Up to one in TEN Britons 'don't know who their real father is' - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

News stories of lesser political significance, but still of international interest.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Please include a source with news articles. No stupid or joke stories. The usual forum rules also still apply.
#15010084
Ter wrote:That is a very ambivalent statement.
Are you saying that the "father" can have his children DNA tested for paternity without agreement by the mother?

That flies in the face of what I quoted earlier"


yes I am and yes it does.



and



Where are your references?
Or do we just have to take your word for it ?



Of course you don't. There are lots of places online, including government websites.

Here's one:

https://www.affinitydna.co.uk/legal-paternity-test/


and here's the government website:


https://www.gov.uk/get-dna-test


Why couldn't you find them, Ter?

Please do tell.


and let's repeat the situation in other EU countries:



Why? the title of this topic concerns British children and their fathers.
#15010085
Rich wrote:@Ter is right in as much as a man who is not a recognised parent can not force a DNA test to prove paternity.



He has to apply for a court order, which is no big deal. Or you suggesting that any Tom, Dick or Harry should be able to force a child to undergo a DNA test on a whim?

He can not force a DNA test to disprove paternity either.


Yes he can.


The only defence a man has, is that if he asks for a paternity test and the mother refuses the test, then he will not be forced to pay maintenance and the mother might face benefit sanction. However there may be various loop holes that can avoid this benefit sanction. But in this rigged Cultural Marxist men hating system, its always the man that must pay out for the test up front. He gets a refund if the test proves negative on paternity. The woman of course receives no sanction for falsely accusing the man of paternity.



What a load of tripe.


Maybe stick to discussing things you actually know about?

There is also the issue that women can and do procure men's semen and inseminate themselves without the man's consent. Of course this is a matter that our cultural Marxist masters refuse to discuss.



You're so funny, Rich.
#15010088
snapdragon wrote:yes I am and yes it does.

Indeed it does.
You are right that at present, the presumed father can do a test without mother's consent.

But this will change quite soon:
(look at the date, this is a very recent development)

Move to outlaw secret DNA testing by fathers

By Martin Bentham and Lorraine Fraser

12:01AM BST 19 May 2002

Fathers who conduct secret paternity tests on their children will face prosecution under new laws to be proposed by a Government watchdog.

The Human Genetics Commission will recommend in a report to ministers that the theft of a person's DNA, including the clandestine removal of a child's hair or saliva, should become a criminal offence.

The proposal has come out of fears that increasing numbers of fathers are exploiting the growth of internet DNA testing services to undertake paternity checks without the consent of the child or its mother, with potentially traumatic consequences for all involved.

The law would also prevent private detectives, journalists, employers and others from gaining access to genetic information without the individual's consent, or using DNA left behind by an individual to check for diseases, genetic conditions or unknown relatives.

Earlier this week, the television producer Steve Bing - who Elizabeth Hurley, the actress, says is the father of her baby son Damian - was named in court papers as the father of a young girl caught up in the world's most expensive child support case

Kirk Kerkorian, 84, the Californian billionaire who owns MGM studios and a number of casinos in Las Vegas, is fighting a claim from his divorced wife, the former tennis player Lisa Bonder, for child maintenance payments of £223,000 a month for four-year-old Kira.

He told a Los Angeles court that Mr Bing was the child's true father after private detectives hired by him found a strand of dental floss in Mr Bing's dustbin, DNA samples of which matched those of Kira.

While the commission does not base its recommendation on any specific case, it is concerned that scenarios such as this could become commonplace and has concluded that individual rights of privacy must be protected by criminal law.

Lady Kennedy, the Labour peer who chairs the commission, confirmed the recommendation last night, saying that children's happiness was being put in jeopardy by unauthorised testing.

"DNA testing is very simple, but there can be very serious repercussions. It is not only terribly difficult for the child and the mother, but also for other siblings, who suddenly find that all the things that they understood about their family become different.

"We already know that in the United States fathers, on access visits, are taking their children's DNA without consent for testing, and we need to prevent that happening here.

"We will be recommending the creation of a special offence which makes it very clear to people that taking the DNA of someone else without authority, without applying to the courts, without consent, would be an offence."

She added: "Personal genetic information is special and people are entitled to feel that it is particular to them and the use of it should require consent, or should be done with the authority of the police, or the courts."

