8 ms·

Parental testing should be mandatory at birth perhaps for these issues. Or at least if someone is going to go claim child support.

resoluteteeth 5y ago
If it was going to be mandatory it would be much better to do it before birth using amniotic fluid. Waiting for the child to be born and then suddenly telling one parent that it's not their biological child isn't a great idea.
- bluecalm 5y ago
  Well, it's always the potential father that gets the news not one of the parents. Maybe it's not ideal to tell them once the child is born but it's still better than not telling them at all.
- onphonenow 5y ago
  That's an interesting idea, but a fair number of families don't want to do amniotic fluid testing. Paternity and maternity issues are pretty low incidence issues, but is VERY rough if it pops up with a 4 year old in the mix. If you've got wrong dad in the picture, at birth is a good time to chase down the right father! Get him paying child support if needed. Non-bio dad could still decide to stay around if desired - but transparency / honesty on the table.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  It can be done with a noninvasive blood test of the mother. I am a firm proponent of mandatory testing so fathers aren’t financially responsible for children that aren’t theirs (without their knowledge and consent). Historically, if a father later determines they're not the biological parent, family court will still stick them with child support until the child is 18 (or even older, sometimes requiring college support). https://americanpregnancy.org/paternity-tests/non-invasive-prenatal-paternity-test/ https://americanpregnancy.org/paternity-tests/non-invasive-p...
  - onphonenow 5y ago
    Wow, NIPP testing is very cool - didn't know about that.
  - mbreese 5y ago
    What will that accomplish? If a putative father is already suspicious (and doesn’t want to be a father), sure, then having a NIPT would make sense. But there is already an avenue for that. You would want to make that mandatory for all pregnancies? Not everyone wants to know that information and having a mandatory test could force people (fathers) into situations they don’t want to be in. Kids are more than a financial responsibility.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      If it's not your kid biologically, and you're not a willing participant, it's not your responsibility. Pursue the biological parent for support. To do otherwise is equivalent to fraud. We don't force foster kids on people without their informed consent. This is no different. Edit: We agree to disagree. I fall firmly in the mandatory testing camp for accuracy of paternity for all involved parties. Trust but verify.
      - mbreese 5y ago
        If you’re not a willing participant, then you can still have the test. If you’re the type where if the kid isn’t your biological kid, then you wouldn’t want to be a father to them — then get a test. The question is — should it be mandatory for all pregnancies? Willing participant or otherwise. I’m not saying no one should have paternity testing. It should certainly be available. I just don’t think you should mandate it.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        hackerfromthefu 5y ago
        Its also important to remove any doubt - to strengthen the bond in the cases where its true
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  Amniocentesis carries a small, but real, risk of miscarriage
mdavis6890 5y ago
The father - and should be - is the one who raises the child. It is for this reason that (in the US) "father" of record is always the husband unless it is explicitly questioned and investigated. Assuming we're talking about a happy family with two eager parents, what is helped by investigating the child's genetic "paternity," when the father is right there holding the baby?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  > The father [is] - and should be - the one who raises the child. We’re implicitly dealing with two senses of the word “father” in this context which makes most of your sentences seem both commonsensical and ambigious.
- onphonenow 5y ago
  Because he may be victim of a fraud? ie, the baby is someone elses? Because the actual biological father may want a role in his childs life? Because the state has a bit of interest in accuracy in its medical / birth certificate and other records? Because many births are to single mothers and the absent father may have certain financial and other responsibilities for the child?
- awakeasleep 5y ago
  On paternity attestation forms in the usa there is a clause saying the marriage/legal father is not the father of record if the mother was in another relationship 9-10 months ago.
- susiecambria 5y ago
  In Washington, DC years ago, there was a bill before the DC Council that basically said that any man having sex with a woman who ended up with a child was presumed to be the biological father until paternity was ruled out. So if a woman had sex with several men, all would have presumed paternity. I don't recall whether this applied only to public benefits and paternity.
- 5y ago

resoluteteeth 5y ago

If it was going to be mandatory it would be much better to do it before birth using amniotic fluid. Waiting for the child to be born and then suddenly telling one parent that it's not their biological child isn't a great idea.

