Well perhaps you did do those things .......
However,
MOST WW's do NOT take those precautions .....or at least NOT every time.

My WW tried to even say they BOTH took off their wedding rings each time before they did the deed.
Yea Right.

Later got the truth.
No rings off .....no condoms used (ever).....nothin.
CLB said he was "clean". <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Only problem was he forgot to mention the single OOW he was banging at the same time as my W.
Sometimes on the same day.
Yea boy,
how'd THAT detail EVER slip his mind and NOT come up. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

An emphatic YEEESSS to both!

In fact,
I would be Hurt and angry that I was cheated out of years of a relationship with "MY" child.

This is why I cannot understand the more common attitude on the Preg/Child board (of men abandoning children they WILLINGLY created).

Hey OUR children are forever ....our relationships not always as permenant as we might have thought.

Kind of OT, but my step kids mom had 2 babies out of wedlock. She didn't tell either father that she had their child. Instead she collected welfare, until California got tough with welfare moms. To keep her benefits, she named the fathers. By this time, the kids were 3 and 4. The fathers owed back child support, which was deducted from their paychecks, even though they had no idea they had children.

The moral (which I have ingrained in the minds of my sons) is, be careful where you put your d*ck.

Please don't judge unless you live it. Yes, they helped create the child..but is it good for the child when C will only drive the OW crazy and create stress for the child? I wanted contact with my H's OC. After seeing what she is like I truly believe OC is better off without contact making his mother angrier. She did not get the man she was certain she was going to get and she will d*mned if I was ever going to be around HER child. Not to mention the confusion and hurt these situations can cause COM and the BW.

I know of at least one FWW that had an OC and her H is raising the child as his own. This WAS in the best interest of the entire family including OC. I know two men that their FWW OC have shared custody or visitation with XOM. It has not helped their marriages to have this contact. These men are outstanding fathers to the OC as well as to the COM.

well, my family is currently forced to deal with an uncomfortable issue regarding this topic.....

my very own Dad was a victim of paternity fraud by his first wife during WWII

they were married
he shipped out to war
she shacked up with OM
she had a baby
Dad returns, his WW says, "This is OM's baby not yours"

pre-DNA
pre-fem liberation

they annull
and the birth certificate was changed naming the OM as the bio father

more than 60 years go by
and now, when my Dad is ill in his 80's he is confronted by a fully grown man in his 60's claiming to be "son"

Dad's x-wife had always told her son that his bio-dad (my Dad) abandoned him ... after more than 60 years she told her son the truth

"I lied and said you were OM's baby, so I could get OM to marry me."

(she has been married 5 times in all .... so far .... she is still alive and that means # 6 might be just around the corner!)

and now, this adult man shows up wanting a relationship with my ageing/grieving/ailing Dad ... and the rest of us as well

and now, we are planning out the care my Dad needs for the remainder of his days ... and we must make legal arrangements that specifically and by name preclude any "family" claim from the > 60-year-old paternity fraud issue

who needs this stress?

I think women who lie to men about paternity SUCK

Pep, is it established whether this 60 year-old is genetically your father's?

TA

are you asking me if DNA has been tested? No. They look identical however.

and guess what?

DNA does not matter much to me... I do not care

BOTH my children are adopted
my Dad adopted my older sister<~~~she is not biologically connected to our Dad but SHE is the one doing the heavy-lifting with his current care needs because she lives closest to him

no one actually cares at this point ... except to protect ourselves from an unexpected claim .... YESTERDAY on attorney's advice, we re-wrote the power of attorney papers (for health care decisions should Dad become unable to make them himself) ... to specifically and by name exclude this person and any of his heirs

I mean him no ill will ... but I'd like him to leave my Dad in peace ...

family connection does not equate DNA in my book

Hmmm, reflecting back, I can remember several cases of paternity issues, even sorta maybe fraud.

Uh, with all the stories coming out, it would appear that gimble is right on. Whoda thunk it.

Larry

The hospital can't misplace your baby if you never let him or her out of your sight. I realize it is difficult if your baby has to go into intensive care, but under normal circumstances the baby can stay with the mother, and if for some reason they have to take the baby out of the room, the father should accompany the baby. That's how we handled it when our kids were born - and some of them were born way back when mothers had the baby in one room and then were moved into another room for the rest of the hospital stay.

I am having trouble grasping the concept of how many men could not realize they were not the father - maybe because all six of my kids look enough alike that perfect strangers walk up to them and say, "You must be so-and-so's sister." There are so many phenotypic characteristics that might give you a hint - blood type, minor dental defects, eyesight, not to mention appearance.

Perhaps my viewpoint is colored by the fact that I have had only one partner in my 50 odd years - but I would have been pretty annoyed if my H had trusted me so little as to ask for a paternity test after any of our children were born. (Even discounting the fact that, as a previous poster pointed out, springing that on a woman who had just gone through labor would be a really bad idea).

My point was that there is no reason to wait until after the children are born or even after they are concieved to discuss this issue. If the issue was brought to you, prior to marriage, as a concern that your potential fiance' had that was about HIM and HIS reassurance rather than aspersions on your character -- would you then feel the same way about the testing?

In other words if he'd said: "Look, I am concerned about issues of paternity and I would like paternity testing done on any future children for my own peace of mind that I would have with my spouse. Is that something you'd be willing to do if we were married."

