For background, I was the child of an unmarried teenager who married my true father when I was nearly two. I have never had more than a passing curiousity about who my bio father was and have never asked my mother. Frankly, I'm happiest only having the father I know. I believe that mandatory DNA testing would have had an adverse effect on that. My father chose to be my father and I would never want anyone else to infringe on that. And I definitely wouldn't want it to be a part of any government or medical records.

Yes, mandatory DNA testing would allow some husbands to know the truth about their wife's child and take measures to protect themselves. But I think that it could hurt families who truly don't wish any other paternity to be acknowledged.

I don't believe in a law that would hurt loving families in order to "out" infidelities.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Dobie:
My father chose to be my father and I would never want anyone else to infringe on that.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The key word is 'chose', but how can ANY man chose if the truth is hidden from him?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, mandatory DNA testing would allow some husbands to know the truth about their wife's child and take measures to protect themselves. But I think that it could hurt families who truly don't wish any other paternity to be acknowledged.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">15-20% is quite a big number of 'some husbands', don't you think? And lying and keeping such a terrible secret doesn't hurt families? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't believe in a law that would hurt loving families in order to "out" infidelities. [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It's not the law that hurts loving families, it is the dishonesty and keeping secrets that hurts loving families, and more so when they are discovered in the future.

TMCM,
I want to add on to what you said. Dobie, your true father chose to be a part of your life. Even though he was not your biological father, he raised you and loves you. Would that have changed if you had known beyond a doubt who the biological father was? Or being the wonderful man that he is, would your father have loved you the same anyway?
Michael

TMCM,

What interesting points from both sides. What a discussion. What a question.

You stated,"It's not the law that hurts loving families, if is the dishonesty and keeping secrets that hurts loving families, and more so when they are discovered in the future." I agree.

My H's 2OC's always thought that mommy and daddy were divorced. How shocking for a 14yr. old child to have his mother tell the OC's that she was never married to MM, who has been married for 23 yrs, and leading a double life.

How cruel to OC's.

I would agree to dna testing at birth, only, if at any time, any woman claimed CS through the courts, and the biological father is married, that the legal wife be informed of CS. This would level both sides.

There is so much to consider.

There are so many issues involved. Some examples are inheritance, CS, contact, no contact, staying married, not staying married, relationships with all relatives and friends, future organ or morrow transplant, ect.

I agree with truth.

ember

Wow, this is an incredibly tough question. You have to take both points of view into contention, and then it really boils down to whatever each individual thinks anyway. I've always been a "govt' stay the he** out of my life" kinda guy. On the other hand, this is a law that would theoretically protect the rights of the would be father. Here is a question I haven't seen brought up yet. Who gets to pay for this DNA test? In theory it would be the insurance company right? But what about those who have kids without insurance? What if the "father" finds out he isn't? Should he be the one to foot the out of pocket expense? You also have to consider that most insurance companies wouldn't see this as medically necessary, so they would be very unwilling to pay. DNA tests are not cheap. One could argue that insurance companies can afford it, but they would argue differently. Especially when you consider how many people are born in this country every year. The hospitals aren't going to absorb the cost. They would just tack it onto the bill, which brings us back to "who pays for it?". An excellent debate, and I'm honostly not sure how I stand on this one. Like I said, it's either "govt get outta my life", or it's "protecting the would be father's right to know". Honostly I lean a little more towards the govt staying out of my life, but....

MTD

P.S. In the interest of full disclosure...during my W's second A this was almost a real issue for us and I didn't know 'till D-Day with OM#3, and ONLY cuz I read her journal. So chances are she prolly' wouldn't have told me.

I say, let the government pay for the DNA tests. That would mean that we all pay for all children born today.

ember

I totally agree with it.

I found out my ex-wife was pregnant about a week before I found out about the affair. I would have been clueless. She terminated the pregnancy, I filed for D a few days after discovery and OM was already married with 4 kids (was also fired shortly shortly after D-Day).

I saw a therapist after d-day who said married women do not use protection during an affair. He joked that there's a law forbidding it. My ex-therapist said paternity tests and false restraining orders should be a concern for any married guy with a troubled marriage.

Perhaps a more practical alternative would be for hospitals to offer paternity testing to new fathers as a totally confidential option. This would help in two ways:

1. Men who suspect or know that their WW's were unfaithful, could right then and there find out if they are the biological fathers. If they are not then they can make a decision of whether to accept or reject paternity of the children.

