Yep.

ark^^

I imagine that others have responded since I see this thread has grown quite a bit. I haven't read any after your reply to me, but I did want to respond.



Yes, that's my view.


NOW HOLD ON, JUST A MINUTE!

I didn't say she was guilty!

She's only guilty if the test result says she is - and I would not trust any one lab with that conclusion, but would send it to more than one lab to confirm that result.

If I understand your position, a spouse must be completely trusted. This is certainly not consistent with Harley's view. He has said (somewhere on this site), that such blind trust is foolish - and leads to temptation. (He recommends neither unconditional love nor blind trust.) Each has the right to check up on the other - and should expect the other to check up on him. This goes for bank statements, phone bills, checking to see of your spouse is where they said they would be etc. Knowing that your spouse is looking over your shoulder, so to speak, helps one to stay on track. Of all things, should something so vital as paternity be an exception to this?

An innocent person has nothing to fear - and should welcome any test which reinforces the record of blameless conduct.

I sense that you are offended by anyone questioning you, and perhaps we all are sometimes, but in the real world, there are business audits, security lines, professional certifications, reference checks and passports. People are "carded" at the grocery when they buy a bottle of wine. They are asked to see their drivers licence when they write a check. All of these things are ways of checking up on people. We accept them because they are neccesary. Checking up is, in my opinion, also neccesary in marriage.


Hmmm. Trust is fine. I'm really a quite trusting person, but I don't believe in blind trust in people - when it is easy to check up on them. Further, I believe that knowing that someone is checking can make me more correct in my behaviour. If, for example, you knew that the company network system would automaticly email to your boss a list of all the web-pages you visited from your office computer, would you be less likely to waste time at work? Why would they hire somebody they didn't trust? Of course, most employers trust their employees - but they also check up on them.

Should public corporations not be subject to financial audits? Should there only be an audit if a transgression has already been detected?

Every relationship (in my opinion) benefits from informed trust. Marriage is no exception.


By each partner practicing radical honesty - and having the humilty to accept the oversight of the other. I would turn the question on it's head: How can the marriage get to a truely intimate level with either partner choosing to be blind to the other's weaknesses and imperfections? Intimacy does not come from blindness, but rather from each accepting the your partner's imperfections - with the humble knowledge that you are also imperfect.


Examine what you are saying. Where is the burden? You don't even have to take blood for such a test. It is quick and completely painless. You're telling me that after all that a woman goes through to give birth, a cheek-swab would be a "burden"?! I would be concerned with your "Just trust me. I can do no wrong." attitude. Many many betrayed spouses have heard that kind of thing. The honest person has no fear of investigation.


So, your default assumption is that each person must trust the other blindly unless there is a prior agreement to check? So, I would have to make a list of all the things I might check up on in a marriage? This seems tediously unrealistic. "Just trust me" is a red flag to me.


Why don't we just stay focussed on marriage. OK? The government is an entirely 'nother discussion - and we don't have enough electronic ink in these here typewriters - nor time nor space to get into that here. There are talk radio folks who talk about it 4 hours a day for years. OK?

As for my wife, I absolutely would have no objections to any and all surveilance she would want to do. Now, in respect for the other guys in the men's room, I would have to turn off the camera now and then, but in general, I say bring it on! In my opinion, one who wants to have a secret life, probably should not be married.


I don't think "losing recess" and "paternity testing" are comparable. The paternity testing requires a quick swab of the inside of the cheek on each individual - takes perhaps 15 seconds. This takes less time than going through the security line at the airport. I would not consider that "losing recess". Any real consequences would entirely depend on the results of the test - which results would depend entirely on what you had done.

-AD

Well, they apply to me - and I'm financially responsible too. My CS is withheld from my paycheck, sent to the state capital and then sent to my XW. I don't mind, but some men might find it humiliating to have legal documents sent by the court to their employer to set all this up. When I was paying her directly, she got the money sooner. But this is mandantory. (sp?)

I don't think I'm less financially responsible than my state government. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

-AD

Oh, sorry. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />


Are you sure she will be more hurt this way that if she find out later somewhere else? Are you sure that silence will be best for her in the long run? I don't know.


Why do you assume this will "destroy [ your ] niece's relationship with the only father she's ever known"? Give the young lady more credit than that. Yes, it will require an adjustment, but there is no reason to assume it will destroy the relationship. It might even make it better.

First, from her point of view: She would have no reason to be angry with her father (the one she has always considered to be her father). He has done nothing to hurt her nor betray her nor decieve her. She loves him and has always loved him. Why should learning this truth change that?

Second, from his point of view : He would have no reason to be angry with her. She has done nothing to him, but loved him and honored him as a father. If he is, as you say, a good man, he will not punish this girl, who he has always loved with a fatherly love, for something that somebody else did.

Think about it. There is a good chance it might even make them closer.

-AD

10Swords,

You cannot simultaniously control the outcome and also do the right thing.

This, I believe, is a general principal of life.

You are in an anguished struggle because you cannot completly predict what the outcome will be - in either case. You are trying to do God's job. You are only one player in this drama. Play your part, and trust others (including God) to play theirs.

