic paternity testing in 2001, this document is currently under review and responsibility for it has been transferred to the Human Tissue Authority.

If parental testing is being submitted for legal purposes in the U.S. including immigration, testing must be ordered through a lab that has AABB accreditation for Relationship DNA testing. All accredited labs are listed on the AABB's website.[5] In the state of New York, only legally admissible testing is allowed by law and requires either a physician prescription or court order, labs must also have NYSDOH accreditation.

 

 

So yeah.....no you can't do it on the sly. If you want the test so badly, you're going to have to ask rather than be chicken $4!t about it.

[Taramere]

Yuo. If women want their men to trust them they should be more trustworthy but they want to cheat on us left and right then get insulted when we qiestion it.

 

If someone's cheating on you, then it would make sense to end the relationship. If your position is that because some women cheat, it's justifiable to adopt a mistrustful attitude towards all women then that is up to you...but I hope you're not so hypocritical that you wouldn't be prepared to reap what you sow. To avoid yelping and complaiing when that mistrust is returned. To accept that if you hold any woman you're with accountable for the misdemeanours of other women, then you must likewise be prepared to pay the price for other men's misdeeds.

[carhill]

To accept that if you hold any woman you're with accountable for the misdemeanours of other women, then you must likewise be prepared to pay the price for other men's misdeeds.

 

That sounds fair. We covered that aspect in the spin-off thread.

 

The OP can still legally collect samples, as the legal father, of his own and the child's DNA for analysis and, if adverse, engage counsel to pursue the matter in the courts. His can of worms; his can-opener.

 

For anyone citing statute, let us not forget another clear case of reproductive statute, Roe v Wade, and what precipitated it. There were a lot of illegal actions going on for a very long time in the face of existing statute prior to that case. Sometimes, what is law and what is right are two very different things.

[sally4sara]

That sounds fair. We covered that aspect in the spin-off thread.

 

The OP can still legally collect samples, as the legal father, of his own and the child's DNA for analysis and, if adverse, engage counsel to pursue the matter in the courts. His can of worms; his can-opener.

 

For anyone citing statute, let us not forget another clear case of reproductive statute, Roe v Wade, and what precipitated it. There were a lot of illegal actions going on for a very long time in the face of existing statute prior to that case. Sometimes, what is law and what is right are two very different things.

 

The courts will only disregard non mandated tests and order one they legally recognize.

Any samples one uses to see if they should move to a more legitimate venue for their case, must be obtained after they've been disposed of entirely. You can't just go cutting at someone's child for a locket of hair.

 

Might as well just step up and state your concern to have the child DNA tested.

 

I find it pretty telling that someone who wishes to not be held accountable for their actions would immediately think to do the same in their methods to avoid that responsibility. If said test comes back saying the kid is related, they would again seek to not be held responsible for the attempt to avoid responsibility as well.

 

Ever seen the movie 'Idiocracy'?

"While the dumb people just kept breeding and breeding. The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections."

[BUENG1]

directly from wiki:

 

In the US, AABB regulates DNA paternity and family relationship testing industry. Only the DNA test results produced by an AABB-accredited laboratory [2] are legally admissible and accepted by government child support agencies, welfare benefits offices and immigration authorities such as USCIS and U. S. embassies overseas in a family-based immigration petition.

 

The DNA parentage test that follows strict chain of custody can generate legally admissible results that are used for child support, inheritance, social welfare benefits, immigration, or adoption purposes. To satisfy the chain-of-custody legal requirements, all tested parties have to be properly identified and their specimens collected by a third party professional who is not related to any of the tested parties and has no interest in the outcome of the test.

In recent years, immigration authorities in various countries such as U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, France and others have been requesting immigration petitioners and beneficiaries in a family-based immigration case to voluntarily take the DNA parentage test when primary documents such as birth certificate to prove biological relationship are missing or inadequate.

In the U.S., immigration applicants bear the responsibility of arranging and paying for DNA testing. The U.S. immigration authorities require that the DNA test, if pursued, be performed by one of the laboratories accredited by the AABB (formerly American Association of Blood Banks).

The U.S. Department of State[3] and USCIS[4] provide information concerning the DNA parentage test request for immigration purposes.

Although paternity tests are more common than maternity tests, there may be circumstances in which the biological mother of the child is unclear. Examples include cases of an adopted child attempting to reunify with his or her biological mother, potential hospital mix-ups, and in vitro fertilization where the laboratory may have implanted an unrelated embryo inside the mother.

Other factors such as new laws regarding reproductive technologies using donated eggs and sperm and surrogate mothers can mean that the female giving birth is not necessarily the legal mother of the child. For example, in Canada, the federal Human Assisted Reproduction Act provides for the use of hired surrogate mothers. The legal mother of the child may, in fact, be the egg donor. Similar laws are in place in the United Kingdom and Australia.