2. Men who reject the test preferring to be blissfully ignorant, could not come back years later and charge that they were duped by their WW's into fatherhood of a child that is not biologically theirs. This would protect the children from deadbeat fathers who want to use it as a way to shirk their financial responsibilities to the children they WILLINGLY accepted and loved as their own knowing full well that they may not be biologically theirs.

What do yall think?

tmcm,,,,,,, i agree that testing should be mandatory and the results be optional for both parents seperately. if a h or w says they don't want to know then fine but if one is curious they can find out without the others knowledge.

in your #2 statement, are you saying that the young newly wed h that is in marital bliss <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> with his w's 1st pregnancy and has no reason to mistrust his w chooses not to know then he could later be considered a dead beat dad upon discovery? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

Whoa...TMCM...Yours is perhaps the most logical solution I've seen yet.

Catnip =^^=

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by pops:

in your #2 statement, are you saying that the young newly wed h that is in marital bliss <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> with his w's 1st pregnancy and has no reason to mistrust his w chooses not to know then he could later be considered a dead beat dad upon discovery? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not at all pops, because the hospital would privately inform him that there is a 10-20% probability that the child may not be his and that he has the opportunity to find out once and for all if that is or is not the case. Once he is informed of this and he still decides to reject the test, then he IS accepting paternity of a child knowing that might not be biologically his. Under those circumstances, he cannot come back year later during bitter divorce proceedings and claim that he was the innocent victim of his WW's dishonesty, because HE CHOSE not discover it from the beginning.

Now that TMCM is a solution I believe I could go for. Gives the father the option to find out if there are any doubts. In my case, knowing what I know now, I would have test done whether I suspected or not. Just because. Only one problem I just thought of...Doesn't this option violate the PoRH and the POJA?

MTD

It just goes to show that there are exceptions to every rule. But, if the couple is a stickler for going by the MB book, then I suppose the H could be "radically honest" and alert his W that he intends to take advantage of hospital policy/state law.

The POJA might end up being a huge LB'er if the
W has something to hide....but, then "Oh well!!!"

Ah, what a tangled web we weave whence we attempt to deceive...
or something like that

Cat =^^=

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by madly_truly_deeply:

Only one problem I just thought of...Doesn't this option violate the PoRH and the POJA?

MTD</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes it would IF BOTH spouses were faithfully observing those MB concepts, BUT then again the FWW MBer would have used the PoRH to tell her BH about the possibility of the child not being biologically his, wouldn't she? Besides I don't see why any FWW who told her BH would object that her BH would find out the truth through paternity testing. If the child turned out to be the BH's then the case would be closed and they could move on with their lives, BUT if the child turned out to be the OM's then they would have to start planning a way to tell the child the truth in the future once he or she was mature enough to be able to handle it.

<small>[ November 24, 2003, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: T00MuchCoffeeMan ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Perhaps a more practical alternative would be for hospitals to offer paternity testing to new fathers as a totally confidential option. This would help in two ways:

1. Men who suspect or know that their WW's were unfaithful, could right then and there find out if they are the biological fathers. If they are not then they can make a decision of whether to accept or reject paternity of the children.

2. Men who reject the test preferring to be blissfully ignorant, could not come back years later and charge that they were duped by their WW's into fatherhood of a child that is not biologically theirs. This would protect the children from deadbeat fathers who want to use it as a way to shirk their financial responsibilities to the children they WILLINGLY accepted and loved as their own knowing full well that they may not be biologically theirs.

What do yall think? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think that's the option I was trying to suggest, but not near as well as you when I said this:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> How about making it legal that a man could request a DNA test upon birth whether he had the consent of his W/SO or not? This seems more practical to me, as it is a private issue, affecting only those involved, not the State.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And again when I said this:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The H could even tell his W early on her P, he is planning to have DNA testing done upon birth. If the man was protected by the law, stating he could indeed have DNA testing even without her consent, wouldn't this also help to make the W to fess up? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And a third attempt:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree, every H should have the right to know he is the bio father of the child his W is carrying. I just don't think it's the State's position to tell him he HAS to know. That's why I suggested it should be legal for a man to seek paternity testing if he so desires even when it goes against the will of his W. Again, I don't believe in this case it's up to the gov't to decide what's best for us </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Making it so the husband can request it if he so desires means it would be a viable, legal option provided to him, but not a mandatory test.

