Returning to the discussion of ethics and this was a well conceived article, it will be interesting to see what take-up there will be of pre-natal and post-natal DNA tests. The tests will be conducted for other purposes in any event and time will make them cheaper.

At present a man is deemed to be the father because a couple were or had lived together and entry of the man's name on the birth certificate by either in the (hopeful) belief that the paternity is correct can and does result in unreliable birth records.

This has consequences for the exactness of State records and affects the ability to trace back later, for example in the event that health problems are identified.

From an ethical point of view, a child has a right to know his/her ancestry and it is of crucial interest to their treating doctors. Lack of knowledge of prior family history of conditions can threaten the life of the child. For example, a father's predisposition towards bowel cancer or diabetes.

No one out there has all the sad, sordid, bizarre, cruel & horrid details about the Magill case. Why would they . They have never been told. The opinions from everyone are based on what they have read.
In the meantime, we will now work very hard to try and bring about legislative changes that will hopefully stop this pain and suffering.
Cheryl King
www.PaternityFraudAustralia.com.au

What effect has 'no fault' divorce - no obligation at law on keeping covenants, moral agreements etc? Was it not forseen that if one makes infidelity an issue with few legal sanctions or religious sanctions, more people may choose to do it?

When might the human race comprehend that sex can = a child being created?

Unless one undertakes a pre-sex contract for future responsibility, and is required to give a DNA sample prior to a sex act from which a child might ensue, men and women will continue to have sex without too much concern for the potential 'consequences'. Contraception and safe sex ought to be an issue for both parties. Married or not. Every time.

Women are still going to carry each child. Men don't ever have to do that, so miss both the joy and the agony, or fully comprehend the bond with the child that can be created during pregnancy. Not always, of course, and not a challenge to real bondsof dads who are involved, present and also filled with fierce determination to put this child's best interest before theirs.

The question of DNA testing of a child is easy when the mother and child are known, but if the father has 'left the scene' for whatever reason. Any father could ask for a dna test at birth, just factor in the extra cost - financial and emotional on the outcome. The price of suspicion might be high. The whole issue could be determined by contract and agreement BEFORE a child is conceived? IE 'Yes, lets have a child, and I want DNA testing done at birth'. Or not.

Another issue is child support. Who is responsible for the economic maintenance of a child where one of, or neither of the parties wanted to be a parent?

There's always abortion, to end an unwanted pregnancy, but that choice is also driven by the opinions of others, the moral rights and wrongs, the rights of the child.

Why do people take more care over buying a dog that creating a child.

What woman wouldn't blister the paint off the hospital walls if she was accidentally given the wrong infant to change or nurse? It would be front page news nationally. So at least for women the community regards mothering as seriously important and identification of the correct child to nurture as absolutely essential.

Yet when there is talk at the hairdresser's, or in the media, about fathers not being told about their progeny, or being hoodwinked into believing that the child conceived with the day labourer was theirs, there is that well-knowing shrug of the shoulders as though ALL women have always been complicit in and needed, such fraud.

Then there is the feminist view: who cares who as long as some man pays? The feminists have no interest in children or families and use the presumed ‘good of the child’ as an easy rationalisation for fraud, or rough justice.

Now why isn't the same standard applied to men and fathering as it is to women and mothering? What evidence is there that fathers care less about their offspring? Are we saying that the father's bond is lesser and probably doesn't matter? Or that fathering is unimportant? Do men feel the pain of separation from their offspring any less than women and if so how is it quantified?

To agree with that line of thinking would be disgrace my own father and diminish the role he played in my life. It would also say something awful about my ethics and life choices.

We demand that men accept a greater role in the home but we are party to laws and customs that exclude and alienate men from bonding with the child and fulfilling their fathering role. It is not adequate to allege that a few men might avoid their responsibilities, because statistics of child neglect show that some women do the same and probably to worse effect.

I can see why men are outraged by the double standards that apply and are embedded in discriminatory government regulations and procedures. It is time for a change.

Once again we have a situation where a minority are influencing the laws being created for the majority. Lies, deception and fraud comming from either sex is not the common rule of human relationships. Supporting either sex perpetrating such ugliness for the sake of social or sexual politics is low. Women aren't wombs and men aren't wallets and the laws should reflect that understanding and not pit one sex against another in some twisted sexist deathmatch of winner take all. It really shouldn't be difficult for the courts to realize right actions from wrong and that our morals and values should relect in our legal decisions.

Whilst the judiciary might like to think they are appointed to “hold court over us”, they maybe need reminding that they are, in fact, not-withstanding the permanency of their tenure, really their to “hold court for us”. The difference, is subtle but profound.

“Holding court for us” reflects the public responsibility which judges have to conform with public perceptions of morality, as well as the law and when the two conflict, exercise prudence to resolve such conflicts. The sort of “Prudence” which was absent from the decision which inspired this article / thread.

In this case, as in too many issues which should be straight forward, political correctness and whatever it is which makes judges think they are indebted to the will of one gender, at the expense of the other, has prevailed.

The last time I looked, regardless of the consequences, honesty was considered a prevailing virtue. The actions of the woman in this matter were contemptibly dishonest and reprehensible. Any competent judge should be able to see this as plain as the wig on his head, maybe there in lies the problem, “competency”.

One solution which might help remedy a dire situation would be to make judges accountable to the public through direct election, as our American cousins choose, rather than a job for life.

Maybe another solution would be to cast the net beyond the realm of lawyers, lets face it, a good legal mind has nothing to do with ethicacy or morality. The best and most moral of judges might be, in our adversarial system, useless as a trial lawyer who is valued for excellence in the manipulation, conniving and contrivance of the interpretation of the law to the detriment of the meaning and spirit of the law.