 

In the UK, there were no restrictions on paternity tests until the Human Tissue Act came into force in September 2006. Section 45 states that it is an offence to possess without appropriate consent any human bodily material with the intent of analyzing its DNA. Legally declared fathers have access to paternity testing services under the new regulations, provided the putative parental DNA being tested is their own.

Tests are sometimes ordered by courts when proof of paternity is required. In the UK, the Ministry of Justice accredits bodies which can conduct this testing. The Department of Health produced a voluntary code of practice on genetic paternity testing in 2001, this document is currently under review and responsibility for it has been transferred to the Human Tissue Authority.

If parental testing is being submitted for legal purposes in the U.S. including immigration, testing must be ordered through a lab that has AABB accreditation for Relationship DNA testing. All accredited labs are listed on the AABB's website.[5] In the state of New York, only legally admissible testing is allowed by law and requires either a physician prescription or court order, labs must also have NYSDOH accreditation.

 

 

So yeah.....no you can't do it on the sly. If you want the test so badly, you're going to have to ask rather than be chicken $4!t about it.

 

What in the link has anything to do with what I said? No you do not need the other parents permission to perform the test. Yes if you wish to use the results for a legal remedy you will have to use a test sanctioned by the court. If the results suggest you are father of course the test is irrelevant and is not useful in court. If otherwise then you get another test. Simple.

[sally4sara]

What in the link has anything to do with what I said? No you do not need the other parents permission to perform the test. Yes if you wish to use the results for a legal remedy you will have to use a test sanctioned by the court. If the results suggest you are father of course the test is irrelevant and is not useful in court. If otherwise then you get another test. Simple.

 

See above, you will find you.

[carhill]

You sound like a lawyer. I like lawyers. I retain one. He talks to other lawyers and judges for me. The OP will do what he wants to do. Like myself, he apparently is not worried about what is legal and didn't ask a legal question. Kinda sucks for lawyers and judges, but that's life. Rather, he asked whether his collection would be considered insulting. Generally, it seems, by the preponderance of opinion, it would be. That's good information.

[threebyfate]

I've shifted to the opinion that men who feel strongly about this, should go ahead and do it. If consequences happen, whereby your relationship/marriage implodes, you have no one to blame but yourselves. For certain, if and when some of you men do it, I don't want to hear the whining on LS, about how she done you wrong!

[sweetjasmine]

Yuo. If women want their men to trust them they should be more trustworthy but they want to cheat on us left and right then get insulted when we qiestion it.

 

Yeah, you should definitely hold your partner accountable for the fact that OTHER people cheat.

 

Good luck having a healthy, stable relationship with another person while completely mistrusting them and hating their entire gender, guys!

[sweetjasmine]

I've shifted to the opinion that men who feel strongly about this, should go ahead and do it. If consequences happen, whereby your relationship/marriage implodes, you have no one to blame but yourselves. For certain, if and when some of you men do it, I don't want to hear the whining on LS, about how she done you wrong!

 

Well, TBF, if every single woman weren't a cheater, this wouldn't be necessary, now, would it?

[threebyfate]

Well, TBF, if every single woman weren't a cheater, this wouldn't be necessary, now, would it?

Ha...I'm guessing that these guys will "catch" very few progeny, who aren't theirs. What I am guessing is that more relationships/marriages will implode, than "catching" children fathered by someone else, unless these guys are in relationships/marriages with Jerry Springer type women. If so, time to do some self-evaluation about why you would be attracted to the lowest common denominator of women.

[carhill]

More precisely, each party is soley responsible for their actions and reactions. If the OP's overriding emotional perspective is one of health, then the 'implosion' of the relationship is a necessary part of and/or result of that health. It's up to him to decide for himself if such a perspective is indeed healthy. He and his intended evidently would not be compatible in an important area, that regarding childbearing and parenting. It would be similar in effect to having differing philosophies of reproductive autonomy. If he were pro-life and she pro-choice, she could and likely would consider her right to choose to supersede his right to 'be a father' and, theoretically, he could be insulted by this perspective and choose to end the relationship. He would be responsible for his choice and she hers. No prejudice.

 

For the record, I do not align personally with the OP's philosophy but do find the dynamic intriguing. I hope it works out for him

[threebyfate]

A healthy relationship/marriage is one based on trust and respect, with a few safety nets.

 

If a paternity test is necessary, whereby it's done post-birth, it's neither a gesture of trust or respect to your SO.

