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

[Kalbear]

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

Sorry, which goalpost are we moving now? Are we now talking about the situation where the child wants to get their father or some random dude tested? Or is this still the crazy supervillain situation?

Well, as it turns out this happens all the time - and again, it's a case of conflicting rights and who wins. In that case, the adopted kid won.

That being said, you do not have a right to demand to talk with anyone. Ever. This is covered more in this fairly decent post. Among other interesting things, this article talks about how there are multiple rights that can be granted or not granted depending - but one that is explicitly clear is that nowhere in the US does an adopted child have the right to have a relationship with their biological parents.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I... then what is the point in having a justice system in the first place?

...

This Kids in the Hall skit speculates about a similar justice system.

[Taenqyrhae]

That being said, you do not have a right to demand to talk with anyone. Ever.

This is not true. My kids' biological father has the right to demand the kids speak to him, even though they do not want to and don't see him as a father (he abandoned my wife when her son was only 8 months old and didn't try to contact her again for years, by then the children were old enough to learn how abusive he was). So we have a similar imbalance of rights, again favoring fathers over mothers and children. A child has no right to demand time with his biological father, though a biological father DOES have the right to demand time with the child. Just like a man cannot be forced into contact with a woman he impregnated but the woman CAN be forced into contact with him.

By the way, he doesn't exercise this right much anymore, thankfully. Probably got sick of hearing "his" kids tell him how much they hate him.

[Kalbear]

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?

They have to file a claim of legitimation. This is a pretty lengthy set of steps depending on where you're at. For instance, in the above one of the things you need is to actually get a signature from the woman. It's not an easy process, and even in the uncontested form (where she gives a signature) you still need to do things like provide parenting plans, financial records, some evidence as to why you believe you are the father, etc.

This is not true. My kids' biological father has the right to demand the kids speak to him, even though they do not want to and don't see him as a father (he abandoned my wife when her son was only 8 months old and didn't try to contact her again for years, by then the children were old enough to learn how abusive he was). So we have a similar imbalance of rights, again favoring fathers over mothers and children. A child has no right to demand time with his biological father, though a biological father DOES have the right to demand time with the child. Just like a man cannot be forced into contact with a woman he impregnated but the woman CAN be forced into contact with him.

I'm in a similar situation, and you're wrong. In that case the right of the father is that time must be set aside for him to be able to communicate with the child. It does not compel the child to say a word. It does not compel the child to act nicely. It merely gives the opportunity to talk with that child. And this isn't an adoption situation - this is a situation where the legitimacy of the father is known and understood - in which case, once again, that father does have some rights.

And a child does have the right to demand time with their biological father as long as it isn't an adoptive case. Again, super moving goalposts, dude!

If you believe that fathers should not have any rights that supercede any one else's, well, you are incorrect, both legally and morally.

[Taenqyrhae]

1. They have to file a claim of legitimation. This is a pretty lengthy set of steps depending on where you're at. For instance, in the above one of the things you need is to actually get a signature from the woman. It's not an easy process, and even in the uncontested form (where she gives a signature) you still need to do things like provide parenting plans, financial records, some evidence as to why you believe you are the father, etc.

I'm in a similar situation, and you're wrong. In that case the right of the father is that time must be set aside for him to be able to communicate with the child. It does not compel the child to say a word. It does not compel the child to act nicely. It merely gives the opportunity to talk with that child. And this isn't an adoption situation - this is a situation where the legitimacy of the father is known and understood - in which case, once again, that father does have some rights.

2. And a child does have the right to demand time with their biological father as long as it isn't an adoptive case. Again, super moving goalposts, dude!

If you believe that fathers should not have any rights that supercede any one else's, well, you are incorrect, both legally and morally.

1. So again, agreement. Just claiming to have slept with a woman is not legal grounds in most jurisdictions to force the woman to prove paternity. Just as it should be.

2. But a child does not have the right to demand time with their biological father. I have never heard of a case where a court compelled an unwilling father to spend time with his children. They can be compelled to provide child support, but that is it.

I never said a father has no rights that supercede anyone elses, nice strawman there! I said that in some circumstances, a man who may or may not be the father does not have the right to compel a woman to have a paternity test, which is what you just conceded. In some jurisdictions, he actually is required to have the cooperation of the mother, which means he does not have the right to overrule her on this.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1. So again, agreement. Just claiming to have slept with a woman is not legal grounds in most jurisdictions to force the woman to prove paternity. Just as it should be.

That's actually not the case. The actual petition for legitimation is reviewable here. You really don't need to assert much other than some very basic demographic information.

The only "signature" from the other side that you need in a contested case is proof of service (that I can see at least), which is what you need in every case.