An estimated 10,000 paternity tests are now carried out each year. Many of the checks are conducted under the scrutiny of the Child Support Agency or the courts, but there are an increasing number of internet DNA testing services available for private use.

A Government code of conduct published last year stipulates that for children, the consent of both mother and father should be obtained.

The code is, however, voluntary and there are fears that some internet companies, particularly those based overseas, might be allowing tests to be carried out without the proper parental consent.

Under the Human Genetics Commission's recommendations, which are expected to be accepted by ministers, a father seeking a paternity test would have to obtain the consent of the mother, or gain a court order.

Lady Kennedy said that making the theft of DNA illegal would also protect adults who might be the subject of clandestine testing by others seeking to identify the presence of a genetic condition, disease or previously unknown family connection.

"We all leave a trail of DNA behind. People could want to obtain someone's DNA to prove things, or disprove things, to show that some high-profile person had fathered a child, or had not fathered a child, or that somebody carried a gene for a particular disease," Lady Kennedy said.

The commission, which will publish its report this week, wants to increase the public's trust of genetics and genetic testing with new protections for individuals, while at the same time enabling advances in medicine and science to progress.

The new law on DNA privacy would mean that organisations planning to set up genetic databases for research purposes would be able to include samples only from people who had given their consent. Researchers would not be able to use the information for any purpose other than that originally described.

The commission is also expected to argue that the police should not be allowed access to these databases, as it could discourage people from taking part.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... thers.html

Whatever I said about the situation in France and Germany remains correct.
#15010100
snapdragon wrote:Yes he can.

What a load of tripe.

Maybe stick to discussing things you actually know about?

A man who is not already a recognised parent / guardian can not force a DNA test. This I know about. This I am right about. A man can apply to a court for a DNA test and in principle if the mother refuses, the court can overrule the mother and force the DNA test, but in practice if the man is not a legal guardian and has never been an acting parent to the child then this will virtually never happen. The catch 22 is that anything that really upsets the mother, is likely to be considered disadvantageous to the child. In any conflict the man is highly vulnerable to the woman making accusations against him.

Yeah sure if a guy's rich and can afford to tens of thousands of pounds on legal costs, then he's he got a chance, but for an ordinary working guy of modest means to take on a mother through the court system he has to be bat shit insane. And then besides the cost and the risk to his reputation and even his liberty, from true, partially true or completely false accusations, the man might well be concerned about the interests of the child and that it not worth pursuing "his rights."
#15010103
Pants-of-dog wrote:Fathers who get their kids’ DNA tested need to think about what it is that makes someone a father.

Hint: it is not DNA.


DNA is an important part of the deal.
If a woman is not happy with her husband, she can divorce him and chose another man.
But cheating on her husband and just keeping him around to invest his time and energy and money in someone else's bastard, that is not right.
From a Darwinian fitness perspective, his score is zero.

I am happy that DNA testing for paternity is now available.
I would not care at all if the testing without the mother's consent is unlawful.
A man has a right to know and if he was cheated, he should review his options.
I would even go further and say that if the mother refuses, it would be quite obvious why she refuses.
Leave the adulterous spouse and move on. That is what I would do but to each his own.
#15010104
Ter wrote:DNA is an important part of the deal.
If a woman is not happy with her husband, she can divorce him and chose another man.
But cheating on her husband and just keeping him around to invest his time and energy and money in someone else's bastard, that is not right.
From a Darwinian fitness perspective, his score is zero.


Your opinion and mine differ when it comes to morality.

While I agree that lying to one’s spouse is immoral, raising a child is a responsibility and a duty that can not be simply ignored because of that.

And I also think there is nothing wrong with raising someone else’s kids. If I had the money, time, and energy, I would happily raise everyone’s kids. And I would raise them all with my belief system.

If a father is more worried about Darwinian fitness than he is about the kid, he is already showing that he is not a good father, no matter how Darwinically fit he is.

I am happy that DNA testing for paternity is now available.
I would not care at all if the testing without the mother's consent is unlawful.
A man has a right to know and if he was cheated, he should review his options.
I would even go further and say that if the mother refuses, it would be quite obvious why she refuses.
Leave the adulterous spouse and move on. That is what I would do but to each his own.


And leave the kid without the only dad he has ever known?

