Jump to content

My response to the closed thread that is now about parental rights...


Taenqyrhae

Recommended Posts

The old thread was closed, probably because it is getting so big and off topic, but I had written a lengthy response during the time it was closed, and felt those who asked me for my explanation deserve it.

As someone else has pointed out, in every jurisdiction in the United States that I'm aware of (and certainly in my own jurisdiction), men do have the right to petition for the Court for an Establishment of Paternity. Of course, in the vast majority of Establishment of Paternity cases, for obvious reasons, it's usually mom who is seeking to establish paternity of dad because she wants dad to pay child support. I've seen a couple of cases where they had to test multiple potential dads before they finally got the right one. But, it's not uncommon for a dad to petition, especially when mom is clearly going to try to keep the child away from him. There is a standard you have to meet - you have to at least allege facts that, if true, would make it possible that the child is yours. So if the last time you had sex was 2 years ago, and the kid is only a year old, you're not going to get a paternity test. Incidentally, one positive test is definitive as to all potential claimants, so once you identify to a 99.99% degree of certainty that the child is someone's by genetic testing, all other potential fathers lose without the need for a paternity test.

In any case, your argument against (bolded above) this is absurdly reductive and circular. First, as stated above, dads already have this right.

Does the man have this right if the woman denies that he could be the father of the child? If not, there is no way this could ever be enforced against a woman's will. If the woman's claims to the contrary are not sufficient, it would be a violation of the woman's privacy that would be considered unconstitutional. That's how Roe vs. Wade was decided - the law stated that a woman could only get an abortion if she was raped. The woman claimed she was raped, and was denied the abortion by the courts because she did not file charges against the rapist. The Supreme Court decided it was a violation of a woman's right to privacy because it allowed the courts to demand a woman disclose intensely personal information. I believe it would be a similar invasion of privacy for a court to demand a woman prove who she had sex with when she is not making any claims to the parentage of a child. Those kinds of actions should only be allowed when there is evidence to support the claims, and the father cannot have access to the evidence against his claim by biology.

If a woman knows a man is not the father of a child she had and makes that claim, she should not be forced to prove that negative. Only she knows if she was fertile at the time they had sex, only she knows if she had a diaphragm in or if she knew she was already pregnant from a previous sexual encounter. "I'm sure she's lying" is not grounds to force a woman or her child to undergo testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old thread was closed, probably because it is getting so big and off topic, but I had written a lengthy response during the time it was closed, and felt those who asked me for my explanation deserve it.

Does the man have this right if the woman denies that he could be the father of the child? If so, there is no way this could ever be enforced against a woman's will. If not, it would be a violation of the woman's privacy that would be considered unconstitutional. That's how Roe vs. Wade was decided - the law stated that a woman could only get an abortion if she was raped. The woman claimed she was raped, and was denied the abortion by the courts because she did not file charges against the rapist. The Supreme Court decided it was a violation of a woman's right to privacy because it allowed the courts to demand a woman disclose intensely personal information. I believe it would be a similar invasion of privacy for a court to demand a woman prove who she had sex with when she is not making any claims to the parentage of a child. Those kinds of actions should only be allowed when there is evidence to support the claims, and the father cannot have access to the evidence against his claim by biology.

If a woman knows a man is not the father of a child she had and makes that claim, she should not be forced to prove that negative. Only she knows if she was fertile at the time they had sex, only she knows if she had a diaphragm in or if she knew she was already pregnant from a previous sexual encounter. "I'm sure she's lying" is not grounds to force a woman or her child to undergo testing.

Roe v Wade is not relevant when we are talking about a child that is already born. A woman's right to privacy does not extent to the DNA of her children.

And "I'm sure he's lying" is in fact used all the time to establish paternity, but almost always by women who are seeking child support. And rightly so. Testing to see if a child matches a father's DNA can be done with a single strand of hair, it is hardly an undue violation to ask for that on the part of the courts. A woman does not and should not have the right to arbitrarily decide she will be the only parent in her child's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roe v Wade is not relevant when we are talking about a child that is already born. A woman's right to privacy does not extent to the DNA of her children.

And "I'm sure he's lying" is in fact used all the time to establish paternity, but almost always by women who are seeking child support. And rightly so. Testing to see if a child matches a father's DNA can be done with a single strand of hair, it is hardly an undue violation to ask for that on the part of the courts. A woman does not and should not have the right to arbitrarily decide she will be the only parent in her child's life.

In the original thread, I was discussing a woman who was pregnant but was not sure who the father was, and it was proposed that a man who wanted to establish parental rights should have the right to prove paternity. You can see how this is relevant and how it would be an unconstitutional infringement of a woman's rights. Then this morphed into "What if the child is already born" and I maintained that if the woman says that a man is not the father, he does not have the right to try and prove her wrong unless he has strong evidence that he could, in fact, be the father - and because irrefutable evidence of this is not attainable by the man under normal circumstances (because he has no way of knowing if the woman was fertile when they had sex, even if he can prove they had sex), there are no grounds to force a woman to have her child tested against her will. All he can prove to the courts is that they had sex, if that's all they did - he cannot prove she was not using birth control, he cannot prove that she was not already pregnant at the time of sex, so he has no grounds to demand an intrusion in her life. Now, if he has proof that she told him he might be the father, the courts might decide otherwise - but that is a different situation from a woman who does not want to establish paternity for the child, who wants to keep "UNKNOWN" (or her husbands name) on the birth certificate.