[Taenqyrhae]

That's actually not the case. The actual petition for legitimation is reviewable here. You really don't need to assert much other than some very basic demographic information.

The only "signature" from the other side that you need in a contested case is proof of service (that I can see at least), which is what you need in every case.

That form does not grant the right to a DNA test. It also requires the father to affirm that they are the biological father of the child. What does a father do if he does not know that he is the father of the child, you know, like in my original scenario? Legally, he cannot submit this form because he cannot complete it without perjuring himself.

Since this thread is going so long, I feel like I should repeat a summary of how this argument has gone.

Me - "My daughter got it in her head somehow that it's a bad thing to not know the father of your children"

Others - "It IS a bad thing to not know the father of your children. The father has the right to a relationship with his child."

Me - "He has no right to such a thing if there is no proof that he is the father of the child."

Others - "He has the right to demand the woman submit a paternity test to prove her claim that he is not the father."

Me - "He has no such right in a case where he has no proof that he is the father."

Others - "Yes he does, here's a legal form that shows it."

Form - "If the man affirms that he is the father of the child, the courts will consider his petition."

Me - "In this case, my hypothetical man would be committing perjury if he submitted this form because he does not know that he is the father of the child."

[Kalbear]

I never said a father has no rights that supercede anyone elses, nice strawman there!

You said:

A child has no right to demand time with his biological father, though a biological father DOES have the right to demand time with the child. Just like a man cannot be forced into contact with a woman he impregnated but the woman CAN be forced into contact with him.

So...yeah.

I said that in some circumstances, a man who may or may not be the father does not have the right to compel a woman to have a paternity test, which is what you just conceded. In some jurisdictions, he actually is required to have the cooperation of the mother, which means he does not have the right to overrule her on this.

Yes, and you believe that this isn't correct. Which is bullshit.

Thanks for the clarification on that form, NMLC - I wasn't sure if there wasn't more info there. The uncontested part appears to have a bit of hearings involved, and that doesn't require the woman to be there, no? It seemed odd because for the most part the document read as if it was targeted toward the woman., not the man - which is I suppose the much more typical situation.

[Taenqyrhae]

You said:

So...yeah.

So you are disputing my claim that I have never said a father has no rights, by quoting my post where I say the father has the right to talk to the child even if the child does not want it. Thanks for helping me win my arguments!

[sperry]

Yes, because I am clearly losing this argument where I have repeatedly had my points proven correct and the claims against me proven wrong - sometimes by the very people who are trying to argue against me. All you really have to do to win an argument is make up a ridiculous straw man that doesn't represent what the opponent is saying at all and argue against it, throw in a few claims that the person is disgusting and saying things that they never said, move the goalposts then claim that the other person is doing so when they respond to your deviation from topic.

I have totally won this. I have proven false repeatedly that a claim to have had sex with a woman who is uncertain of her child's paternity is grounds to force a paternity test. I've also proven a lot of other things I didn't set out to prove but were thrown at me in an attempt to find something I was wrong about.

No, you haven't proven these things. Like at all. People who are actually attorneys are repeatedly explaining to you that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LAW, and you keep declaring, without any corroboration (because none exists), that you are correct.

[Taenqyrhae]

No, you haven't proven these things. Like at all. People who are actually attorneys are repeatedly explaining to you that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LAW, and you keep declaring, without any corroboration (because none exists), that you are correct.

Where was it proven that an uncorroborated claim to have had sex with a woman was legal grounds to have a court demand a paternity test? I haven't seen it. I have seen a form where a man who KNOWS he is the father of a child can ask the courts to prove legitimacy, but that's not the scenario I was discussing originally.

[Taenqyrhae]

I have also seen these "experts" claim a child has the legal right to spend time with their biological father and that the courts can compel a man who wants nothing to do with his progeny to do so, which is also false, and my request for proof of that ever happening was ignored.

[sperry]

Where was it proven that an uncorroborated claim to have had sex with a woman was legal grounds to have a court demand a paternity test? I haven't seen it. I have seen a form where a man who KNOWS he is the father of a child can ask the courts to prove legitimacy, but that's not the scenario I was discussing originally.

Let me explain this to you.

Petitioner, the man claiming to be the father, will file a petition of legitimation with the court stating that he is the father.

The Respondent, the mother or guardian of the child, in your scenario, will file a motion for summary judgment.

For purposes of determining whether summary judgment will be granted, the facts, as put forward by the petitioner, will be taken as true. The purported father will claim that he had sex with the respondent at a time that makes him a potential father of the child.

The judge will then deny the motion for summary judgment.

