Huffington Post author upset that paternity fraud is being dealt with

[Marx]

As someone who practices family law, I do see a faint glimmer here of how this could be viewed as a practical idea. Concerns over paternity, especially as they relate to clarifying who is responsible for paying child support, are issues I deal with every day.

However, assuming that you can't trust any New Jersey mom to be honest about (or worse, to know!) who fathered her child seems like a giant step backwards, not to mention insulting. In my experience, paternity issues affect a minority of families, not the majority.

As for the non-biological father, he gets the dubious pleasure of knowing he's been cheated twice over -- cheated financially out of money he paid to raise a child for whom he's not responsible, and cheated emotionally of his status as a loving father. As for the child, I can't imagine that it's anything but painful to learn that "Dad" isn't your father -- especially once you're old enough to realize that Mom may have been hiding his "real" identity. And Mom herself? She gets to have her character called into question because she either didn't know or didn't say who her baby-daddy was.

Bari Zell Weinberger, Esq.: Who's Your Daddy? Paternity Testing and the Nature of Fatherhood

I wrote:

Why am I not surprised to see a woman legal eagle using misandry and hypocrisy as the meat of her article? You talk of the insult to women that some can't be trusted, yet you happily turn a blind eye to legal practices that assume men abusers and women as victims while female abusers systematically get lenient treatment. As you worded it, it's the minority of men - not the majority.

What you may not realise is that of those who investigate, 1 in 3 men find themselves the victim of paternity fraud. On random samples taken it's 14% of men bringing up a child they haven't sired. Yet your only 'glimmer of hope' is to see other men paying for a woman's lies. How nice.

You seem upset that a father should know his wife (or soon to be ex) has been sleeping around, implying it is wrong he knows... Why? It's wrong that it's happened, which is HER fault, not his. She lied, she should pay. He has every right to know what animal he has been deceived by. Sleeping with someone else is one thing, but deceiving someone into investing a life-time of love and commitment - that is something quite, quite different.

Other responses:

Nice attempt at some emotional slight of hand by the author. fact of the matter is, a woman's feelings on this matter are aboutas relevant as a man's are when it comes to abortion. If a man, for whatever reason, doesn't want the paternity test done then yes he should be able to decline it.

But this whole "it's insulting to women!" Bit? Tough. If you aren't cheating, then you have nothing to worry about. But I feel that men have a right to know (if it matters to them, that is) that the kids they're raising are really theirs. If nothing else, do it for proper medical histories

I think the law is a great idea and it should be implemented nationwide. There really is no excuse to not inform men their paternity considering our society expects them to support these children for 18 years. We need not work to protect the dishonest or concern ourselves with the consequences of them being caught cheating. If anything laws like this should encourage more honesty since lying won't seem like a viable option.

Who would win? Any man that doesn't wish to be cuckold. Who would lose? Women that want to deceive a man into raising her child because she thinks he's more likely to provide larger sums of cash than the real father.
Of course all parents aren't biological parents. Going into that situation, such as using a sperm donor or adoption, with your eyes open is great. This bill would merely prevent women from defrauding men into raising the children of the pool boy.

Many more at the link above.

[Percy]

Our voices are getting louder and more numerous.

[Douglas]

However, assuming that you can't trust any New Jersey mom to be honest about (or worse, to know!) who fathered her child seems like a giant step backwards, not to mention insulting. In my experience, paternity issues affect a minority of families, not the majority.

What an incredibly stupid position for anyone to take! The issue is not about whether any New Jersey mom can be trusted, it is about whether every New Jersey mom can be trusted.

We can certainly hope that paternity issues do indeed affect a minority of families, not the majority. Just as we can hope that most people don't drink & drive; most people are honest at work; and most parents don't abuse children.

Requirements upon us all are not there because the majority are bad, they are there because a minority are bad.

On random samples taken it's 14% of men bringing up a child they haven't sired.

I have to correct you on this. During a genetic study with volunteer adult subjects and the two people they named as genetic parents, it was discovered that 1 in 7 (14%) were not related to the man they named. The study was on a genetic illness, not directly connected with paternity. Volunteers all knew that all information was confidential but there was also no coercion or incentive to take part, so women could easily stop the process of genetic examination by declining to take part, as could fathers who knew themselves not to be the genetic father even if the child was unaware.

(Incidentally, the incidence of the mother not being the genetic parent was not zero, as might be expected. I don't recall exactly but it was something like one in 2,000 (0.05%) women named as the genetic mother were unrelated; in these cases, the father was also always unrelated. The best guess I have on this is hospital mix-ups.)

It is possible that some of the men did know they were not the father but still took part. It is possible that some of the women knew the father was not the genetic father but still took part. More likely, men who knowingly had deceived a child would refuse and women who knew they had cuckolded a man would refuse. Subjects who had learnt that either parent was not their genetic parent would have no reason to lie or progress with the testing.

Therefore, if the sample were truly random, it is entirely reasonable to expect the figure to be much higher than 14%.

Even with just the 14% figure, at around a quarter million dollars to raise a child that's an average of $35,000 every single father is being defrauded, in financial terms alone. I cannot imagine any other such fraud not having legal protection, especially when the cost of prevention is so minor.

[Marx]

I have to correct you on this.

I've posted a quote of your words as an update to the original post (at the above link).

[Douglas]

There are matters to take into account with legislation forcing DNA tests on all newborns.

By itself, mandatory DNA testing is not enough. Laws still will often make the husband (or even long-term male partner) liable just because he has a relationship with the woman at the time of conception, or even merely at the time of birth. Such laws much be altered when mandatory DNA testing is involved.

Opposition, as seen in the article linked in the first post, will skew mandatory DNA testing of newborns to be against a man's interest. One way to do this is to imply that the man is forced to reveal the test results to the child: this must not be part of legislation as there is currently no forcing of a mother to reveal the results (that she alone can be certain of) to child or man. Another tactic is to say that the legislation prevents a man from being a dad unless the DNA test says so: this also must not be legislated since a man might still want to bring up the child, including paying, even with knowledge. Knowledge of the truth need not and should not mean that anyone is being forced to take any action. The truth should simply give men options in the same way that women already have them.

A negative DNA paternity test does not necessarily mean the woman is lying. If she vehemently denies having cheated on her man, the man would do well to believe his woman until her DNA has also been matched to the child, as there is a slim chance that the baby does not belong to them at all. A woman who vehemently denies having cheated on her man has nothing to lose in taking a DNA test, since she surely would not want to be one of about 2,000 women bringing up some other woman's child any more than a man wants to be one of about 5 men bringing up some other man's child.

[FloatyBoaty]

Our voices are getting louder and more numerous.

I would say this as well, but then that would be an echo, kind of like all those voices repeating what we're saying.

[...]a giant step backwards[...]

Backwards from darkness, but forwards to the light.