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

[Kalbear]

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.

Actually no, that's totally grounds to force a paternity test. It by itself isn't precisely - you also have to establish other basic things - but it's absolutely the case that it is grounds to do so.

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 do, actually. Or rather, you have the right to try and establish it. You might not get a paternity test compelled depending on the frivolosity of the claim, but you absolutely have the right to try for a petition of legitimacy. I thought that was made pretty clear.

[Taenqyrhae]

Actually no, that's totally grounds to force a paternity test. It by itself isn't precisely - you also have to establish other basic things - but it's absolutely the case that it is grounds to do so.

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 do, actually. Or rather, you have the right to try and establish it. You might not get a paternity test compelled depending on the frivolosity of the claim, but you absolutely have the right to try for a petition of legitimacy. I thought that was made pretty clear.

So, having sex with a woman alone is not grounds to have a paternity test compelled. There must be other evidence. Therefore, a man does not have the right to demand a woman have a paternity test just because he had sex with her. Therefore, I am correct.

[Kalbear]

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.

It is only perjury if you are attesting under absolute claims that you absolutely, 100% are the father when you know for certain that you are not. Again, you mistake the inverse for the converse. Perjury requires intent and willful knowledge of incorrectness. So that's wrong.

Here's another example of paternity establishment. Among other interesting things that you're wrong about, something interesting in California is that a child born during a marriage is assumed to be the child of the married people and will legally remain so regardless of other proof:

A child born during a marriage is presumed (assumed) to be a child of the marriage, and the husband and wife (or, after January 1, 2005, domestic partners) are the legal parents. This is called a “conclusive presumption” which means that the presumption (that the child is a child of the married couple) cannot be disproved, even if there is evidence to disprove it. Read Family Code section 7540 for the law about this presumption.

[Kalbear]

So, having sex with a woman alone is not grounds to have a paternity test compelled. There must be other evidence. Therefore, a man does not have the right to demand a woman have a paternity test just because he had sex with her. Therefore, I am correct.

Only barely. You have to establish that you had sex with them in the timeframe that would produce a child. It can't be a spurious claim. Other than that? No, you're wrong; the only proof is that you had to have had sex with that person in the timeframe that would have produced that child. (and as it turns out even this is true - in order to file, you don't even have to do that)

What you're absolutely wrong about is that if the mother says 'that didn't happen' that isn't cause for dismissal right away.

Here are some more details for you, since you seem incapable of either believing actual law experts or reading any material yourself. Some points here:

• As stated above, some random boyfriend can't actually challenge things if the child was born through the marriage.

• Many states have laws on how long you can contest paternity - usually around two years.

You can file the claim without having to prove much of anything, but it can be thrown out as being frivolous.

[aceluby]

So, having sex with a woman alone is not grounds to have a paternity test compelled. There must be other evidence. Therefore, a man does not have the right to demand a woman have a paternity test just because he had sex with her. Therefore, I am correct.

You don't need the woman for a paternity test. And usually you have other evidence when a paternity test is requested... you know... the child?

I seriously can't believe you're still going on about this.

[Taenqyrhae]

It is only perjury if you are attesting under absolute claims that you absolutely, 100% are the father when you know for certain that you are not. Again, you mistake the inverse for the converse. Perjury requires intent and willful knowledge of incorrectness. So that's wrong.

Here's another example of paternity establishment. Among other interesting things that you're wrong about, something interesting in California is that a child born during a marriage is assumed to be the child of the married people and will legally remain so regardless of other proof:

A child born during a marriage is presumed (assumed) to be a child of the marriage, and the husband and wife (or, after January 1, 2005, domestic partners) are the legal parents. This is called a “conclusive presumption” which means that the presumption (that the child is a child of the married couple) cannot be disproved, even if there is evidence to disprove it. Read Family Code section 7540 for the law about this presumption.

Another interesting thing in that link is that if the paternity is already being claimed by someone else, it may be too late to do a DNA test. This ties in to my earlier claims that a man can't demand a paternity test of a child that is being raised as the child of another man, which also was incorrectly disputed. So, in California at least, even knowing that you are the biological father of a child may not give any paternity rights.

Re: perjury, if I affirm that I know something to be true, and it can be proven that I only knew there was a 1 in 10 chance of it being true, that would show a willful knowledge of incorrectness, correct? If I affirmed that I was the father of a particular child, and it was shown that the mother was a prostitute and had sex with 100 different men during that menstrual cycle and that I knew this when I filed the paper, that would be perjury, correct? How good do the odds that I am right have to be before it's not considered a lie to affirm that I am right?

