4 ms·

What is nuts is that in some countries, its illegal for the father to unilaterally have a paternity test done. I know for France that if you have it done unilat

by jorvi 2y ago

What is nuts is that in some countries, its illegal for the father to unilaterally have a paternity test done. I know for France that if you have it done unilaterally and thus illegally you are still on the hook for child support until a legal test is done, which either the mother needs to agree to or needs to be agreed on by the court. IMO a paternity test should just be mandated to be done immediately at birth (or earlier even?). It avoids the tinge of distrust of "oh wow, how could you even think that of me?!" from the mother, whilst giving certainty to the man.

gmane 2y ago
I disagree here. Blood tests done at birth are done specifically for the benefit of the child (and with minimal risk to the child). A paternity test has no benefit for the child (it doesn't tell you who the father is, simply who the father isn't) and a ~1% risk of harm to the child. The period immediately after birth is one of the most dangerous times for children, and we (should) specifically take action to protect them in a moment where they are at risk and have no agency. A paternity test would increase the risk of harm to the child (either through violence, deprivation, or neglect). We didn't even get to the subject of possible violence against the mother either, which is likely.
- jurenbert 2y ago
  [dead]
- gggtttkkk88 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cindyllm 2y ago
    [dead]
  - gmane 2y ago
    The internet is truly a wild place. You can say something like "We shouldn't do mandatory paternity tests at birth because they bring no benefit to the child" and someone responds with "So you're saying we shouldn't stop wife beaters?" No bitch, that's a whole different sentence. What the fuck are you talking about.
    - gggtttkkk88 2y ago
      No chance, bucko. The essence of your comment is that paternity testing should be avoided because there is no benefit to children and there is potential harm to women. Your focus was not on the mandatory nature of any such testing. And I believe you understand my analogy in spite of your faux confusion and outrage.
      - gmane 2y ago
        That’s not even my argument though? I was very clear that specifically immediately post birth is a high risk time and that mandatory paternity tests at birth increase those risks with little to no benefit to anyone. I did not say anything about forcing a man to raise a child. You’re deliberately misreading my point to argue against a straw man.
        gggtttkkk88 2y ago
        Are you gaslighting? Your comment is just above, you can reread it as many times as I have trying to extract any other argument with as little success. The benefit is to the "father", obviously, in confirming paternity or alerting him of infidelity and fraud. It's either peace of mind or potentially life-changing. The benefit is incalculable. Your only arguments for why immediately post-birth is a poor time are that it would be convenient for everyone else (including the perpetrator of the fraud) if the victim was unaware and continued to be exploited for some time (how long? when would be a convenient time for the reveal?). That is outrageous.
    - jorvi 2y ago
      A stronger argument in line with the "benefit of the child" thinking would be that slight domestic violence should no longer be grounds for divorce since divorce rarely benefits the child. Which is obviously a crazy line of thinking, but so is "let's force a man to (financially) raise a child that isn't his".
      - gmane 2y ago
        That’s not even my argument though? I was very clear that specifically immediately post birth is a high risk time and that mandatory paternity tests at birth increase those risks with little to no benefit to anyone. I did not say anything about forcing a man to raise a child.
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago
  Wouldn't the marginal risk from the blood test be zero, since they do a little blood prick on their foot anyway? Also, there's a second order effect you're ignoring: a mandated paternity test would change expectant mothers' behavior leading up to the birth. You wouldn't try to dupe someone if you knew you'd be found out. Or, if you weren't sure, you'd more likely be transparent.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > Wouldn't the marginal risk from the blood test be zero, since they do a little blood prick on their foot anyway? The source of risk isn't performing the test, the source of risk is the father getting upset and killing the mother and/or child.
    - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
      I did some looking, and it's so rare that there aren't any go-to statistics to cite. There are some reports of men committing murder after a paternity test, but it's unclear to me how what you're saying is anything more the speculation. It might actually be that mandatory paternity tests reduces the background rate of familicide. All of the reports that I could find were only after the father had invested considerable time into raising the child as their own. The stakes of the deception are much higher. But if they know the day the baby is born (or earlier), then it's much easier to walk away. It also makes it pointless for the deception to happen in the first place.
lores 2y ago
In most countries, including France, you are on the hook for child support if you named yourself as a parent. In France you may contest it by applying to court during the first five years, after that only a prosecutor can take the steps to revoke that status. Between the unfairness of making an adult pay for a child who isn't theirs, and that of throwing an innocent child into financial distress, protecting the child takes priority everywhere I know of.
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  >Between the unfairness to make an adult pay for a child who isn't theirs and the unfairness to throw an innocent child into financial distress, protecting the child takes priority everywhere I know of. I wonder how would you react if you received a notification that half your paycheck will be henceforth withheld to support some random kid. this comparison is not entirely fair, because in this scenario, the kid's mother did not deliver a grievous, unforgivable insult to you - which is the case with those poor souls who got scammed into paying child support for some whore's bastard whelp. the state doesn't give a flying fuck about the child's 'financial distress'. the state simply doesn't want to support it.
  - lores 2y ago
    That's where French law actually makes sense: after 5 years, it's your kid, even if not biologically, not a random kid. I don't think I would be chuffed, but I understand it's not the kid's fault, too, and I'm not so narcissistic as to think that them having my genes is so important. My anger at the mother should not reflect on the kid.
    - 123yawaworht456 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - lores 2y ago
        A human being is not a car, and your reference to 'emasculation' is very worrying.

