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

[Larry of the Lawn]

What if the woman knows that the pregnancy in question was aborted and she got pregnant again by someone else immediately after? She would be forced to divulge that she had an abortion just because someone with bad information suspected that they MIGHT be the father of her child.

What if the woman knows that the pregnancy in question was not caused by the plaintiff, but she has personal reasons for keeping the actual biological father secret? She would be forced to divulge information that could harm her existing familial relationships.

Let's say that I am a vindictive asshole with a grudge against an ex-girlfriend. She's happily married now, and I want to screw that up, so I go to the courts and lie that I had an affair with her and that I might be the father of her child. This will force her and her child into the court system, and create a lot of tension between her and her husband. Even when the test comes back negative, it's caused a lot of negative consequences for her and none for me, and how can she prove that I perjured myself? She only proved that I didn't get her pregnant, not that we never had sex all those years ago.

When it comes back negative, I imagine you'd be opening yourself up to some countersuit, maybe a perjury charge, and probably a bunch of court fees... .which is why most vindictive asshole exes tend to use other means of harassment and revenge than an imagined loophole in the legal system.

[Taenqyrhae]

How is it abused? Again, this is the current situation right now. Can you please provide an example of this being abused?

Also, how does it cause an unfair situation for the mother? She can literally not be involved in it at all. Paternity testing requires only the child and the father; it doesn't require the mother for one instant. It is as simple as plucking a hair from a kid, putting it into a small bottle and sending it in the mail. That's the onus on the mother, at best.

Why should she be forced to put her family through that stress just because some guy lied about sleeping with her? You can't just look at how the rule would work when applied to people who legitimately have grounds to believe that they are father if you aren't going to accept a mother's claim of parentage. You have to see what happens when the courts will not accept it when a woman says "There's no way he could be the father" and the woman is telling the truth and the man is lying.

[Taenqyrhae]

When it comes back negative, I imagine you'd be opening yourself up to some countersuit, maybe a perjury charge, and probably a bunch of court fees... .which is why most vindictive asshole exes tend to use other means of harassment and revenge than an imagined loophole in the legal system.

How can they prove perjury? If some woman claimed I had sex with her 15 years ago it would probably be impossible for me to disprove it unless she made a very specific claim that happened to conflict with something I had proof of. The reverse is true as well. The man does not have to make any easily disproven statements in his affidavit. All he has to say is he recalls having sex with the woman sometime that month, years ago. How can she prove that false? She would have to account for where she was every minute of that entire menstrual cycle and have proof of it. I wouldn't have to claim a specific date, because it would not be a reasonable expectation for a man to remember that.

It's not fear of perjury that keeps men from doing that to ex-girlfriends, it's the knowledge that the court is going to require some kind of proof before they demand anything of the mother or her child.

[aceluby]

This is just ridiculous.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Why should she be forced to put her family through that stress just because some guy lied about sleeping with her? You can't just look at how the rule would work when applied to people who legitimately have grounds to believe that they are father if you aren't going to accept a mother's claim of parentage. You have to see what happens when the courts will not accept it when a woman says "There's no way he could be the father" and the woman is telling the truth and the man is lying.

If your only standard for whether someone should have a right to do something or not is that it could potentially be abused or misused for frivolous or false claims, then you're going to have to throw out the ENTIRE legal system. It's simply a fact of life that, for every possible cause of action that exists, someone, somewhere is going to eventually make a false or frivolous claim that causes someone else to be upset. It happens in the criminal context with false allegations of theft, rape, etc. It happens in the civil context with false or frivolous claims of personal injuries, bogus property disputes, etc. And it happens in the family law context with false claims of domestic violence and false allegations impacting custody decisions.

There ARE ways, within the system, to try to deal with these things. Criminal charges for perjury when a lie is so obvious that it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a statement is false is just one way. There are also frivolous litigation and fee shifting statutes that exist where you only have to prove, beyond a preponderance of the evidence, that someone's litigation conduct was being done in bad faith which could result in sanctions or an award of counsel fees.

Are any of these foolproof? Of course not. The reality is, the legal system is fairly bad at weeding out low-level exploitative behavior, and it's absolutely true that "nuisance" actions of every stripe can cause people legitimate emotional and financial harm. But are we going to throw out all of personal injury law just because false claims are things that happen sometimes? Of course not , because we recognize as a fundamental touchstone of our legal system that if you're injured by someone acting below a certain standard of care, you have a right to be financially compensated for it. It's worth tolerating the occasional abuse of process to vindicate an important right.

So it is with the case of parentage issues. The United States Supreme Court is absolutely clear that the right of the parents to parent a child is a fundamental right. And we need a system that allows people to vindicate their fundamental rights, even if that sometimes means it exploited or it makes people uncomfortable.

