<<benefits withheld from the mother
until the paternity of the father is established.>>

that seems a step too far
mothers need love and support...[or else the kid cops it]

govt claims kids belong to them/as we registered them with govt
[see freemen don't need register..but slaves do...ITS HARD ENOUGH BELONGIN G TO A MAN..let alone a state demanding you explain/then checking up on whether you lied to govt or not.

its reported that jesus was raised by his step father
[many of our leaders were raised by single mothers]
we have a father[god]..we have parents/usually mum and dad/regardless of whom the sperm drone was

he abandoned his claim of right
the supplier of sperm should have no rights..[they abandoned ship]
and the one who claimed salvage rights has the parental duty..now..

they put a ring on it

[let him who GAINS ADVANTAGE PRESUME TO OWE THE DEBT..[not any power to abuse]..

ITS NOT GOVTS KID..ITS A CHILD OF GOD..and GOVT PAYS on gods behalf..

there was an important point..to be made.but its gone
THE REAL QUESTION IS...DO YOU KNOW YOUR TRUE FATHER.
YOUR HERE TO SHARE HIS GLORY.

From a newspaper report of the Magill case mentioned by eyeinthesky,

<LIAM MAGILL has discovered one of the few places the law just won't go - infidelity - and some kinds of justice it just cannot deliver.

Soon after he married Meredith Magill in 1989, she bore him a son, and soon after that, she took a long-term, secret lover.

Unknown to Mr Magill, it was a productive affair. The second son and daughter he thought were his, in fact were the offspring of his wife and her lover.
..
The decision was overturned in the Court of Appeal last year, and yesterday the original decision was unanimously dismissed by six High Court judges. Three judges found there could be no legal action for deceit about paternity between spouses, while three said there could, but only in exceptional cases, and this was not one.

All six said the law could not provide Mr Magill with the moral justice he sought. There could be no duty to disclose infidelity.>

tbc..

contd.,

<Justice Ken Hayne said: "The law cannot satisfactorily prescribe how a relationship that depends entirely upon matters wholly personal and private to the parties to it is to be maintained. The trust and confidence between marriage partners is based in much more than considerations of sexual fidelity."

The Chief Justice, Murray Gleeson, said Parliament had legislated the policy of protecting and preserving the institution of marriage, and imposing a legal duty to disclose infidelity would, "in the practical circumstances of many cases", go against that policy. Nor would he impose a duty to give an assurance of paternity.

Justice Gleeson said: "Few husbands expect, or seek, from their wives, assurances of paternity. Such assurances, if volunteered, would often raise, rather than resolve suspicions."

Three judges - William Gummow, Michael Kirby and Susan Crennan - jointly said fault was no longer relevant in divorces, and the child support scheme allowed for the recovery of money wrongly paid. They said infidelity should be left "to the morality of the spouses".

The judgements should leave no doubt about the High Court's view. Answers to quarrels such as these are not to be found in the blame of the common law, but in the no-fault procedures set up under the Family Law Act.

Mr Magill's lawyer, Vivien Mavropoulos, said the case had highlighted fundamental social issues in Australia. "They are the importance of truth in relationships and marriage, a child's identity and heritage, parentage and the responsibilities that go with that and a person's blood line, health issues and medical history," she said.>

I wonder how many married people would agree with the learned judges' views on the meaning of marriage? Not the relevance of the Family Law Act, but the fundamental duties and contract of marriage. What about this for instance,

<Justice Gleeson said: "Few husbands expect, or seek, from their wives, assurances of paternity. Such assurances, if volunteered, would often raise, rather than resolve suspicions.">

http://tinyurl.com/nm5k3qp

How many wives would believe that their husband's infidelity and children sired outside marriage are mere trifles and they would rather not know?

OTB, it's my impression that the high rates mentioned earlier are where paternity was already in doubt. Eg the nominal father was concerned enough about paternity that he sought a paternity test.

Not an area I've looked at recently. Some years back I got a little focussed when the Australian Law Reform Commission was seeking to have paternity testing made illegal without the consent of the other party or a court order. I exchanged some emails with them and one of the points they were concerned with was that paternity testing without the mothers consent violated her privacy if she had been having an affair.

I was struggling with the idea that someone who had been cheating within a relationship would consent to a paternity test and the potential for attempts to get a paternity test to be used as a weapon to isolate kids from the person seeking the paternity test. I get the impression that change to the law was not made.

Some general comment on the topic of paternity testing from the ALRC at http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/35-parentage-testing/social-consequences-parentage-testing

Some of their concerns are valid but don't seem to come into consideration when other aspects of family law are considered.

R0bert

RObert,

After reading the learned judges' reasons for decision I was left wondering if the public agreed with the concept of marriage that has been moulded by a law change long ago that was only aimed at simplifying divorce.

Doubtless as far as the law stands the judges would have got their interpretation of the available law right. They are paid to so so and others among them should criticise if not. However, is that what was intended by Family Law and is there public agreement? There is no statement of intent to accompany a law, nor is there any routine review apart from the occasional comment by an annoyed judge.

Has the law run ahead of the public?

Were there unexpected negative consequences that would cause angst with the public?

I am hoping that this thread might move away from the usual taking of sides to talk about the meaning for fatherhood, marriage and I guess, what worth is a marriage contract.

What consensus is there on marriage, fathers too, and does the law recognise and provide for that?

Generally,
My birth certificate discloses no father.
Does that mean I was an immaculate conception?
Seriously I, like some 100,000+ kids born between 1940 and 1944, obviously had an American serviceman for a father.
My mothers husband was locked up in Changi POW camp for the duration and I was born in the middle of it so he couldn't have been my father.
Who cares?
If the 'pill' had of been around then UI wouldn't be here today.