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

[Kalbear]

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."

You don't have to explain. You simply can ask for it. It's not that hard. It's not that stressful. And chances are good that the child is the one who is going to have to encourage it - that was the original idea, right? Instead, now you're talking about some random dude coming into a family and saying that he's the real biological father for...reasons? Seriously, goalposts just all over the place.

Chances are pretty good that if a man pressed to know that he's the biological father and did so when the acting father thought they were, the family is going to be under a whole lot of stress from that accusation regardless. The actual DNA test isn't particularly stressful on its own, and that person's claim will be stressful on its own merits regardless.

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?

No one once has said that this is the case. The demand for a paternity test needs to have some corroboration. It need not be ironclad, but it does need to have reasonable claim - and it also needs to be put against other compelling interests. This is exactly what exists right now.

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

A guy lying about having slept with a girl so that he can claim that a child might be his so that he can act as a father, maybe? Yes, that's crazy supervillain stuff. That isn't what normal people do.

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.

It isn't up to the woman to give the man reason or not to believe they're the father. That is the sticking point that everyone else has a problem with. It is not up to the woman to be the sole decider on whether or not information gets out there. Other people have rights. Some times the woman's rights will trump the other parties - but not all the time. As is always the case when rights come into conflict with each other it is a matter of the court deciding which right is primary. Your suggestion is that the woman's right always trumps all others - which is complete and utter bullshit, discriminatory, and is in the interests of only the woman.

But again, in your crazy supervillain situation - you have a man who decides that they might be the father AND doesn't have a good relationship with the woman AND she doesn't want to disclose anything AND there is no other evidence to dispute their paternity test. Furthermore, this guy is just going through his list of all women he's ever slept with and simply asking 'I might be the dad, awesome'! This would be the act of a fairly insane person, and if pressed would result in their getting nothing because they did not have compelling interests.

[Taenqyrhae]

You don't have to explain. You simply can ask for it. It's not that hard. It's not that stressful. And chances are good that the child is the one who is going to have to encourage it - that was the original idea, right? Instead, now you're talking about some random dude coming into a family and saying that he's the real biological father for...reasons? Seriously, goalposts just all over the place.

Chances are pretty good that if a man pressed to know that he's the biological father and did so when the acting father thought they were, the family is going to be under a whole lot of stress from that accusation regardless. The actual DNA test isn't particularly stressful on its own, and that person's claim will be stressful on its own merits regardless.

No one once has said that this is the case. The demand for a paternity test needs to have some corroboration. It need not be ironclad, but it does need to have reasonable claim - and it also needs to be put against other compelling interests. This is exactly what exists right now.

A guy lying about having slept with a girl so that he can claim that a child might be his so that he can act as a father, maybe? Yes, that's crazy supervillain stuff. That isn't what normal people do.

It isn't up to the woman to give the man reason or not to believe they're the father. That is the sticking point that everyone else has a problem with. It is not up to the woman to be the sole decider on whether or not information gets out there. Other people have rights. Some times the woman's rights will trump the other parties - but not all the time. As is always the case when rights come into conflict with each other it is a matter of the court deciding which right is primary. Your suggestion is that the woman's right always trumps all others - which is complete and utter bullshit, discriminatory, and is in the interests of only the woman.

But again, in your crazy supervillain situation - you have a man who decides that they might be the father AND doesn't have a good relationship with the woman AND she doesn't want to disclose anything AND there is no other evidence to dispute their paternity test. Furthermore, this guy is just going through his list of all women he's ever slept with and simply asking 'I might be the dad, awesome'! This would be the act of a fairly insane person, and if pressed would result in their getting nothing because they did not have compelling interests.

So we are in agreement. There are people who are saying that the courts must demand a paternity test if a man simply claims to have had sex with the woman around the time of the conception, even if she says that he is not the father, and the bulk of my argument was against that position. If the crazy ex boyfriend said "I had sex with her" and she said "Nope, we weren't together anymore, he's not the father" that WOULD be the end of it. Likewise, if not-crazy one-night stand claimed that he had sex with a woman and she said "He's not the father", that too would be the end of it.

In my scenario, the ex boyfriend is not trying to establish paternity - he knows he is not the father, but he is trying to disrupt her marriage by making a false claim of potential fatherhood, knowing that it would result in her being dragged into court and knowing that his perjury cannot be proven so all it costs him are legal fees. If an uncorroborated claim of sex would be enough, that would work. Since it's not, it wouldn't.

[Kalbear]

There are people who are saying that the courts must demand a paternity test if a man simply claims to have had sex with the woman around the time of the conception, even if she says that he is not the father, and the bulk of my argument was against that position.