This seems to punish the child for the indiscretions of the mother.
#15010111
Pants-of-dog wrote:And I also think there is nothing wrong with raising someone else’s kids.

I agree as long as it is knowingly so.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If a father is more worried about Darwinian fitness than he is about the kid, he is already showing that he is not a good father, no matter how Darwinically fit he is.

In my opinion, both the DNA and the upbringing are important. But without the DNA? No.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And leave the kid without the only dad he has ever known?

Well maybe the adulterous mother can remember who she had sex with and take it from there.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems to punish the child for the indiscretions of the mother.

Well maybe so, it can teach him how unscrupulous women an be, starting with his own mother who is a cheater.
#15010112
Ter wrote:I agree as long as it is knowingly so.

In my opinion, both the DNA and the upbringing are important. But without the DNA? No.

Well maybe the adulterous mother can remember who she had sex with and take it from there.

Well maybe so, it can teach him how unscrupulous women an be, starting with his own mother who is a cheater.


In this scenario, it seems that the father cares more about his own ego than about the child.

Maybe it would be better for the child if the father was absent.

And if that is the case, it is the father’s behaviour that made him less of a father, not any DNA.
#15010119
Pants-of-dog wrote:Fathers who get their kids’ DNA tested need to think about what it is that makes someone a father.

Hint: it is not DNA.



So, we are into 'make believe' , there is a 'difference', one is called a, father, the other, a parent, just a reminder, the DNA of the child (male)is the biological father's & the mother's.
For a son, one pair of chromosones, one from the father's(Y)DNA, one from the mother's(X) mitochrondial DNA makes an XY combination creating a male.

Unfortunately for the politically correct dreamers,nature decided to confound their aspirations for gender neutrality & doesn't do cloning on species that reproduce by the mechanism of sex.

Just saying. :roll:
#15010122
Rich wrote:A man who is not already a recognised parent / guardian can not force a DNA test. This I know about. This I am right about. A man can apply to a court for a DNA test and in principle if the mother refuses, the court can overrule the mother and force the DNA test,


Exactly, yes.

Are you saying some random man off the street should be able to force a child to undergo a DNA test?

but in practice if the man is not a legal guardian and has never been an acting parent to the child then this will virtually never happen.


Well, why on earth should it?

The catch 22 is that anything that really upsets the mother, is likely to be considered disadvantageous to the child. In any conflict the man is highly vulnerable to the woman making accusations against him.


You've made all that up.

Yeah sure if a guy's rich and can afford to tens of thousands of pounds on legal costs, then he's he got a chance, but for an ordinary working guy of modest means to take on a mother through the court system he has to be bat shit insane. And then besides the cost and the risk to his reputation and even his liberty, from true, partially true or completely false accusations, the man might well be concerned about the interests of the child and that it not worth pursuing "his rights."


It doesn't cost much at all.

No matter how much money a man might have he cannot compel a child to undergo a DNA test without satisfying the court he has a good reason for doing so.
#15010123
Pants-of-dog wrote:In this scenario, it seems that the father cares more about his own ego than about the child.

Maybe it would be better for the child if the father was absent.

And if that is the case, it is the father’s behaviour that made him less of a father, not any DNA.



Apart from all that a man being known as the father of the child gives him enough right to order a DNA test, so Ter has absolutely no argument whatsoever and is totally wrong on all counts.


Now, according to him, in the USA, any random man can force a child to undergo a DNA test without needing to prove he has any interest in the matter.

Can any American tell me if that is actually the case?



He would have to be a complete arsehole to do it, but plenty of men are.
#15010191
Pants-of-dog wrote:In Canada, all parties must consent to a paternity test. Not even the court can force someone to get one

I see. So, in other words, the adulteress women can legally hide their duplicity. Nice. Got it.

snapdragon wrote:Apart from all that a man being known as the father of the child gives him enough right to order a DNA test, so Ter has absolutely no argument whatsoever and is totally wrong on all counts.


:lol: you are really adamant at trying to prove me wrong, even if I produce evidence of what I am saying. I am starting to think that I am dealing with a ..... feminist here !

snapdragon wrote:Now, according to him, in the USA, any random man can force a child to undergo a DNA test without needing to prove he has any interest in the matter.

Can any American tell me if that is actually the case?


Absurd reasoning. Not worth a reply.

snapdragon wrote:He would have to be a complete arsehole to do it, but plenty of men are.


