All cases that involve separation should go with a DNA for any progeny involved. This is a usual situation running at 40%

579, I don't have the figures at hand but my recollection is that one WA based study into paternity found something like 25% of cases where tests were done the father wasn't the nominated father.

That unfortunately has been touted by some as indicating that 25% (or more) of kid's are not the children of the nominated father. In reality it was for kid's where the dad chose to have the paternity tested, an emotionally difficult, legally awkward and at the time expensive process.

Much of that debate occurred during a period where there was a proposal being pushed that paternity testing could only occur with the consent of both nominated parents or with a court order. Part of the justification was that the mothers privacy was being breached if the nominated father discovered that he wasn't the biological father and from memory because part of the DNA belonged to the mother it was theft if she didn't consent.

I don't know if there are easy answers. Clearly some people would rather not know if the kid's they think are their offspring are not so, mandatory testing has hassles. Likewise a father seeking paternity testing is providing a bitter ex with a great tool to use against him with the kid's if he's wrong.

R0bert

That is a case of lying, and fraud. There's a case now where the woman has to pay back $ 13,000. The alleged father got a sample from one of his alleged sons and had it tested. He was paying something like $ 700 / mth to her. That is fraud.

Antiseptic,

I disagree that you have tried to fit too much into your opening post.

I happen to have had no exposure to this area of the law, yet your explanation of this legislative change, and its implications, seems perfectly clear to me.

I am only posting to draw to viewers' attention that the effective immunity granted for perjury, and the consequent effective encouragement thereto that you have exposed, was once, if not still, a feature of workers' compensation hearings. That immunity for perjury meant that bogus claims for lump sum settlements could be made with no downside risk on the part of the claimant. All a claimant caught out in a lie had to say was: "Well, it was worth a try, Your Honour". There was no penalty for having provably attempted to rip the system off.

That immunity for perjury may in large measure account for workers' compensation schemes having been effectively sent broke, to the detriment of remaining employers and employees.

"disgusted of Brisbane", with her comment of "Why were comments even turned on for this article?" highlights the fact that the MSM exercises selectivity with respect to the feedback it allows itself, and those favoured in the use thereof, thus in turn explaining why major political parties are finding themselves increasingly right out of touch with the general public.

I saw a similar thing happen yesterday in respect to Julie Bishop's call for studies in an Asian language to be made compulsory for all school students. Here's twitter userID 'GrogsGamut' s observation on the feedback, as if it was in some way a surprise: http://twitter.com/#!/GrogsGamut/status/140658101446643712

A seeming contempt for the fact that significant numbers of people may have a different view, coupled with a desire to shut down discussion if those different views gain expression. Much as used to be attempted not so long ago by some on OLO no longer present.

579, a very ugly form of fraud given the emotional loadings around biological parenting. Unfortunately when it comes to family law there seems to be a fairly wide spread acceptance of fraud and lies.

Not a situation I've been in but for some it's devestating to find that they have spent their lives raising and funding someone elses kid's beliving that they were their own. That does not necessarily devalue the bonds that have been formed with those children but for many the genetic part is very important and to be robbed of it by lies is beyond contempt.

R0bert

Forrest, thanks for that comment, I hadn't considered the old compo laws, but I can recall how it worked.

I think we can expect a great deal more of this sort of thing around gender issues from the Emily's List/Greens Coalition. If one is determined to create outcomes that contradict the facts, then there are two ways to proceed - either spend a great deal of effort on changing the circumstances that create the facts that are inconvenient, or simply tell lies and pretend the facts don't matter.

Feminists have consistently chosen the latter path, so it's hardly surprising they would want to enshrine that ability in as many laws as possible.

There's no coincidence that Gillard is known widely as Juliar - she was a founding member of Emily's List, too.

On the issue of Asian languages, I agree with Bishop. Both of my kids study Japanese, as did I as a child, but didn't continue with it, foolishly. They will be well placed to take part in the Asian Century, I hope.