I asked my H what he thought of the issue. He said no to making it mandatory. When I asked why, he answered, "because it's nobody's business but the couple's". I told him about the H's that don't know or ever suspect what the real truth could be about the paternity. Also reminded him of what some of you pointed to, that the woman always knows, but the man never truly knows without the DNA. With that he said, "hmmmm...I'd have to think on that one". It is a tough issue.

I thought about another angle. How about starting out a little more simply by making the blood type of newborn, mother and father known to each involved. If the types don't make any sense as far as paternity, then the DNA test could be offered so as to be more accurate. Even if the types do tend to look good for paternity, again DNA could still be offered. For example, I only know my own blood type. I don't happen to know my H's type, (don't think he even knows), and I don't know OC's type. I know I could easily find these things out. It's just not something my Dr. or Pediatrician has ever volunteered.

TMCM~

What made you change your mind on the mandatory, or didn't you...just tossing around different ideas? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Take good care.
~aut

Oh, TMCM...just read through the last few posts again, especially noting pops'. Were you saying the actual DNA testing should be mandatory, but whether the H wants to know the results would be optional?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by autumnday:

I thought about another angle. How about starting out a little more simply by making the blood type of newborn, mother and father known to each involved. If the types don't make any sense as far as paternity, then the DNA test could be offered so as to be more accurate. Even if the types do tend to look good for paternity, again DNA could still be offered. For example, I only know my own blood type. I don't happen to know my H's type, (don't think he even knows), and I don't know OC's type. I know I could easily find these things out. It's just not something my Dr. or Pediatrician has ever volunteered.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't know AD, it just might pass over the majority of men's heads and they might not be able to make the connection with regards to the possibility that their newborn is not biologically theirs.

I said before, I beleive that if all hospitals were to offer all fathers the opportunity of optional paternity testing many would indeed take the opportunity to do so just for their own peace of mind.

I almost forgot, the FWW would also be protected by this in case the BH decided to use the test results as a weapon against her if they were to proceed with divorce later on. As I said, it would be practically impossible for a H to argue before a judge that he does not have to pay child support because the child is not biologically his more so when the hospital explicitly offered him the opportunity to find out before the birth certificate was even issued.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">TMCM~

What made you change your mind on the mandatory, or didn't you...just tossing around different ideas? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Take good care.
~aut</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good ol' pragmatism AD for I see that mandatory DNA testing has as much chance of passing a natural referendum as a snowball's chance in he** AND concern that the information from said DNA results could be usurped by govermental and corporate entities who could care less about the affected parties involved.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by autumnday:

Oh, TMCM...just read through the last few posts again, especially noting pops'. Were you saying the actual DNA testing should be mandatory, but whether the H wants to know the results would be optional?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, I have abandoned the mandatory idea and was referring to the new, more practical alternative of the hospitals making all fathers aware that they have the option of having an in house paternity test done IF they so chose. If the fathers chose NOT to have the test then there would be no test and they would in effect be accepting patternity of the child knowing full well that he or she might not be biologically his.

TMCM~

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't know AD, it just might pass over the majority of men's heads and they might not be able to make the connection with regards to the possibility that their newborn is not biologically theirs.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think it would pass over the majority of a lot of heads, men AND women. Unless of course they were unlike me and listened in Biology class. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

I guess at the point of the Dr. stating the blood types, she could also show a chart of the possible types a child could have if born of the 2 parents in question? Again, not a very good determining factor. Heck, if om has same blood type as H, the blood typing tells you diddly.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good ol' pragmatism AD for I see that mandatory DNA testing has as much chance of passing a natural referendum as a snowball's chance in he** </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You never know CoffeeMan, I've seen things made into law with much less merit, if any merit at all. While I still hope there is a better way to achieve lower numbers of WW passing off OC as H, I cannot deny the merits and the well intentions of mandatory testing.

~aut

Now optional DNA testing offered to both parents is a solution I'd happily agree to! In fact, I'd love to have it as an option when I have this baby next month, just in case my FWS ever gets into a funk and wants to believe that there's any chance this child isn't his. I seriously doubt it would happen, but after the insanity of his As and the resulting fog, I think it would be a nice defense against the possibility of that. One thing I have learned with all of this is that you never know what could end up going thru their heads when they start to think of straying and want to dream up reasons for it. And the reality was that he was only home for one weekend during a good part of post confrontation chaos, so it is conceivable that he may wonder, whether he admits to it or not. I'd love the option to erase any doubt now or in the future.