There is no one claiming this at all.

If the crazy ex boyfriend said "I had sex with her" and she said "Nope, we weren't together anymore, he's not the father" that WOULD be the end of it. Likewise, if not-crazy one-night stand claimed that he had sex with a woman and she said "He's not the father", that too would be the end of it.

No, that isn't true. Her word doesn't trump his.

In my scenario, the ex boyfriend is not trying to establish paternity - he knows he is not the father, but he is trying to disrupt her marriage by making a false claim of potential fatherhood, knowing that it would result in her being dragged into court and knowing that his perjury cannot be proven so all it costs him are legal fees. If an uncorroborated claim of sex would be enough, that would work. Since it's not, it wouldn't.

Except it's very easy for her to prove otherwise - get a DNA test. They're cheap, they're easily provable and it doesn't require courts or fees at all. Again, you really don't understand how the law works or how paternity tests work. And also again, this can happen right now. Has there been a single case where this has happened?

[Maithanet]

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.

I think it is weird that we are so tangled up in this particular absurd hypothetical of:

1. Someone who has enough money that he can afford a lawyer to take a bunch of women he's slept with to court

2. Has a bad relationship with the woman such that he cannot just ask and needs to lawyer up

3. Wants to establish his paternity over these women's children for some reason

4. Doesn't care that if he wins such a case he will be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in child support

I agree with Kal, this sounds like the actions of Crazy Hypothetical Man, not a real, living person. The idea that we need to fight the scourge of this CHM and his quest to force children to provide hair samples and ruin families is...I dunno. Let's say misguided. I think I'm done with this thread.

[sperry]

OP, despite being repeatedly told how the law works, continues to assert that the law works the way that they believe it should. At taht point, it's virtually impossible to have any intelligent conversation, so I'm going to bow out.

[Kalbear]

An aside: it would be really funny if some rich dude did this and the woman said 'yep, awesome, you're the dad and owe x in child support' while she conspired with her hubby to make sure everyone was cool with it. Like, if some ultra rich asshole wanted to claim paternity of my kids? I'd totally milk his ass for the child support. If someone's claiming that they're the father you can simply say 'yes, you are the father'; you don't have to get tested. If both parents are in agreement it's settled.

So you have this kind of awesome prisoner's dilemma where the supposedly horrible ex-boyfriend with loads of money has to risk that the woman will not just say 'for sure, dude' and get his money.

Needless to say, there aren't a whole lot of ultrarich guys who want to fuck over women who are lining up to pay child support.

[Crom Dubh]

I suppose it is sort of nice to see a discussion about stereotypes of men as baby-diggers, rather than women as gold-diggers, if only for the originality.

[Dr. Pepper]

An aside: it would be really funny if some rich dude did this and the woman said 'yep, awesome, you're the dad and owe x in child support' while she conspired with her hubby to make sure everyone was cool with it. Like, if some ultra rich asshole wanted to claim paternity of my kids? I'd totally milk his ass for the child support. If someone's claiming that they're the father you can simply say 'yes, you are the father'; you don't have to get tested. If both parents are in agreement it's settled.

So you have this kind of awesome prisoner's dilemma where the supposedly horrible ex-boyfriend with loads of money has to risk that the woman will not just say 'for sure, dude' and get his money.

Needless to say, there aren't a whole lot of ultrarich guys who want to fuck over women who are lining up to pay child support.

Hopefully the actual parenting ability of the rich dude would be considered before leaping at the money.

[Taenqyrhae]

There is no one claiming this at all.

Except it's very easy for her to prove otherwise - get a DNA test. They're cheap, they're easily provable and it doesn't require courts or fees at all. Again, you really don't understand how the law works or how paternity tests work. And also again, this can happen right now. Has there been a single case where this has happened?

But you did, in your very next line. I claimed that some posters are holding the position that a man's uncorroborated claim of sexual relations with a woman is enough to drag her into court to prove paternity, even if she claims he is not the father. I said if there is no proof and it's his word against hers, she doesn't have to prove it. And you say "No, that isn't true. Her word doesn't trump his."

Then that is saying that his word DOES trump hers, which is what I am disputing. You are saying that in a "he said/she said" situation, the courts should base their decision on the man's claim, not the woman's.

Except it's very easy for her to prove otherwise - get a DNA test. They're cheap, they're easily provable and it doesn't require courts or fees at all. Again, you really don't understand how the law works or how paternity tests work. And also again, this can happen right now. Has there been a single case where this has happened?