[Kalbear]

Another interesting thing in that link is that if the paternity is already being claimed by someone else, it may be too late to do a DNA test. This ties in to my earlier claims that a man can't demand a paternity test of a child that is being raised as the child of another man, which also was incorrectly disputed. So, in California at least, even knowing that you are the biological father of a child may not give any paternity rights.

They can - but it's going to be significantly more expensive. This is mostly due to the goal of giving the child the most rights.

Re: perjury, if I affirm that I know something to be true, and it can be proven that I only knew there was a 1 in 10 chance of it being true, that would show a willful knowledge of incorrectness, correct?

That is incorrect. But it's also immaterial, as you don't have to do that form if you're not sure but want to find out if you're the father. That form is for establishing a paternity claim when you are the father but you are not married. Remember, this is Georgia, so fathers out of wedlock don't have actual rights unless you establish them - which that form does. The petition for paternity is more relevant in that case.

because what I was actually saying ("You can't compel a woman to have a paternity test based solely on an uncorroborated, contested claim that you had sex with her") was CORRECT.

In some cases, you can. Not in all cases. Therefore you are not correct.

Specifically, if the parentage is disputed and there is not a legal father so far, courts will typically order the DNA test (paid for by the father) to determine legal paternity. In this case, it is absolutely true that you can compel a woman to have a paternity test based solely on the uncorroborated, contested claim that the father had sex with her.

[Kalbear]

Also this:

Another interesting thing in that link is that if the paternity is already being claimed by someone else, it may be too late to do a DNA test.

That is also incorrect. It is too late to establish legal paternity in some states. It is not too late to establish biological parentage. Again, two separate things.

[Taenqyrhae]

In some cases, you can. Not in all cases. Therefore you are not correct.

Under what circumstances could a man compel a woman to get a test when he has no proof that he had sex with her and she is contesting the claim, saying he could not be the father? From everything I've read here and elsewhere, there has to be more than "I had sex with her". You have to at least provide proof that you had sex at a time that could result in pregnancy. How can you do that if you are not sure what date you had sex with her, when it is impossible to tell when a child was conceived?

I have a similar situation. I had an affair about 15 years ago with a woman in a committed relationship. I heard several years later that she had a child that was ROUGHLY the correct age to be my child, and looked a lot more like me than her boyfriend. If I had wanted to determine that I was the father and she was denying it, how would I be able to legally compel her to have a test when I don't know when I last had sex with her and I don't know when her child was conceived, and she's not in contact with me?

[Kalbear]

Under what circumstances could a man compel a woman to get a test when he has no proof that he had sex with her and she is contesting the claim, saying he could not be the father? From everything I've read here and elsewhere, there has to be more than "I had sex with her". You have to at least provide proof that you had sex at a time that could result in pregnancy. How can you do that if you are not sure what date you had sex with her, when it is impossible to tell when a child was conceived?

If she cannot refute the claim that they had sex and it's plausible a court will usually decide to try for paternity. The basis is that if a man is issuing the request, chances are good it's not spurious (as very rarely are men seeking to pay child support on a child that isn't theirs) - and if there isn't an established legal paternity it is in the best interest of the child to know.

Plus, as we've said several times a DNA test is really cheap and very definitive, so courts like it.

I have a similar situation. I had an affair about 15 years ago with a woman in a committed relationship. I heard several years later that she had a child that was ROUGHLY the correct age to be my child, and looked a lot more like me than her boyfriend. If I had wanted to determine that I was the father and she was denying it, how would I be able to legally compel her to have a test when I don't know when I last had sex with her and I don't know when her child was conceived, and she's not in contact with me?

Wow, there's a shock.

You probably can't at this point - depends a lot on the state. If they weren't married you could have filed a petition for paternity then, and you would not have to provide absolute data that it would fit the timeline - just that it is plausible. She does not need to be in contact with you; the legal system can do that for you. Consult with an attorney who can help.

[Taenqyrhae]

If she cannot refute the claim that they had sex and it's plausible a court will usually decide to try for paternity. The basis is that if a man is issuing the request, chances are good it's not spurious (as very rarely are men seeking to pay child support on a child that isn't theirs) - and if there isn't an established legal paternity it is in the best interest of the child to know.

Plus, as we've said several times a DNA test is really cheap and very definitive, so courts like it.

If there is zero burden of proof upon the man making the claim, I don't see how anybody could ever refute the claim that they had sex. If I wanted to make a false claim that I had sex with my married friend a couple of years ago, I don't think she could come up with proof that we didn't. Check my old emails, find a time we were together alone or when I knew she was alone, and say we did it then. Can any person account for their whereabouts for every hour of a woman's menstrual cycle? If courts are allowing men to make irrefutable claims against a woman to force them to acknowledge their paternity or provide proof otherwise, that seems like a huge injustice and I'm surprised it's not challenged more often. I'm guessing in cases where the woman is able to afford counsel it doesn't get to happen nearly as often.