-AD

oops <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

AD

your whole post is based on checks and balances of this world....

there are checks and balances that drive people even harder and deeper than humans looking over their shoulders...

there is God...

to whom I am diligent to keep in His Grace...

my reasons for fidelity is born of the Vows I made to him...
as well as to my husband....

ARK^^

You are also knowledgeable about how affairs start and know not to cross marital boundaries that lead to an affair. This sadly cannot be said for many people.

Religious beleifs alone are no protection for not falling into an affair. Dr Willard Harley, on page 16 of 'Surviving An Affair', states the following:


"personal values change to accomodate the affair". Isn't this what we do when we practice 'selective honesty' and choose to keep the truth about paternity from a man?

How many times have we read posts vilifying those that knew about an affair but kept it to themselves?

It may wise for all of us to do some very serious soul searching and ask ourselves whether or not we serve God when we practice the 'accomodating' of personal values.

TMCM

Well said, TMCM.

"The torture of a bad conscience is the he*l of a living soul" John Calvin

God doesn't send us to he*l, we do.

TMCM
[got kicked off from daughters 'puter and logged back on his funky one].

AN interesting thread. I read through it, but my "simpleton" mind couldn't comprehend all of the opinions.

I think this is obviously not a "cut" and "dry" situation, and as a physician I have often been confronted with similar ethical dilemmas. I was once begged to and pleaded by a family NOT to tell a patient that she had terminal cancer with metastasis. She was already on "borrowed" time and didn't even know it. The family felt that she couldn't "handle" the truth and that it would "kill" her prematurely.

On one hand, my ethical duty was to be honest and be the patients advocate, on the other hand, I wrestled with the fact that "what was done was done"(i.e she had inoperable terminal cancer and maybe "holding" off the truth untill she was "mentall ready" would be better for all. It was not an easy situation. I eventually did tell her the truth after some stalling and having built a relationship with her. The family never forgave me for this.

There are many times that I as a physician have been asked to "bend" the truth so that the "truth" was less painful to others. This is not something that I have ever been comfortable with. I am a brutally honest man, to a fault probably.

In this case, while I understand the rights of all (including the man who's child this is not), I would err on the side of eventual honesty, BUT AT A MORE FAVORABLE time. Yes, this is a cop out of sorts, but I feel that the number one priority on this case would be the childs mental well being. The truth NEEDS to be told, but IMVHO at a time when "coping" mechanisms are better and more mature for the child and all involved are in a therapy situation with professional with experience in this. The situation for truth will never be "ideal" and there will be pain delved out, but if WE as adults can lessen the "burden" even 5% fro children, then we should do that. I thank God that I don't have to make that decision.

As a surgeon with thousands of cases under my belt, and also with the unfortunate experience having been the sole cause of another person's death, I can still ONLY imagine the gravity of pain that having to tell a child that I was not his "real" father would bring on all involved.

There are no right answers. There are no winners here, just degress of "loss".

That's my .02.

Record me as one would DEFINTELY tell the child, but would withold the truth to protect the child, while counseling and professional guidance was undertaken.

As an physician, I have "lied" and "bent" the truth to get the care my patients needed. I will do anything within "reason" to help my patients, even if the LAW is broken. Insurance compaines and healthcare executives probably hate me...oh well...Does that make me a "bad guy" or "unethical" guy....maybe? But I am who I am. I guess in time I will have to face my maker for these actions....but I wouldn't change "who I am" for anybody.

Lem

One thing that seems to be missing from this debate is our inability of putting ourselves in the shoes of the man who has been deceived. He's been treated as a non-entity, a thing to be used. I wonder if and when we face the All Mighty, is He going to buy our 'reasons' for continuing the deception?

TMCM

TMCM:

I agree with you...but can we ever really "put oursleves in his shoes".....? You can only "try" and understand so much what is would be like to be in someone else shoes. I agree, there is going to be "deception", and in the end the man being decieved will be the one to get the proverbial "shaft".

That isn't fair, but life isn't fair.

TMCM, I want to make sure that you don't misinterpret my opinions on this.

There is NOT a topic that illicits more anger and angst for me than what sometimes happens on the Preg/OC board. Especially when it involves Other Children and Men/Women being "decieved" about paternity and people (usually Wayward Spouses) who don't want to take financial and emotional responsibility for children THEY CREATE even if unintended (or as some like to say..."tricked" into pregnancy <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> ).

If I really told people what I thought of them and their spouses I would probably be banned for life from here.

I do try and be mindful of the "deceived" in this case, but still....I would probably say that he has to "take one" for the team here. I am not even remotely "claiming" to be right here.

I dunno. This is certainly thought provoking and I could change my mind.

Lem <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

LM,

One way that a man could be told the truth, is if the person(s) that is(are) going to be the messenger(s) make proper preparations beforehand. What do I mean by proper preparations? Getting a hold of a professional with experience in the issue, and acompanying the betrayed to the office of said professional. Also helpful would be to have friend(s) and/or close relative(s) to give him the emotional support he is going to need. Once, the truth is revealed and he is comforted by loved ones, a plan to deliver the truth in the future to the OC could also be developed that would minimize the possible trauma to him/her.