How easy is it? She has to take time off work to go to court. She may have to pay for the DNA test out of her own pocket, and for some poor people an unexpected $20 expense can cause serious hardship. She has to explain to her kid why she's having to pluck a hair from him, and all because of an unsubstantiated claim. Put yourself in her shoes. She knows who the father of her child is, she knows that the asshole could not possibly be the father, but she is having to prove this because of his lies. Being dragged into court unjustly is a huge stressor. My wife is still dealing with issues caused by a time a few years ago when she had to go to court to prove that someone was lying about her (not paternity related). Getting talked down to by a judge and forced to do things you don't want to do for no good reason is very harmful

[Kalbear]

Hopefully the actual parenting ability of the rich dude would be considered before leaping at the money.

Don't need to worry about that - financial support doesn't imply actually getting to see the kids.

Then that is saying that his word DOES trump hers, which is what I am disputing. You are saying that in a "he said/she said" situation, the courts should base their decision on the man's claim, not the woman's.

No. Me saying that her word doesn't trump his is not saying that his trumps hers. It is saying - and this is the central conceit that you continue to have a really hard time with - that when multiple rights are in conflict courts will decide. When two people have separate claims, one person's does not automatically trump the other. They are gauged on their own merits and a decision is reached.

I am not saying that the man's claim should be the basis. I am saying - and so is the law - that in a he said she said situation, the merits of both claims will be looked at.

How easy is it? She has to take time off work to go to court. She may have to pay for the DNA test out of her own pocket, and for some poor people an unexpected $20 expense can cause serious hardship. She has to explain to her kid why she's having to pluck a hair from him, and all because of an unsubstantiated claim. Put yourself in her shoes. She knows who the father of her child is, she knows that the asshole could not possibly be the father, but she is having to prove this because of his lies. Being dragged into court unjustly is a huge stressor. My wife is still dealing with issues caused by a time a few years ago when she had to go to court to prove that someone was lying about her (not paternity related). Getting talked down to by a judge and forced to do things you don't want to do for no good reason is very harmful

She doesn't have to take any time to go to court. She has to do the following:

-have a paternity test arranged. You can do this via walmart online. They cost as low as $80. If it's a court-mandated test, they will force the father (or whoever is issuing the claim) to pay for it first, and then send the test kit to the kid in question. There is zero financial obligation, nor is there any actual contact with the other person.

-do the paternity test. This is typically a hair or a cheek swab. It takes about a minute. It does not require an explanation to the child, either; you can do it in their sleep if you need to. Or from a comb.

And that is it. There is no court necessary. There is no need to talk with a judge. There is no need to take time off work. You mail a package in the mail and you're done.

Now, here's the flip side - the woman can sue said man for all sorts of civil action, and likely win. If she wants to.

It really isn't that special or stressful - any more than any other libelous claim could be.

[Larry of the Lawn]

SJW - I'm sorry your wife had to deal with that, but the minuscule chance of someone bringing forth a bad faith case doesn't trump a father's right to be a father or the child's right to know who their father is. This is the case with all sorts of things- just because someone once defrauded welfare doesn't mean the whole system should be abolished; just because someone once filed a lien out of spite doesn't mean no one should be allowed to put a lien on someone. Like Nestor said, there are often criminal or civil penalties associated with these things. It's the cost of having a functioning legal system.

[Kalbear]

By the way, here's an actual thing that happened (a guy wants to know if he can request that an ex gf get tested)

Yes, you can certainly request that a genetic test be done. The formal legal action for you would be a Petition for Legitimation, since you believe that you are the father of a child born out of wedlock. Only a mother can file a Petition for Paternity.

If your ex-girlfriend agrees to provide DNA from the child, then the test can take up to 14 days to get back depending on the testing lab that you use. You can expect to pay approximately $80 - $150 for the test to be done. If the test results come back positive and you are in fact the legal father of the child, then you will need to either negotiate a parenting plan with your ex-girlfriend that includes child support and parenting time for you, or you will need to seek a parenting plan in Court.

Do you know if your ex will allow for the genetic testing to be done? If she will not cooperate, then you will need to file the Petition for Legitimation in Court and request that the Court Order genetic testing. An attorney can help you file all of the appropriate paperwork.

Depending on whether or not she cooperates your costs can vary. It would be cheaper and easier if she cooperates. If you have to go through the Courts to seek an Order to compel her to take the DNA test, then this can take longer and cost more.

I suggest you contact an attorney for a free consultation to get some more specific information about your best strategy in moving forward, and that the specific costs would be for you.