[Taenqyrhae]

So this went from "women do not have to disclose their sex lives because reasons" to "well now you're asking rape victims to talk about their rape. What, do you hate rape victims or something? You're all gross."

So yeah, I'm with Kalbear on the goalpost moving. A for effort, F- for effect.

Rape is just one of the reasons I gave in response to the claim that a woman who did not want to establish paternity for her child would be cold and uncaring. You can't demand that a woman provide proof of paternity except when there is a rape, because that COULD force a woman to disclose she was raped to parties she had the right to keep that secret from. You either say a woman is allowed to say "I am not discussing the paternity of this child" or "You must admit if you were raped if that's the reason why you do not want to discuss the paternity of the child." There's no middle ground.

[Bryanfury]

Glad the court systems, flawed and skewered as they are, don't follow the logic SJW is putting forth. Actually insane.

[Taenqyrhae]

The system is also good at not creating situations where people are forced to disclose personal information without cause. A man who has good, provable reason to believe he is the father of a child may be able to get the courts to demand a paternity test, but the courts should require more cause than "I had sex with her". In a case where a woman is claiming another man is the father, or claiming that it was impossible for that man to be the father of the child, and the man has proof of nothing other than the fact he had sex with her, the courts should not impose anything upon the woman or her child.

One person's uncorroborated claim should not be grounds to demand genetic testing. Therefore, the simple fact that you had sex with a woman should not be good enough proof to take action against the woman.

[Taenqyrhae]

Glad the court systems, flawed and skewered as they are, don't follow the logic SJW is putting forth. Actually insane.

They actually do, a man has to provide evidence that supports his claim of fatherhood to take a woman to court. It almost always is a situation where the woman told the man he was the father at some point. A case where a man says "I'm the father of the kid" and she says "Nope, impossible" is not going to proceed to the point of issuing subpoenas against the woman.

[Buckwheat]

The system is also good at not creating situations where people are forced to disclose personal information without cause. A man who has good, provable reason to believe he is the father of a child may be able to get the courts to demand a paternity test, but the courts should require more cause than "I had sex with her". In a case where a woman is claiming another man is the father, or claiming that it was impossible for that man to be the father of the child, and the man has proof of nothing other than the fact he had sex with her, the courts should not impose anything upon the woman or her child.

One person's uncorroborated claim should not be grounds to demand genetic testing. Therefore, the simple fact that you had sex with a woman should not be good enough proof to take action against the woman.

What would be a good enough reason to get a paternity test done then? (If "I had sex with her on day XY" is not enough.)

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

The system is also good at not creating situations where people are forced to disclose personal information without cause. A man who has good, provable reason to believe he is the father of a child may be able to get the courts to demand a paternity test, but the courts should require more cause than "I had sex with her". In a case where a woman is claiming another man is the father, or claiming that it was impossible for that man to be the father of the child, and the man has proof of nothing other than the fact he had sex with her, the courts should not impose anything upon the woman or her child.

One person's uncorroborated claim should not be grounds to demand genetic testing. Therefore, the simple fact that you had sex with a woman should not be good enough proof to take action against the woman.

Testimony is a type of evidence. Testimony alone can be enough for the Court to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that something happened as a matter of fact. An allegation that you had sex with someone within the general time frame that would result in a baby of the age of the child in question is enough to get a paternity test virtually anywhere in the United States, absent some definitive proof (genetic test results) that someone else is the father.

[Taenqyrhae]

What would be a good enough reason to get a paternity test done then? (If "I had sex with her on day XY" is not enough.)

Because the woman can claim she knew herself to be pregnant already by someone else at that time.

[Kalbear]

Why should she be forced to put her family through that stress just because some guy lied about sleeping with her? You can't just look at how the rule would work when applied to people who legitimately have grounds to believe that they are father if you aren't going to accept a mother's claim of parentage. You have to see what happens when the courts will not accept it when a woman says "There's no way he could be the father" and the woman is telling the truth and the man is lying.

What stress? What actual stress are you talking about?

Again - this can already legally occur. Can you find even one instance where this happens?

\All he has to say is he recalls having sex with the woman sometime that month, years ago. How can she prove that false?

Often, quite easily. But again - you're going into crazy supervillain concepts to prove your point.

You either say a woman is allowed to say "I am not discussing the paternity of this child" or "You must admit if you were raped if that's the reason why you do not want to discuss the paternity of the child." There's no middle ground.

There are a whole lot of other middle grounds. That you can't recognize that speaks directly to your actual ignorance of the real laws that do exist.

[Buckwheat]

Because the woman can claim she knew herself to be pregnant already by someone else at that time.

