Instead of mandatory DNA testing at birth, why not just make it compulsory for where parentage is disputed for child support. Mother can refuse if she wants, but cant then claim child support from disputed dad. Fair to dad, fair to mum, and doesnt rock the boat unnecessarily (eg child may have been extra-marital, but mum and dad never split up so not contested). The issues with making it compulsory at birth are:
- big brother
- unnecessary grief (and could cause relationship breakup - generally not in best interests of anyone)
- inequality - mum's fidelity can be tested, but not dad's.

I agree that people having to support children that they didnt contribute their DNA to can be an issue. But it shouldnt be if they have a father-child relationship. Eg adoptive parents are just as loving as "real" parents. You dont have to have the same DNA to be a family, and I think that it the point that is being missed here.

Its thorny, I know and I believe at the moment is unfairly swayed towards women. That said, I have been on the receiving end of allegations from my husband that the kids arent "his", including a drunken request for DNA testing. There is no question that they would match (even if he wont take my word for it, our daughter in particular is strikingly similar to his sister), but its just annoying to have to deal with allegations at all. If it came down to a crunch, I wouldnt agree to have them tested (I dont need his money anyway).

"In fact, they were largely designed to solve a more pressing political problem: the
spiralling cost to taxpayers of single-parent pensions."

sounds good but totally false

the LOP [Little Ozzie Pension] has not been effected by child support since 1993 - like 15 years ago my friend

it then morhed to Parenting Payment in 1999 and Costello killed it last year and it is now "Enhanced Newstart"

it would be good if people actually got facts before pathos

Country Gal, I pretty much agreed with the last post except for the following "inequality - mum's fidelity can be tested, but not dad's"

If dads been silly enough to stray and start kids with someone else he may well cop a child support bill with no protection from a partner finding out. Mum and dad's fidelity are both testable if there is a pregnancy.

On the broader topic

Perhaps the mid way point in this is to only issue child support assessments where paternity is established or where the "parents" have clearly and specifically accepted parental responsibility knowing the paternity of the child. If not across the board DNA testing before C$A assessments then at least a binding statement of paternity by the mother as part of the initial assessment process.

Acceptance of a committment made under false pretenses should not be binding. If the relationship is not biological or was not established based on truth then it should not be the place of a government department to allocate financial responsibility. An individual who has such a relationship may choose to provide support but it's not up to the government to decide.

R0bert

country gal said:

"Instead of mandatory DNA testing at birth, why not just make it compulsory for where parentage is disputed for child support. Mother can refuse if she wants"

So you are one of the 99.9% that get taken in by the hype & spin, but would not simply read the Act to know the truth. and it was for that very reason that Howard got his Cash for Comment freaks to PIRATE my book A Blokes Guide to Family Law, in the lead up to the election.

So the web is awash with pirated copies and please just read from 6.34.6 to understand what Howard did not WANT you to understand when he had his Henchman Prof Parkinson bleed to the Telegraph

"Professor Patrick Parkinson, a family law expert at Sydney
University, has raised concerns about the ethics of DNA tests
without parental consent."

the trick is the FLAct says

s 69Z(2) The procedure or act must not be carried out in relation to the
child under the order without the consent of:
(a) a parent of the child; or

now the bloke IS a [legally assumed] parent at that point of the legal
process, or he would not be in court in the first place

so he gets order for DNA, almost automatically, simply by asking

it's all KISS as long as you keep away from spin and blood sucking lawyers

Here is something about the exploitation, deception and prevalence among many women (at least in the US) on this subject that I have posted a couple of times:

--=-=
http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-truly-believe-men-need-to-be-wary-of.html

My guest today on my radio show was Carnell Smith, an expert on paternity fraud. He claimed that 30% of men who went to blood banks for paternity tests found that they were not--as the child's mother claimed--the father. Smith went on to say that in most states, DNA evidence, in many cases, is inadmissible. He estimated that, currently, one million men are paying child support for kids they did not father.

Of course, it's outrageous that 30 states would enact such unfair-to-men laws. But why would a woman falsely claim that a man is the father of her child when he isn't, thereby forcing him to unfairly pay many thousands of dollars in child support, and manipulate him into spending 18 years involved in raising a child he didn't father? Smith says that these are the major reasons:
-- He had the deepest pockets among the men she slept with
-- She was trying to chain him to the relationship
-- She thought he'd make the best father
-- She was trying to lash out at the man"

CountryGal > "but its just annoying to have to deal with allegations at all"

Priceless. Whining about something so trivial....

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2008/03/tracy-brooks--1.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004291649_false19e.html