You would have the option to say "yes" or "no" and move on.

I understand why the TESTING has to wait until after the birth. I just honestly don't understand why the QUESTION has to wait at all.

And, Gimble, I'm not sure anything is going to be able to rectify the current problems - certainly if mandated testing on newborns started this afternoon all those men out there still wouldn't have their problems fixed. I think you're right that we will have to agree to disagree. I think you're trying to fix more than one problem with this solution and that makes sense to me why you think my solution of just getting men to start ASKING their partners wouldn't work.

I just don't think this particular solution will fix the other problems you're hoping it will, either. But, then, I won't claim to have any other better ideas either. So, I'll stand calmly on the other side of the fence (against testing because of my distrust of a national genetic database) but without rancor or anger towards you for what you're fighting for. I know there are inequities. I just want what looks like a better solution that doesn't "break" something else presented.

Thank you for your thoughts,

Mys

I would probably have told him to go to h***. I would not have wanted to marry someone who trusted me so little.

There is, unfortunately, no comparable way of determining that your husband is not out there fathering children right and left, not that that even occurred to me as a possibility before we were married.

*shrugs* Then both of you would have the answer as to how compatible you'd likely be for each other before you got married. I call that 'working as intended.'

Trusting people should marry trusting people -- it doesn't make sense for someone who wants to be trusted not to want to be trusting (ie. it never occurred to you not to trust your H and if you didn't trust him you wouldn't have married him). You wanted to be trusted and to trust. There's nothing wrong with that - in fact, I think it's the 'romantic ideal.'

Some people don't want to have to rely on trust in this day and age. Those people should find other people who feel the same way and marry them.

Overall, I happen to think people are TOO trusting, if "trusting" is the right word. Look around this board....


Mys

Agree,

I think in a lot of cases people aren't willing to ask a question because they aren't prepared to deal with the answer.

However if the answer is one you consider RELEVENT ...trying to live in denial and fantasy with the hope that the other person will feel and behave with the same beliefs that you embrace...what is it they say about marrying in haste and repenting in leisure?

Myschae wrote:
========================================
...(against testing because of my distrust of a national genetic database)....
========================================

Just to clarify, I never suggested that a national database be created.

Most of the proposals I have seen are for single use tests. "Single use" defined as a test where the results (positive or negative) are recorded and the data used for the determination itself, destroyed after a short period of time.

All the best,
Gimble

I can appreciate the approach your taking here. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
However,
at the time of my youngest daughters Birth (and the 3yrs after) .....I never had ANY doubt about my W's fidelity.
So I would have checked NO and went on my way. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

Its only NOW years and years after the fact ,
that I have ANY suspicion of "is she" or "isn't she" biologically my daughter.

Perhaps if DNA was done simply as a matter of routine, like many other tests for newborns ......that would at least ensure that Lies (or even mistakes) would not go on for years,
and thereby NOT let the hurt of Attachment / Loss occur.

Truthfully,
I can only see it being a problem for someone TRYING to deceive another.

In addition,
if it was done as a routine matter,
it would take the emotional response of Accusation out of the equation ....and not make it soooooo difficult for the man to even bring up.

[Not saying any of this will ever be done,
simply sounding Off on a thread where the subject matter was brought up] <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Way back in the days (10+ years ago) when blood type tests were the only method for disproving paternity, an MD friend told me that a ton of babies were born in families where the dad wasn't the dad. MDs had done informal studies amongst themselves at a large metropolitan hospital or two under one guise or the other. Blood type is a valid test except if the bio father has the same blood type as the one who just thinks they are they father, then it doesn't work, but DNA does.

He said it was over 5% but less than 10. And it was all informal because of liability issues. And most were first children, not second and third according to him. There is a social statement there.

Paternity frand has been going on since humans have been around. Maybe DNA testing will mitigate it, maybe not. We shall see.

Oh, and Gimble, please let me hear from you, if you can share, web sites or books I can read per the post I made to you above.

Larry

In looking around as a response to Gimble's post about things going on, I stumbled across one of the reasons for all of the paternity uproar right now. It seems that modification to welfare laws as passed by Clinton in 1996, requires any mother getting welfare to name the father of her children. So they do, perhaps as best they can and perhaps not.

Welfare agencies then go after the named dad because they must to keep their funding up from state and US gov coffers. And of course, the guy is guilty until he spends his money to prove otherwise with whatever is left of his paycheck after he gets garnished.

In one case I was looking at, the guy in charge of the Agency apologized to both the guy and the court and said his hands were tied by law. Unfortunately for the guy, the Judge felt the same way. *sigh*

Larry

Hi, Larry.

You are on the right track.

I will get back to you with some links, but I was in the middle of organizing all my stuff when this thread started, so it will be a while.

Please pass on the link to the material you found as well.

Also, please consider joining a men's rights group in your area or state.

All the best,
Gimble

I don't know about other states, but in Maryland they reimburse the man for the paternity test if it shows he's not the father. So only the actual fathers pay for the test, which I think is fair.

I think the article overemphasized the sociobiology theories. My grandfather loved my mother every bit as much as my aunt, even though my mother was adopted. Of course, adoption is a much different situation because it is a choice both parents make and there is no deception. THAT is more to the point, not the fact that the child is not biologically related.