With so many men apparently plausibly claiming to be the father and so little treatment of the subject of women deceiving men about the paternity of their children, interested as I always am by the double-standards applied to men and women – I would like to know why a man deceiving a woman about having an affair is regarded as an unforgivable crime but a woman deceiving a man about not only having an affair but the much more profound matter of the paternity of ‘their’ child is a non-issue?

Since when was that a non-issue?

About two months ago this issue received a lot of publicity connected with the legality of Child Support garnishing when several fathers found out they werent actually the father of the children they were and had been paying child support for and the airwaves were full of commentators, I saw at least 3 (who were all women) saying that men shouldnt worry about it - they are still their children...ie 'it's a non-issue'.

I know that there will always be widely varying views in individuals - I am primarily concerned with 'the general overview reflected in the media' and in this case there was an incredibly strong media push to have the above view accepted, on at least 2 of these occasions there was no-one recruited to put an opposite view.

Fair enough.

I don't think it's a particularly widespread problem though. And if it was, unfortunately there'd be no way to guage, save for DNA testing every father and child.

Personally I think any woman prepared to lie about who the father of their child is, is probably not responsible enough to have a child in the first place....

People suck.

Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 15 February 2007 11:09:28 AM
"I don't think it's a particularly widespread problem though."

This may be an urban myth since I have never seen a decent reference for it - though I havent really looked for one - but there is a story going around that some type of DNA study in the UK had to be abandoned because they found an incidence of about 20% of non-father paternity and they could not continue with the study without making that information becoming available. It is also consistent with what is known about animal behaviour - you know all those birds we were told 'mate for life', well since DNA testing has been developed they have discovered that while the cat's away, the mice indeed do play.

"And if it was, unfortunately there'd be no way to guage, save for DNA testing every father and child."

A randomized sample would be fine.

"People suck."
Yeah, but then they blow - the room fills with smoke and I guess it doesnt matter anyway but I just wish they would treat both sexes the same.

Rob the stuff I've seen suggests that around 30%+ of those who get paternity testing done because they were suspicious about the childs paternity find that they are not the father. You would expect the rates to be high in those cases.

I've seen estimates (I don't remember where) that suggested 10% would be about the norm but I've not seen any evidence that serious work has been done on the issue.

The Australian Law Reform Commission had a proposal before the government to make paternity testing illegal without either a court order or the consent of the mother (their wording may be different). I exchanged a couple of emails with them on this topic and the issue seemed to be the mothers privacy - if she'd been having an affair a paternity test could breach her privacy. The same mob favour massive financial disclosure during divorce proceedings, I never worked that logic out.

I doubt it is as big an issue as some believe but it appears to be very big for those on the wrong end of it, the children and "fathers" deceived.

R0bert

Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:49:26 PM
"I exchanged a couple of emails with them on this topic and the issue seemed to be the mothers privacy - if she'd been having an affair a paternity test could breach her privacy."

Yeah, this 'post-feminist' culture only seem to care about effects on women - men can simply rot in hell. Strangely, women seem to feel they have the right to have their husbands followed by PI's if they are suspicious but of course that wouldnt be an invasion of privacy would it? And I am sure that very few women would feel that they DONT have the right to know if their husband is having an affair. Give me a standard and make that a double.

The best interests of the child, trump all other concepts of justice to the extent that governments knowingly and willingly, assist in such fraud by actively rewarding misbehaviour and routinely punishing innocence. No-fault pregnancy is a logical extension to the no-fault divorce.

Don't get married.

Seeker:

Couldn't agree with you more.

A friend of mine was "accused" of being the father of a child and was pursued by the Tax Office and Child Support Agency. Faced with a lifetime bill for support of this child, he managed to get the child and himself DNA tested (of course with the agreement of the mother).

Guess what? He wasn't the father ! Did she admit to sleeping around? Not at first, but when presented the facts she admitted to another liaison.

however, she would have been happy for him to pay for child support for a child that wasn't his ! Mmmmm what goes on on in some women's brains?

I know not.

Ok... I'll step out of the square into adventure land...

Think about this:

-the 'Heir' dies mysteriously in the Bahama's...
-Now the Mother dies.....

Who benefits. ? the real father.

Hmmm I smell motive here..... *goes back to watching Colombo re-runs*

FU2, your friend was lucky.

“A self-reporting national poll of 5,000 women in Scotland conducted in 2004 concluded that half of the women said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father.[11]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud

It amazes me that anyone would feel it is justified to stop a man testing 'his own child' for paternity - does anyone know the Australian law on this subject? If men do not have this right in Australia it really shows the power of the neo-feminist lobby in this country.

Rob, I'm not sure what has happened to the law but a document on the ALRC website is worth a read http://www.alrc.gov.au/media/2003/bn290503-5.htm

The key recommendations are

- In common with the general thrust of the report, the dignity and autonomy of human beings requires that non-consensual DNA parentage testing should be prohibited, unless there is a court order or other lawful authority.

- DNA parentage testing only should be conducted by laboratories accredited for this purpose by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA). Further, NATA should review its accreditation requirements for DNA parentage testing to ensure that they meet the highest technical and ethical standards, particularly in relation to consent to testing, protecting the integrity of genetic samples, and providing information about counselling.

- The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) should be empowered to regulate access to home use or 'DIY' parentage testing kits, having regard to both technical/quality control considerations and the personal sensitivity of such tests—especially in the absence of counselling.

- DNA parentage testing involving children under 12 should be allowed only with the written consent of both parents, or pursuant to a court order. This rule also should apply to children 12-18 years of age who lack sufficient maturity to make a free and informed decision about testing.

- DNA parentage testing involving children of 12-18 years who are sufficiently mature to make a free and informed decision should be permitted only with the consent of the child, or pursuant to a court order.

- The results of DNA parentage testing should not be admissible in any legal proceedings in Australia unless the testing complies with the laws and regulations described above. This would reinforce existing evidence law, which discourages the admission of improperly obtained evidence, and also would serve to deter individuals from resorting to non-accredited testing by limiting the use to which such unauthorised test results may be put.

R0bert

Thanks for that ref, as I said, "it really shows the power of the neo-feminist lobby in this country." Yeah, and now for 'mutual consent to allow a PI to follow your cheating husband' - I dont think they will be arguing for that (although it is clearly a much greater breach of privacy) because this is a right that "women want". That seems to be the only thing of concern now, they smokescreen it with a lot of other issues but the lack of consistency on the 'privacy' criterion juxtaposed with the remarkable consistency with the 'what women want' criterion shows that this is what is really behind such legislation.

It is enough to make a man want to emigrate or at least not have children with any Australian women, hey! isnt that what a lot of men are doing? Neo-feminists are cooking their own geese - they complain that men wont commit but no-one with any sense would commit to a relationship where they are open to such unprotected abuse. Under this law a woman could claim that James Packer was the father then, denying permission for a paternity test, hook into millions of dollars a year in child support.

I think women should be opposing these changes because if they get this legislation through they you will find it even more difficult to get a man to commit.