I disagree that a woman does not have the right to decide she will be the only parent in her child's life. Just as a man should not be forced into a relationship with a woman just because he had a one-night stand and impregnated her, a woman should not be forced into a relationship with a man for the same reasons. To argue otherwise is misogynistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And "I'm sure he's lying" is in fact used all the time to establish paternity, but almost always by women who are seeking child support. And rightly so. Testing to see if a child matches a father's DNA can be done with a single strand of hair, it is hardly an undue violation to ask for that on the part of the courts. A woman does not and should not have the right to arbitrarily decide she will be the only parent in her child's life.

It is relevant in that situation because the courts are seeking to provide support to the child, a right the child has. It's in the best interests of the mother and the child to determine the biological parentage of the child.

In a situation where the child is already being cared for and there is no relationship between the mother and the biological father, and the mother wishes to keep it that way, it is usually going to be in the best interests of the mother and the child to maintain this. What interest is served by allowing the man to establish paternity? The child already has a parent, and does not need further support. What the man is asking for is more than the right to contribute his share of the child's upkeep, he is asking for rights that the mother of the child could not legally demand of him if the roles were reversed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the relationship being argued for is between man and child, not man and woman. The woman has every right to refrain from a relationship with the man. She has no right to deny the child a relationship though, and to argue otherwise is misandrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not addressing the rights of the child at all. Do you not think that a child has a right


  • to know about the hereditary health issues on the father's side
  • to child support paid by the father
  • to establish a relationship with the father (especially if the child is old enough to decide about that) or at least know him




I disagree that a woman does not have the right to decide she will be the only parent in her child's life. Just as a man should not be forced into a relationship with a woman just because he had a one-night stand and impregnated her, a woman should not be forced into a relationship with a man for the same reasons. To argue otherwise is misogynistic.




Nobody would be forcing the mother to have a relationship with the father. All everybody is saying that the child has the right to know who his/her biological parents are.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that a woman does not have the right to decide she will be the only parent in her child's life. Just as a man should not be forced into a relationship with a woman just because he had a one-night stand and impregnated her, a woman should not be forced into a relationship with a man for the same reasons. To argue otherwise is misogynistic.

Well that depends on how you define relationship. A man can absolutely be compelled into a financial relationship with a woman because he impregnated her. And if he keeps up his financial obligations, most courts also include a certain element of visitation rights, etc, assuming that he isn't a criminal or drug addict or something.

In a situation where the child is already being cared for and there is no relationship between the mother and the biological father, and the mother wishes to keep it that way, it is usually going to be in the best interests of the mother and the child to maintain this. What interest is served by allowing the man to establish paternity? The child already has a parent, and does not need further support. What the man is asking for is more than the right to contribute his share of the child's upkeep, he is asking for rights that the mother of the child could not legally demand of him if the roles were reversed.

Just because a child can be raised by one parent does not mean it might not be better to have two. In most cases, children benefit from having two parents. If the mother feels that in this specific case it would be better for the child not to have any involvement with the father, then she can can try to prove it in court. But she is going to need a more compelling reason than "I do not get along with him" to deny a child a relationship with the father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the relationship being argued for is between man and child, not man and woman. The woman has every right to refrain from a relationship with the man. She has no right to deny the child a relationship though, and to argue otherwise is misandrist.

So the man has the right to refrain from a relationship from a child and the mother (don't leave her out because she IS part of the relationship when there is enforced shared parental rights), but the mother does not have the right to refrain from a relationship with the father?

The courts have ruled previously that a man has no expectation of parental rights of a child he fathered, if there was no relationship between the two and the DNA was not provided or demanded for the purpose of becoming a father to a child - there have been cases of men who donated sperm for artificial insemination with the understanding that he would not be the parent of the child, and then changed their minds and sued for parental rights. Almost always the courts decide against the father, and rightfully so.

If a man wants to be a father, he needs to make that clear before he sleeps with a woman and make sure she agrees that he is to be the father of any potential young their union produces. If he thinks he might go to court if the woman decides to say someone else is the father, he better get it in writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I had casual sex with women I did not have a relationship with, it was with the understanding that, if she became pregnant by me, she would have the right to demand child support from me, and nothing else. She had no right to a continued relationship with me in any way other than a check in the mail. To be fair, she must be safe assuming that I had no right to be in a continued relationship with her either. There is also the assumption that if she did demand support and to establish that I was the father, I WOULD have a right to a relationship with the child, but in our hypothetical scenario, the woman is not doing this. She's going on record saying "You're not the father", freeing the man from responsibility for the child. He can't force a relationship with her in this situation, and it would be wrong for the courts to second-guess a woman's negative claim of paternity.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

my mom fought for custody of me and my brother, but what worked for our family is the fact that our parents just let us choose who we want to be with if we ever asked. So I chose to live with my dad.

for a mother to not let the father have a relationship with the child is cold and so controlling over the mind of the child.

for a father to not want anything to do with the child means that he is a shitty and irresponsible person.