Ah OK, there we are, we have a man hater in our midst ! :lol:

This whole discussion is unnecessary because hometesting is so easy these days.
It has become quite the industry in Spain because they are getting the lab test requests from France, where DNA testing without the mother's consent is punishable by one year in jail.
It was high time for cheated men to be able to get the evidence.
In my opinion, they are entitled to know if they are raising their own child or someone else's bastard.
#15010220
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes. And?

Why should this matter? What is the point of this?


By asking that question you demonstrate a total lack of understanding towards the cheated husbands.
Raising children is a very rewarding experience but unknowingly raising someone else's bastard is a gross injustice. Women always have their DNA in their offspring but men cannot be sure (without a DNA test or by keeping their wife under strict control like in most Muslim countries).
Most men wish to have their DNA survive in some form in their offspring. Why should only women have that privilege ? Why should they have the freedom to cheat on their husbands and then have the law of the land help them obfuscating their betrayal ?

I am happy to know they cannot get away with that any more, home testing paternity is a thing now, and screw your Canadian laws.
#15010225
Ter wrote:By asking that question you demonstrate a total lack of understanding towards the cheated husbands.


So this is just about the cheated husbands?

You want to give men the ability to force these medical tests on others just because of your distrust of women?

Raising children is a very rewarding experience but unknowingly raising someone else's bastard is a gross injustice. Women always have their DNA in their offspring but men cannot be sure (without a DNA test or by keeping their wife under strict control like in most Muslim countries).


Why is it an injustice? Because it betrays the fact that you cannot control women?

Most men wish to have their DNA survive in some form in their offspring. Why should only women have that privilege ? Why should they have the freedom to cheat on their husbands and then have the law of the land help them obfuscating their betrayal ?


Every child in the world is a product of males passing on their genetics. What you want is for the state to support you when you force your wife or kid to submit to tests because of your distrust.

I am happy to know they cannot get away with that any more, home testing paternity is a thing now, and screw your Canadian laws.


Home tests do not stand up in court because of the lack of chain of custody.

But you never answered the question.


What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to make sure that women cannot cheat on you? Are you trying to make sure that women think that you would not trust them?

What is the objective here?

Edit: is it about having the power to abdicate responsibility for supporting a child?
#15010230
Pants-of-dog wrote:So this is just about the cheated husbands?

I believe the husbands have a right to know if the children they are supposed to be the biological fathers of are indeed theirs.
The children also have a right to know so it is not only about the husbands.
By the way the children need to know for medical reasons as well. There are a number of congenital afflictions that can be present as a trait.
For instance haemoglobin E disease. It results in a slight anaemia but if doctors try to remedy the anaemia with iron supplements it would destroy the spleen. So better to know, right? This is just one example.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You want to give men the ability to force these medical tests on others just because of your distrust of women?

:lol: not on "others", just on their "children".
If the mother didn't cheat, there would be no reason to refuse the test, right?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Every child in the world is a product of males passing on their genetics.

Very astutely put. Husbands would prefer to pass on their own genetic material, no ?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Home tests do not stand up in court because of the lack of chain of custody.

I don't care about the court.
If a man finds out that his wife cheated on him and made him raise bastards resulting from her cheating, the man has the right to know and to leave if he so wishes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why is it an injustice? Because it betrays the fact that you cannot control women?

It is an injustice because the unknowing cheated husband will sacrifice his time and energy to raise the offspring of another man therefore losing the opportunity to leave his DNA in the next generation.

In Western society, women cannot be controlled. They work outside the house, go wherever they like to go. This might or might not result in sex outside of the marriage. That makes it even more logical for a husband to check the paternity of the children.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to make sure that women cannot cheat on you? Are you trying to make sure that women think that you would not trust them?

What is the objective here?


You make me repeat myself. Almost every woman could cheat on their husbands if they want to. In case the cheating results in pregnancies, the husband who is supposed to help take care of those children emotionally, financially, energetically, and so on, has, in my opinion, the absolute right to check the paternity of said children and draw his own conclusions.
That's all there is to it.

I’m thinking if I would like to travel freely in […]

@skinster For once I agree with Pilger. We shoul[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

@Atlantis ; I have no idea whether you are a[…]

EU-BREXIT

The question is, will they let Bojo join the fun r[…]