That is not at all what I was asking. :dunno:

[Taenqyrhae]

What stress? What actual stress are you talking about?

The stress of explaining to your child and husband why the kid has to submit to a genetic test. Having to say "The courts think this guy has good enough proof that I cheated with him to demand a genetic test."

Again - this can already legally occur. Can you find even one instance where this happens?

My position is that the man does not have the right to demand a paternity test based solely on his un-corroborated claim that he had sex with the woman. Can you provide even one instance where the courts decided otherwise?

Often, quite easily. But again - you're going into crazy supervillain concepts to prove your point.

Really? A guy lying about having slept with a girl is "crazy supervillain" territory???

There are a whole lot of other middle grounds. That you can't recognize that speaks directly to your actual ignorance of the real laws that do exist.

I am not discussing middle grounds, I'm talking about a situation where a woman has given the man no reason to believe he might be the father of her child and the man is disputing the mother's claim of the child's parentage based solely on the fact that he had sex with her.

[Taenqyrhae]

That is not at all what I was asking. :dunno:

I see that now, I completely misread that.

A good reason to require a paternity test? The woman claimed that the man was the father, or the man was married to the woman at the time or in what was supposed to be an exclusive relationship. If she denied he was the father and the man could prove either of the above, the courts would be right to demand a test.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

For anyone interested, New Jersey's Parentage Statute can be viewed here.

The law allows any of the following people to file an action for paternity:

- a child or a child's legal representative

- a parent of the child

- a person alleging to be a parent of the child

- the Division of Family Development or the county welfare agency (welfare will bring a paternity and child support action against the non-custodial parent of the custodial parent is on welfare)

- any person who would be benefited or deprived of a benefit under a will, trust or the laws of intestacy by the existence or nonexistence of a parent and child relationship (how about that for broad?)

Section 7 addresses genetic testing. The law is clear that in any case where genetic parentage is at issue "the court... shall order the child, the mother, the alleged father and other designated individuals to submit to genetic testing."

That's all it takes!

[Larry of the Lawn]

For anyone interested, New Jersey's Parentage Statute can be viewed here.

The law allows any of the following people to file an action for paternity:

- a child or a child's legal representative

- a parent of the child

- a person alleging to be a parent of the child

- the Division of Family Development or the county welfare agency (welfare will bring a paternity and child support action against the non-custodial parent of the custodial parent is on welfare)

- any person who would be benefited or deprived of a benefit under a will, trust or the laws of intestacy by the existence or nonexistence of a parent and child relationship (how about that for broad?)

Section 7 addresses genetic testing. The law is clear that in any case where genetic parentage is at issue "the court... shall order the child, the mother, the alleged father and other designated individuals to submit to genetic testing."

That's all it takes!

I bet the courts are pretty much overloaded with false paternity suits. I imagine if you're a mother in NJ it's extra tough to work and support your child because you are being dragged down to the court house because of all the guys claiming to be the father of your child.

[Castel]

For anyone interested, New Jersey's Parentage Statute can be viewed here.

The law allows any of the following people to file an action for paternity:

- a child or a child's legal representative

- a parent of the child

- a person alleging to be a parent of the child

- the Division of Family Development or the county welfare agency (welfare will bring a paternity and child support action against the non-custodial parent of the custodial parent is on welfare)

- any person who would be benefited or deprived of a benefit under a will, trust or the laws of intestacy by the existence or nonexistence of a parent and child relationship (how about that for broad?)

Section 7 addresses genetic testing. The law is clear that in any case where genetic parentage is at issue "the court... shall order the child, the mother, the alleged father and other designated individuals to submit to genetic testing."

That's all it takes!

So...if I wanted to know who my father was I could have a test done on a particular suspect but not put my mother on the rack and cause her "stress" until she gives a full list with copulation windows and frequencies?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I bet the courts are pretty much overloaded with false paternity suits. I imagine if you're a mother in NJ it's extra tough to work and support your child because you are being dragged down to the court house because of all the guys claiming to be the father of your child.

Strangely enough, in most of these cases, the putative fathers are running in the other direction!

Edited to add: That's what I find so crazy about the absurd hypotheticals. In the vast, vast majority of cases, mom is filing for paternity (or welfare is filing on mom's behalf for paternity) because they want child support from dad. Cases where dads file for paternity are relatively small in number in comparison. I don't think any organization keeps any statistics on the number of paternity applications which are successful vs. not successful, and truthfully most of these cases are handled with both parties being self-represented, but of the cases I've been involved in, I've NEVER had a case where Dad filed to establish paternity and was found NOT to be the father. I'm sure it happens, but I've definitely never seen it.