Then, unless the mother presents compelling evidence that indicates by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is not in fact the father, the judge will order a paternity test.

[Taenqyrhae]

Let me explain this to you.

Petitioner, the man claiming to be the father, will file a petition of legitimation with the court stating that he is the father.

The Respondent, the mother or guardian of the child, in your scenario, will file a motion for summary judgment.

For purposes of determining whether summary judgment will be granted, the facts, as put forward by the petitioner, will be taken as true. The purported father will claim that he had sex with the respondent at a time that makes him a potential father of the child.

The judge will then deny the motion for summary judgment.

Then, unless the mother presents compelling evidence that indicates by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner is not in fact the father, the judge will order a paternity test.

The form that I read requires the petitioner to affirm that he is the father of the child.

So technically, a man in my scenario could, via perjury, convince the courts to force the woman to respond.

That does not prove that he has the right to demand a paternity test. Consider this scenario:

I suspect that John Doe stole my radio. I have no proof, but he was in the neighborhood around that time and he MIGHT have been the person who stole it. I want the police to search his house for this radio.

If I go to the police and say "I think John Doe may have stolen my radio" I know they aren't going to do anything, so I sign an affidavit stating that I KNOW that John Doe stole my radio, claiming knowledge that I do not have. This results in a search warrant and John Doe's house is searched.

Did I have the RIGHT to have John Doe's house searched based on my hunch? Nope.

Do I have the RIGHT to have a paternity test based on a hunch that I MIGHT be the father of a child? Nope.

[sperry]

The form that I read requires the petitioner to affirm that he is the father of the child.

So technically, a man in my scenario could, via perjury, convince the courts to force the woman to respond.

That does not prove that he has the right to demand a paternity test. Consider this scenario:

I suspect that John Doe stole my radio. I have no proof, but he was in the neighborhood around that time and he MIGHT have been the person who stole it. I want the police to search his house for this radio.

If I go to the police and say "I think John Doe may have stolen my radio" I know they aren't going to do anything, so I sign an affidavit stating that I KNOW that John Doe stole my radio, claiming knowledge that I do not have. This results in a search warrant and John Doe's house is searched.

Did I have the RIGHT to have John Doe's house searched based on my hunch? Nope.

Do I have the RIGHT to have a paternity test based on a hunch that I MIGHT be the father of a child? Nope.

You keep confusing how you want things to work, with how they work in practice. The answer to your final question is, that yes, barring you providing evidence that refutes the claim, that man does have a legal right to demand a paternity test, and a judge will order it done.

[Taenqyrhae]

You keep confusing how you want things to work, with how they work in practice. The answer to your final question is, that yes, barring you providing evidence that refutes the claim, that man does have a legal right to demand a paternity test, and a judge will order it done.

Because the man is lying on the form. He doesn't know that he is the father. If he filled out the form truthfully, he could not file it. There was no checkbox for "I don't know if I'm the father but it's possible".

Clearly the form was designed by people aware of the abuses that could ensue from giving this right to people who are not willing to claim to know with certainty that they are the father. If a man submitted the form linked here and did NOT know himself to be the father, he just signed proof that he lied when he had the test ordered.

Essentially, yes he can lie and have the test done, but it's a big gamble in a situation where he does not know he is the father and the mother is saying it is somebody else. He's just provided evidence of perjury if the test comes back negative.

[Crom Dubh]

I am going to assume that since this is the form used as a matter of course by the legal system, its use does not amount to perjury.

[Taenqyrhae]

I am going to assume that since this is the form used as a matter of course by the legal system, its use does not amount to perjury.

It's use is to establish legitimacy when a man knows he is the father of the child but the legal system does not recognize it. It does not appear to be designed to be used by a man who thinks he might be the father of a child but has no proof.

[Crom Dubh]

It's use is to establish legitimacy when a man knows he is the father of the child but the legal system does not recognize it. It does not appear to be designed to be used by a man who thinks he might be the father of a child but has no proof.

Nestor, who is an actual lawyer unlike yourself, already explained the process associated with this and its uses. Everyone, in fact, has explained this to you. What you're asserting is divorced from the actual reality of what occurs.

[Taenqyrhae]

Nestor, who is an actual lawyer unlike yourself, already explained the process associated with this and its uses. Everyone, in fact, has explained this to you. What you're asserting is divorced from the actual reality of what occurs.

He explained the process associated with the form posted, which is for establishing legal paternity when that paternity is known to the father. I've yet to see an explanation as to why it would not be perjury for a man to affirm that he is the father of a child when he does not know that. If he truly believed himself to be the father, even if he was wrong, it would not be perjury, but again, I am talking about a scenario where the man KNOWS he might not be the father.