Wow, there's a shock.

You probably can't at this point - depends a lot on the state. If they weren't married you could have filed a petition for paternity then, and you would not have to provide absolute data that it would fit the timeline - just that it is plausible. She does not need to be in contact with you; the legal system can do that for you. Consult with an attorney who can help.

I've never considered actually contacting her or trying to establish paternity. I figured if the kid was mine and she wanted that she would have asked me. Therefore either she knew the child was not mine or she wanted to say it was someone else's. But even if I wanted to establish a paternity, that would be a situation where I would have no right to overrule her decision should she not want to. Even if I could find out when the child was born through searching public records, I have no idea at this point what time of year we had our fling, so how could a man in this situation demand a DNA test be done? If courts allowed that in a situation like this, then I would certainly see that as unfair.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I've never considered actually contacting her or trying to establish paternity. I figured if the kid was mine and she wanted that she would have asked me. Therefore either she knew the child was not mine or she wanted to say it was someone else's. But even if I wanted to establish a paternity, that would be a situation where I would have no right to overrule her decision should she not want to. Even if I could find out when the child was born through searching public records, I have no idea at this point what time of year we had our fling, so how could a man in this situation demand a DNA test be done? If courts allowed that in a situation like this, then I would certainly see that as unfair.

Dude...don't fuck married women without protection. Some shmuck is probably raising your bastard right now and you don't seem to give a shit

[TrueMetis]

SJW,

I have two quick questions for you.

1) Why do you keep talking about "[compeling] a woman to get a test" when it's not the women being tested at all? This seems dishonest.

2) Why are you acting like a paternity test is some huge burden?

ETA: Screw it here's a few more, Why do you seem to be perfectly fine with compelling a father to take a paternity test based on similar evidence? Or am I getting this wrong? And if I am getting this wrong are you fine with father's not having to support their children based on the same reasoning you have for women not allowing men to know their children. IE "We had sex" "No we didn't" After all if a denial of sex is enough evidence when a women is doing it it should be enough when a man does it.

[Hello World]

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.

Let’s not forget that this whole argument started when you said this,

parenting is an intensely personal thing, and if a woman decides it's best if the child doesn't have any connection to the father, that's her choice. She may know that all the possible father candidates are not father material and would not WANT to know that, or she may not want them having a permanent role in her life.

In other words, a woman can decide that her child will have no connection to the father whatsoever because that’s the way she wants it. It’s “her choice.” Which is pure hogwash, of course. Now, as others have pointed out, you have moved the goalpost quite a few times since then, but it seems to me that what you keep getting back to is the idea that the legal system should ensure--without explicitly saying so--that a woman can do exactly that, simply by saying “he’s not the father” and then denying the man a chance to have a paternity test done on the child. Which makes your whole tangent about supervillains abusing the system to get parenting rights over children that are not their own very ironic.

[Taenqyrhae]

Let’s not forget that this whole argument started when you said this,

In other words, a woman can decide that her child will have no connection to the father whatsoever because that’s the way she wants it. It’s “her choice.” Which is pure hogwash, of course. Now, as others have pointed out, you have moved the goalpost quite a few times since then, but it seems to me that what you keep getting back to is the idea that the legal system should insure--without explicitly saying so--that a woman can do exactly that, simply by saying “he’s not the father” and then denying the man a chance to have a paternity test done on the child. Which makes your whole tangent about supervillains abusing the system to get parenting rights over children that are not their own very ironic.

The original position was not that a woman should always have that right, but that it was not a guaranteed right for a man. Under certain circumstances a man has that legal right, but not with every woman he has slept with. This all started with the hypothetical of a woman who had casual sex with multiple partners and did not know or care to know which one was the father of the child. We were discussing the ethics of whether the woman should feel responsible to make that determination, when it was stated that the men who had sex with the hypothetical woman had the right to demand a DNA test once the child was born. I stated this was not a guaranteed right, gave some examples of when it is not (which apparently is "moving goalposts") and responded to other hypothetical situations that people proposed (again, *I* was the one moving goalposts), and "lost" because the definition of "right" became "something that you might be able to do, under certain circumstance" instead of "something you must always be allowed to do". I would not consider myself to have the right to free speech if I had to petition the court to speak my mind and would have the chance of my petion being considered frivolous and declined. I wouldn't consider myself to have the right to bear arms if I would have to make misrepresentations of the truth as I know it to be able to get a license to own a gun. I don't consider myself to have the right to demand a woman provide proof of parentage of a child she had if she denies that I am the father and I have no way of proving that I could be.

[Kalbear]

I don't consider myself to have the right to demand a woman provide proof of parentage of a child she had if she denies that I am the father and I have no way of proving that I could be.