 

If it's introduced in a businesslike manner, through a prenup that's discussed as early on as possible, it's a way to alleviate your insecurities, as well as expectation manage.

[sweetjasmine]

More precisely, each party is soley responsible for their actions and reactions. If the OP's overriding emotional perspective is one of health, then the 'implosion' of the relationship is a necessary part of and/or result of that health. It's up to him to decide for himself if such a perspective is indeed healthy. He and his intended evidently would not be compatible in an important area, that regarding childbearing and parenting. It would be similar in effect to having differing philosophies of reproductive autonomy. If he were pro-life and she pro-choice, she could and likely would consider her right to choose to supersede his right to 'be a father' and, theoretically, he could be insulted by this perspective and choose to end the relationship. He would be responsible for his choice and she hers. No prejudice.

 

For the record, I do not align personally with the OP's philosophy but do find the dynamic intriguing. I hope it works out for him

 

I agree. If it's important to him (or to anyone else who is getting into a relationship with a woman who could potentially get pregnant), it's up to him to make his own decisions. But OP asked for other people's opinions, and he got them. If he feels strongly about the issue and won't change his mind, he's well within his rights, and it's none of our business.

 

That being said, I don't think it's out of line to point out that demanding a paternity test when you don't suspect cheating is likely to hurt your partner and that your partner is likely to see it as a sign that you don't trust them.

[Woggle]

Will the women here at least condemn those women who do betray a man's trust and make it hard for the women who are honest? I will condemn men that cheat and betray a woman's trust which makes it hard for honest men? Will women do the same for dishonest women.

[carhill]

If it's introduced in a businesslike manner, through a prenup that's discussed as early on as possible, it's a way to alleviate your insecurities, as well as expectation manage.

 

This seems to align with the OP's philosophy, since he has apparently broached the subject early-on and is soliciting opinion here. He may change his mind or he may not. When his age, I would not have given such matters consideration, so perhaps that speaks to the changes evidenced over the last couple generations. Is it a field of dreams? Unknown. Technology and ethics is an evolution all its own

[threebyfate]

This seems to align with the OP's philosophy, since he has apparently broached the subject early-on and is soliciting opinion here. He may change his mind or he may not. When his age, I would not have given such matters consideration, so perhaps that speaks to the changes evidenced over the last couple generations. Is it a field of dreams? Unknown. Technology and ethics is an evolution all its own

I read that he did intro this into his relationship, but haven't really read how and where he posted this. For certain, he slammed me for suggesting that it be intro'ed early on, in the dating process, so no, our philosophies don't mesh.

[marsle85]

Should everyone go on the Maury show as a matter of policy?

 

hahahhahaha. You're funny.

 

 

No way! If a guy I was dating seriously (who had never suspected me of cheating) asked for a paternity test. I would -flip- out. Because clearly there are some underlying trust issues there, or why else would he need a test?

[Taramere]

Will the women here at least condemn those women who do betray a man's trust and make it hard for the women who are honest? I will condemn men that cheat and betray a woman's trust which makes it hard for honest men? Will women do the same for dishonest women.

 

Yes, I would be critical of either a woman or a man who cheated on their partner. I've been cheated on, I know what a painful thing it is...and of course it makes it harder to trust. Especially when the person who did it is trying to assuage their own guilt by telling you cheating on their partners is something that all men do. That any man you get involved with in the future will do the same thing.

 

People who not only cheat on their partners, but do all they can to make the wound it inflicts last as long as possible, completely suck. It's not just to paint every other person with their sh*ttiness, though, and my feeling is that I owe it to others to give them the benefit of the doubt rather than pre-judging them with reference to someone from the past. People should be judged on their own merits.

[Stung]

Will the women here at least condemn those women who do betray a man's trust and make it hard for the women who are honest? I will condemn men that cheat and betray a woman's trust which makes it hard for honest men? Will women do the same for dishonest women.

 

Come on Woggle, of course we condemn the women who cheat, and particularly women who cheat and also lie about the paternity of a child. It's reprehensible and abhorrent and that's obviously why the rest of us would take offense at our trusted romantic partner thinking we were capable of such behavior; if it was no big deal, why would we find it insulting? It's widely considered low and despicable by men and women of honor alike, which is why it would be difficult not to take personally if falsely accused of such a thing.

[sally4sara]

Will the women here at least condemn those women who do betray a man's trust and make it hard for the women who are honest? I will condemn men that cheat and betray a woman's trust which makes it hard for honest men? Will women do the same for dishonest women.

 

Condemn them to where or what woggle?

 

About the best we can each do is not entertain certain people as confidants or relationship partners.

 

Like I've said before when you've asked for some pointless grandiose declaration; Can't I just say I don't like a$$4oles in all their variety?