Anybody else have ideas?

TMCM

Lets not forget that children come from God, not our DNA.

"our children come through us, but not from us" ~Kahlil Gibran

When we have children, we come second...our job is to give them safety, stability and love. This is the only "truth" which matters.

My opinion only. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

How is it that we express our beleif in God, the father of truth and yet follow Satan, the father of lies?

TMCM

TMCM -

I think the "lie" for us would be someone coming into our lives and telling my DD's dad that he was not her dad (even if it wasn't his sperm which fertilized the egg), because there is no question that he is her dad in every single sense of the word. In fact as Scott alluded to in an earlier post, I pity the person who would go to my ex and tell him he wasn't her dad...as I think that person would get their clock cleaned.

He is her dad...and that is the only "truth" which matters now.

If another had technically fathered her and for health reasons must be found...then that would be another matter entirely, and would be reason to upset their lives.

Again, that he is her dad (like my dad was my dad), regardless of a lie which had been told years before (had it been), is the only "truth" which matters.

And I don't think it a "guy" thing which says that it is so important that the DNA match, I think it is an ego thing.

That the trust was betrayed in the first place by a woman is incomprehensible to me, and goes against everything which is supposed to be loving and good in a woman and her love for her husband. And I feel as the rest of you do about that, and I think this is really where the strong feelings on this subject come from, not the DNA thing.

But years later to tell, what is the point?

It's a very tough and personal subject TMCM, and judgeing from this thread everyone has their own opinion regarding what is best.

***I pity the person who would go to my ex and tell him he wasn't her dad...as I think that person would get their clock cleaned . . . He is her dad...and that is the only "truth" which matters now.***

Weaver and all others who hold with this viewpoint -- who said, and why do you believe, that a man who is not the biological father is not a child's "dad?"

Do you really think that if a child is told, "He is not your biological father," that the relationship will end and that man will suddenly just stop behaving as a dad and will instantly lose all desire to do so?

Or that the child will immediately reject the man as her "dad" once she knows he is not her biological father?

Or that other people will look at them and say, "Why are you behaving like a dad? If you are not the bio-father, you can't be a dad" -- ?

Or that the courts will take the child away and send her back to the bio-father?

Is that where all the fear and denial is coming in here?

Again: Why do all of you seem to think that if the truth comes about a bio-father and his suddenly non-bio-child, that the "dad" relationship between them can no longer exist either emotionally or legally???

Does anyone know of any cases where this has happened? Do you know of any such cases personally or perhaps from a news story?

I *have* heard of cases where the truth came out -- where the dad was found not to be the bio-father -- but the dad-child relationship continued on as before, and maybe even stronger.

There have even been cases where a man found not to be the bio-father was ordered to continue with child support and *contact* because he was the only dad the kids had known.

Again: Please be specific. What, *exactly,* is it that you think will happen if dads and children learn that the dad is not also the bio-father?
Mulan

Mulan,

If it would have no bearing and make no difference, then why the need to know?

Is it to know that a huge betrayal had taken place?

I can understand if that is the reason, but why upset a child's life that way?

I'm thinking of what Mel said regarding her dad. What possible good would it do? Wouldn't it just open old wounds and cause pain?

And Mel, if you are still reading...I am thinking of you and hope you are doing okay.

Exatctly. Practically none of us guys would dispute with you that fatherhood [and motherhood] has NOTHING to do with DNA. If tomorrow, the lab that tested my daughters DNA told me that they had made a mistake and that they were not biologically mine, it would not change a thing for me as far as the love I have for them, I would still be their daddy, nothing can change that [in fact it would probably make me more protective of them].


A truth of this magnitude often has a habit of turning up when you least expect it. What then? The father and child will BOTH be hit at the same time with it. The father will be emotionaly struggling with it that he will most likely not be able to emotionally comfort and support the child when he/she needs it the most. This does not have to be the case if, like I said in one of my previous posts, the proper preparations are made to expose the truth to the man FIRST. After enough time has passed for the man to recover, a decision could be made as to WHEN the child should be told so as to best minimize the hurt he/she will experience. Like it or not, the child does deserve to know the truth and come to terms with it. Better that it come from the people who love and care for him/her the most than through some stranger who has no emotional investment in his/her emotional wellbeing.

In closing, some women posters have said that mandatory DNA testing would show how little faith we have in women's fidelity as wives, but I would like to add that choosing not to tell H shows how little faith we have in men's capacity as H and fathers to overcome the ordeal and to continue loving the innocent child as they have since it came into this world. Haven't we proven ourselves that we can overcome the ordeal of infidelity in the first place? Haven't we proven ourselves to be forgiving towards our FWW, even in those cases where we have divorced them? Haven't we proven ourselves that we do not distrust all women when many of us have remarried? What else do we have to do to prove ourselves in order to be 'worthy' to receive the truth about our child's paternity?

TMCM