by jorvi 2y ago

gmane 2y ago

I disagree here. Blood tests done at birth are done specifically for the benefit of the child (and with minimal risk to the child). A paternity test has no benefit for the child (it doesn't tell you who the father is, simply who the father isn't) and a ~1% risk of harm to the child. The period immediately after birth is one of the most dangerous times for children, and we (should) specifically take action to protect them in a moment where they are at risk and have no agency. A paternity test would increase the risk of harm to the child (either through violence, deprivation, or neglect). We didn't even get to the subject of possible violence against the mother either, which is likely.

jurenbert 2y ago
[dead]
gggtttkkk88 2y ago
[flagged]
- cindyllm 2y ago
  [dead]
- gmane 2y ago
  The internet is truly a wild place. You can say something like "We shouldn't do mandatory paternity tests at birth because they bring no benefit to the child" and someone responds with "So you're saying we shouldn't stop wife beaters?" No bitch, that's a whole different sentence. What the fuck are you talking about.
  - gggtttkkk88 2y ago
    No chance, bucko. The essence of your comment is that paternity testing should be avoided because there is no benefit to children and there is potential harm to women. Your focus was not on the mandatory nature of any such testing. And I believe you understand my analogy in spite of your faux confusion and outrage.
    - gmane 2y ago
      That’s not even my argument though? I was very clear that specifically immediately post birth is a high risk time and that mandatory paternity tests at birth increase those risks with little to no benefit to anyone. I did not say anything about forcing a man to raise a child. You’re deliberately misreading my point to argue against a straw man.
      - gggtttkkk88 2y ago
        Are you gaslighting? Your comment is just above, you can reread it as many times as I have trying to extract any other argument with as little success. The benefit is to the "father", obviously, in confirming paternity or alerting him of infidelity and fraud. It's either peace of mind or potentially life-changing. The benefit is incalculable. Your only arguments for why immediately post-birth is a poor time are that it would be convenient for everyone else (including the perpetrator of the fraud) if the victim was unaware and continued to be exploited for some time (how long? when would be a convenient time for the reveal?). That is outrageous.
  - jorvi 2y ago
    A stronger argument in line with the "benefit of the child" thinking would be that slight domestic violence should no longer be grounds for divorce since divorce rarely benefits the child. Which is obviously a crazy line of thinking, but so is "let's force a man to (financially) raise a child that isn't his".
    - gmane 2y ago
      That’s not even my argument though? I was very clear that specifically immediately post birth is a high risk time and that mandatory paternity tests at birth increase those risks with little to no benefit to anyone. I did not say anything about forcing a man to raise a child.
bitshiftfaced 2y ago
Wouldn't the marginal risk from the blood test be zero, since they do a little blood prick on their foot anyway? Also, there's a second order effect you're ignoring: a mandated paternity test would change expectant mothers' behavior leading up to the birth. You wouldn't try to dupe someone if you knew you'd be found out. Or, if you weren't sure, you'd more likely be transparent.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > Wouldn't the marginal risk from the blood test be zero, since they do a little blood prick on their foot anyway? The source of risk isn't performing the test, the source of risk is the father getting upset and killing the mother and/or child.
  - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
    I did some looking, and it's so rare that there aren't any go-to statistics to cite. There are some reports of men committing murder after a paternity test, but it's unclear to me how what you're saying is anything more the speculation. It might actually be that mandatory paternity tests reduces the background rate of familicide. All of the reports that I could find were only after the father had invested considerable time into raising the child as their own. The stakes of the deception are much higher. But if they know the day the baby is born (or earlier), then it's much easier to walk away. It also makes it pointless for the deception to happen in the first place.

lores 2y ago

In most countries, including France, you are on the hook for child support if you named yourself as a parent. In France you may contest it by applying to court during the first five years, after that only a prosecutor can take the steps to revoke that status. Between the unfairness of making an adult pay for a child who isn't theirs, and that of throwing an innocent child into financial distress, protecting the child takes priority everywhere I know of.

123yawaworht456 2y ago
>Between the unfairness to make an adult pay for a child who isn't theirs and the unfairness to throw an innocent child into financial distress, protecting the child takes priority everywhere I know of. I wonder how would you react if you received a notification that half your paycheck will be henceforth withheld to support some random kid. this comparison is not entirely fair, because in this scenario, the kid's mother did not deliver a grievous, unforgivable insult to you - which is the case with those poor souls who got scammed into paying child support for some whore's bastard whelp. the state doesn't give a flying fuck about the child's 'financial distress'. the state simply doesn't want to support it.
- lores 2y ago
  That's where French law actually makes sense: after 5 years, it's your kid, even if not biologically, not a random kid. I don't think I would be chuffed, but I understand it's not the kid's fault, too, and I'm not so narcissistic as to think that them having my genes is so important. My anger at the mother should not reflect on the kid.
  - 123yawaworht456 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - lores 2y ago
      A human being is not a car, and your reference to 'emasculation' is very worrying.