[Maithanet]

It really isn't that special or stressful - any more than any other libelous claim could be.

And that's the other huge thing about this. There are any number of questionable ways that someone with money can take someone they don't like to court. The "burden" of submitting a hair sample is laughable compared to the legal pretzels a good lawyer can tie you in.

[Taenqyrhae]

By the way, here's an actual thing that happened (a guy wants to know if he can request that an ex gf get tested)

What burden of proof does the man have to prove if the woman denies that he could be the father?

[Crom Dubh]

What burden of proof does the man have to prove if the woman denies that he could be the father?

A DNA test of the child.

[Glaurung]

My wife is still dealing with issues caused by a time a few years ago when she had to go to court to prove that someone was lying about her (not paternity related). Getting talked down to by a judge and forced to do things you don't want to do for no good reason is very harmful

I'll put all other stuff aside, there is too much to respond to. Regarding this though... I'm sorry for your wife, that sucks. That being said...isn't that kind of one of the major purposes of courts? To determine who is lying and who is not? Yeah they sometimes get it wrong, but they are there to determine the truth. If we just quit applying law and civil rights simply because somebody might lie from time to time(no matter how absurd the hypothetical of some guy going around suing for paternal rights of kids who aren't his), then what is the point in having a justice system in the first place?

For example.....if somebody says I broke into their house and stole their furniture, they would indeed be lying about me. However, I would still be required to defend myself. Otherwise, no laws would ever get prosecuted. The courts do realize that this is indeed unfair, that is why they put the obligation of prosecution to prove guilt rather than the accused to prove innocence. If "no I didn't do it" were enough to simply drop all charges that would be one absurd judicial system. In the case of paternity testing, it is actually a very easy situation to determine guilty or not guilty.

[Kalbear]

What burden of proof does the man have to prove if the woman denies that he could be the father?

I think that would vary from state to state, but in general if she refuses to do the paternity test for some bizarre reason it'd be up to the judge to decide what the proof is that would make it reasonable to compel her to do the DNA test on the child.

Which I would imagine would be essentially things like 'did you have sex with her around the time that this child was conceived', 'is there a good reason to not take a paternity test to establish paternity', and 'is there anything that would automatically disprove that this is the case, such as another paternity test result'?

Like, that's another thing that the mother in this crazy supervillain situation could do - she could get the actual father to take a paternity test. Then they show it's theirs, and boom, you're done. Never have to worry about it again.

[Taenqyrhae]

If a child's right to know who his father is trumps the mother's right to privacy, I'm assuming it would also trump the father's right to privacy, correct? In that case, does the child have the right to know anything other than the man's name? Does he have the right to demand a chance to talk to him? Spend a weekend with him? From my understanding, the courts only give the right to child support and to know the name of their father, and it is possible for parents of a child to legally keep a child's parents secret from them. This is often done in cases of adoption, so it's pretty clear a child does not have a universal right to know who their father is if they don't have a universal right to know who their mother is.

[Taenqyrhae]

A DNA test of the child.

That's not what I was asking. What burden of proof does the father have to provide to have the courts order a DNA test?

[Taenqyrhae]

I'll put all other stuff aside, there is too much to respond to. Regarding this though... I'm sorry for your wife, that sucks. That being said...isn't that kind of one of the major purposes of courts? To determine who is lying and who is not? Yeah they sometimes get it wrong, but they are there to determine the truth. If we just quit applying law and civil rights simply because somebody might lie from time to time(no matter how absurd the hypothetical of some guy going around suing for paternal rights of kids who aren't his), then what is the point in having a justice system in the first place?

For example.....if somebody says I broke into their house and stole their furniture, they would indeed be lying about me. However, I would still be required to defend myself. Otherwise, no laws would ever get prosecuted. The courts do realize that this is indeed unfair, that is why they put the obligation of prosecution to prove guilt rather than the accused to prove innocence. If "no I didn't do it" were enough to simply drop all charges that would be one absurd judicial system. In the case of paternity testing, it is actually a very easy situation to determine guilty or not guilty.

Actually, if somebody reported that you broke into their house and stole their furniture, there would have to be enough evidence that you did so for it to go to trial. I know from personal experience telling the police that someone burglarized you with no evidence doesn't even get the suspect questioned. If it even got that far, a prosecutor isn't going to want to file charges against you if there is 0 evidence that you stole the furniture beyond one person claiming it.

Likewise, a court should not enforce a Petition of Legitimacy if there is no evidence that the man filing it might be the father. The mother should have to prove nothing if she's never given this guy reason to believe he might be the father.