bluecalm 5y ago
Well, it's always the potential father that gets the news not one of the parents. Maybe it's not ideal to tell them once the child is born but it's still better than not telling them at all.
onphonenow 5y ago
That's an interesting idea, but a fair number of families don't want to do amniotic fluid testing. Paternity and maternity issues are pretty low incidence issues, but is VERY rough if it pops up with a 4 year old in the mix. If you've got wrong dad in the picture, at birth is a good time to chase down the right father! Get him paying child support if needed. Non-bio dad could still decide to stay around if desired - but transparency / honesty on the table.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
It can be done with a noninvasive blood test of the mother. I am a firm proponent of mandatory testing so fathers aren’t financially responsible for children that aren’t theirs (without their knowledge and consent). Historically, if a father later determines they're not the biological parent, family court will still stick them with child support until the child is 18 (or even older, sometimes requiring college support). https://americanpregnancy.org/paternity-tests/non-invasive-prenatal-paternity-test/ https://americanpregnancy.org/paternity-tests/non-invasive-p...
- onphonenow 5y ago
  Wow, NIPP testing is very cool - didn't know about that.
- mbreese 5y ago
  What will that accomplish? If a putative father is already suspicious (and doesn’t want to be a father), sure, then having a NIPT would make sense. But there is already an avenue for that. You would want to make that mandatory for all pregnancies? Not everyone wants to know that information and having a mandatory test could force people (fathers) into situations they don’t want to be in. Kids are more than a financial responsibility.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    If it's not your kid biologically, and you're not a willing participant, it's not your responsibility. Pursue the biological parent for support. To do otherwise is equivalent to fraud. We don't force foster kids on people without their informed consent. This is no different. Edit: We agree to disagree. I fall firmly in the mandatory testing camp for accuracy of paternity for all involved parties. Trust but verify.
    - mbreese 5y ago
      If you’re not a willing participant, then you can still have the test. If you’re the type where if the kid isn’t your biological kid, then you wouldn’t want to be a father to them — then get a test. The question is — should it be mandatory for all pregnancies? Willing participant or otherwise. I’m not saying no one should have paternity testing. It should certainly be available. I just don’t think you should mandate it.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
        Its also important to remove any doubt - to strengthen the bond in the cases where its true
EdwardDiego 5y ago
Amniocentesis carries a small, but real, risk of miscarriage

mdavis6890 5y ago

The father - and should be - is the one who raises the child. It is for this reason that (in the US) "father" of record is always the husband unless it is explicitly questioned and investigated. Assuming we're talking about a happy family with two eager parents, what is helped by investigating the child's genetic "paternity," when the father is right there holding the baby?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
avgcorrection 5y ago
> The father [is] - and should be - the one who raises the child. We’re implicitly dealing with two senses of the word “father” in this context which makes most of your sentences seem both commonsensical and ambigious.
onphonenow 5y ago
Because he may be victim of a fraud? ie, the baby is someone elses? Because the actual biological father may want a role in his childs life? Because the state has a bit of interest in accuracy in its medical / birth certificate and other records? Because many births are to single mothers and the absent father may have certain financial and other responsibilities for the child?
awakeasleep 5y ago
On paternity attestation forms in the usa there is a clause saying the marriage/legal father is not the father of record if the mother was in another relationship 9-10 months ago.
susiecambria 5y ago
In Washington, DC years ago, there was a bill before the DC Council that basically said that any man having sex with a woman who ended up with a child was presumed to be the biological father until paternity was ruled out. So if a woman had sex with several men, all would have presumed paternity. I don't recall whether this applied only to public benefits and paternity.
5y ago