People always talk about the rights of the parents but the children should have a say I think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my mom fought for custody of me and my brother, but what worked for our family is the fact that our parents just let us choose who we want to be with if we ever asked. So I chose to live with my dad.

for a mother to not let the father have a relationship with the child is cold and so controlling over the mind of the child.

for a father to not want anything to do with the child means that he is a shitty and irresponsible person.

People always talk about the rights of the parents but the children should have a say I think

There are many reasons why someone might not want to let the father have a relationship with a child beyond being cold and controlling. The father might be a rapist. He might be mentally ill or abusive. The child may have been brought up believing that someone else is his father.

Currently, if a woman is raped and the rapist wants to establish parental rights, she simply has to deny that he could be the father, and the burden of proof falls on him to show that he could be, which would be pretty difficult if the child is the product of an unreported rape. She doesn't have to prove that he raped her and doesn't deserve rights for that reason, just point out that a different name is on the birth certificate. If we expanded a man's right to determine and establish paternity, what's to stop a man from raping a woman and then forcing himself to be a part of her life afterwards? I guess she could have an abortion, but for some women that's not an ethical option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is all about the rights of the child now and the women's rights don't matter, how about a situation where a person suspects that the person who he thought was his father was not his biological father? (this is true roughly 20% of the time) Does that person have the right to demand their mother give testimony about any affairs they might have had around the time of their conception, and then have the right to demand that these men undergo genetic testing? If a woman testifies in court that her husband was in fact the father of the child and that she never cheated on him, and then the child later establishes that someone else was the biological father, should she be prosecuted for perjury? Because that is the natural consequence of this re-alignment of parental rights.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many reasons why someone might not want to let the father have a relationship with a child beyond being cold and controlling. The father might be a rapist. He might be mentally ill or abusive. The child may have been brought up believing that someone else is his father.

Currently, if a woman is raped and the rapist wants to establish parental rights, she simply has to deny that he could be the father, and the burden of proof falls on him to show that he could be, which would be pretty difficult if the child is the product of an unreported rape. She doesn't have to prove that he raped her and doesn't deserve rights for that reason, just point out that a different name is on the birth certificate. If we expanded a man's right to determine and establish paternity, what's to stop a man from raping a woman and then forcing himself to be a part of her life afterwards? I guess she could have an abortion, but for some women that's not an ethical option.

I don't know what's stopping the mother from telling the child that he/she was a product of rape, if it was unreported. As traumatic (or not) that would be for the child to know, the child still has a right to know and make his/her own decisions on relations with such a father/parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I reading this right? That is completely and utterly immoral.

Sperm donors are really a separate issue entirely. You sign all sorts of things insisting that you do not have any of the parental obligations or rights that go along with fathering a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That one guy might be a rapist is never going to be a legitimate reason to give every woman the right to deny any father a relationship with his child. Thats utterly insane. Can you actually imagine that?

"I want to deny this man contact with my child"

"Why?"

"Because some other man once raped some other woman"

Christ that is sexist as fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is all about the rights of the child now and the women's rights don't matter, how about a situation where a person suspects that the person who he thought was his father was not his biological father? (this is true roughly 20% of the time) Does that person have the right to demand their mother give testimony about any affairs they might have had around the time of their conception, and then have the right to demand that these men undergo genetic testing? If a woman testifies in court that her husband was in fact the father of the child and that she never cheated on him, and then the child later establishes that someone else was the biological father, should she be prosecuted for perjury? Because that is the natural consequence of this re-alignment of parental rights.

Yes, the woman should be prosecuted for perjury. That's typically what happens when you lie under oath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what's stopping the mother from telling the child that he/she was a product of rape, if it was unreported. As traumatic (or not) that would be for the child to know, the child still has a right to know and make his/her own decisions on relations with such a father/parent.

I believe a rape victim has the right to not talk about that rape. It could be very traumatic to a child to learn they were the result of rape. This happened to my mother. Until her early teens, she never suspected that the man who raised her as her father was not really her father. When she got older and her mixed ancestry became more apparent, she found out that her mother had been raped as a young teenager, and shortly after married another man who agreed to raise the child as his own. She believed she was a child of rape for over 40 years, until her mother confessed on her deathbed that she was in love with the boy who was her biological father and lied about the rape (and felt terribly guilty about it because the father disappeared and was probably lynched). Unfortunately, my grandmother did not have the maturity at the time to keep the father of the child secret, but if she could have chosen to do so it would have been far preferable for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...