Well, regardless of whether or not you consider that you have that right, you do, actually, have the right to ask for a paternity test, and there is a fairly easy way of proving that you could be the father - by actually taking the test.

[Hello World]

This all started with the hypothetical of a woman who had casual sex with multiple partners and did not know or care to know which one was the father of the child. We were discussing the ethics of whether the woman should feel responsible to make that determination, when it was stated that the men who had sex with the hypothetical woman had the right to demand a DNA test once the child was born.

Nope, it’s about you wanting to live in a world where a woman can just “decide” whether a child will have any connection to the father or not. Which is no doubt a view that was shaped by your own experience. Your other goalposts have already been discussed and you didn’t make a good case for them, IMO. A court can order a child to be genetically tested under some circumstances (for example if a man had sex with the mother within the period the child was conceived and wants to exercise his paternal rights over the child), whether the woman “cares to know” who the father is or not is irrelevant.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SJW,

If there is zero burden of proof upon the man making the claim, I don't see how anybody could ever refute the claim that they had sex. If I wanted to make a false claim that I had sex with my married friend a couple of years ago, I don't think she could come up with proof that we didn't. Check my old emails, find a time we were together alone or when I knew she was alone, and say we did it then. Can any person account for their whereabouts for every hour of a woman's menstrual cycle? If courts are allowing men to make irrefutable claims against a woman to force them to acknowledge their paternity or provide proof otherwise, that seems like a huge injustice and I'm surprised it's not challenged more often. I'm guessing in cases where the woman is able to afford counsel it doesn't get to happen nearly as often.

I think I see your mistake. The "burden of proof" exists at trial. What you are discussing with DNA testing and such is part of the discovery process leading up to trial. The standard for garnering information in discovery in non-criminal matters in my home state is "information that is relevant or that may lead to relevant information." Therefore, there is an extremely slight burden on either party in a paternity case to demand things like a DNA test. All the person requesting has to show is that the information requested is relevant or that the information requested may lead to relevant information.

I would be shocked to see a court deny a request for a DNA test in a paternity suit where either party has the legal right, initally, to bring such a suit. The information requested is clearly relevant, easy to obtain, and, to the best of my knowledge, not protected by any legal bar to its discovery for court proceedings.

[The Iceman of the North]

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.

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.

Not to get bogged down in this discussion, but here in Norway the law says that the child have a right to know who their biological parents are, this actually includes sperm donors. To the best of my knowledge this does not mean that a sperm donor is liable for child support, but if the donation is done in Norway, any eventual children have the rights to know your identity.

[Glaurung]

The original position was not that a woman should always have that right, but that it was not a guaranteed right for a man. Under certain circumstances a man has that legal right, but not with every woman he has slept with. This all started with the hypothetical of a woman who had casual sex with multiple partners and did not know or care to know which one was the father of the child. We were discussing the ethics of whether the woman should feel responsible to make that determination, when it was stated that the men who had sex with the hypothetical woman had the right to demand a DNA test once the child was born. I stated this was not a guaranteed right, gave some examples of when it is not (which apparently is "moving goalposts") and responded to other hypothetical situations that people proposed (again, *I* was the one moving goalposts), and "lost" because the definition of "right" became "something that you might be able to do, under certain circumstance" instead of "something you must always be allowed to do". I would not consider myself to have the right to free speech if I had to petition the court to speak my mind and would have the chance of my petion being considered frivolous and declined. I wouldn't consider myself to have the right to bear arms if I would have to make misrepresentations of the truth as I know it to be able to get a license to own a gun. I don't consider myself to have the right to demand a woman provide proof of parentage of a child she had if she denies that I am the father and I have no way of proving that I could be.

Um...back in the old thread the hypothetical was put forth that the woman KNEW who the father was and chose to not let him know about it. Also the anecdote(my friend) where she KNEW who the father was and instead knowingly had the other man raise her child without his knowledge of it not being his. You said that the mother had every right to withhold this information and choose who she wanted the father to be without letting the biological father have a say in having a relationship. You have since moved the goalposts back several times to the point that I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore.

I will say this though... not only is it morally wrong to not give the man a chance to know he is the father(we had already decided that instances of rape and abuse are excluded, so not sure why you keep bringing up those hypotheticals), but it is also morally wrong to not give the child a chance to decide for themselves. On top of all of this, it is also morally wrong to simply choose another man to be the father and leading him to believe that he is the father. He should get the choice of deciding whether to raise a child that was not fathered by him, especially if it was conceived through adultery. If a guy finds out his wife cheated on him and the baby she just delivered isn't his, he has every right to know so he can decide whether he wants to bail on the marriage and child.