Give it a few years for the technology to catch up. Pre-natal genetic testing will spit out all kinds of info, including markers for certain diseases, inherited traits and, indeed, paternity.
I agree with the OP. Not with DNA testing for every birth, but the mother should be required, under penalty of perjury to list the true father on the birth certificate. If she had an affair, then she should be required to admit that she really doesn’t know who the father is.
IMHO, it is fraud by deception to tell your husband that he is the father of a child that was your illicit lover’s.
As noted above, this is a bad idea because the birth certificate is about identifying a child’s LEGAL parents rather than his/her biological parents.
If a man wants to be the father of his wife’s newborn even if he knows that it wasn’t actually his sperm that contributed half the DNA, then it’s absurd to mandate that the birth certificate should list the name of the sperm donor rather than the name of the mother’s husband who is willing and eager to assume the responsibilities of legal fatherhood.
It is indeed dishonest and deceptive, and if a husband finds out, in many cases he can sue the cheating wife to recover expenses related to paternity.
However, the birth certificate is not the appropriate place to hash all these matters out. The birth certificate should continue to be what it is now—namely, a routine official record of an individual’s birth including the names of his/her LEGAL parents, where available.
Issues of cheating, adultery, and false paternity should continue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in therapy sessions, DNA testing labs, and the courts.
You misspelled “man” in your concluding sentence, but otherwise I agree.
I think this post precisely sums up the issue. Clu-Me-In, read it a few times. Especially that last sentence.
The issue with your friends goes back a long way and a lot of hurt, probably on both sides. I sincerely hope that the issue was not told to the 12 year old until a time that BOTH parents could rationally discuss it. I’m not sure if you are friends with both parties in this marriage, but let me give you a hint. They survived infidelity not once, but twice. It is ~13 years of water under the bridge, a bridge they decided to continue crossing together. This might be the straw that breaks them, but I hope not. I don’t know if you are married/committed and if so, how long, but one thing I’ve learned, is that an awful lot of terrible shit you never thought could happen to you can happen and somehow, you still maintain your marriage.
On paper, my own personal marriage is a classic case of “never should have survived” on several occasions, and yet, because of what we have survived, what we may still need to survive, isn’t quite as scary.
Allow the couple to work it out, encourage counseling for all involved and for the love of all things holy, do not get so worked up that you worry yourself out of some friends that it is very obvious you care about.
Among the problems with what your suggesting is the fact that it doesn’t appear the man in the original situation thought there was a possibility the child was not his child. It wasn’t a case of wanting to be the father of a child even though he knew he wasn’t. He was deceived at the beginning and didn’t have all the information he should have had to make the decision. It was fraud pure and simple. Also, while you may not consider genetic ties important, other people do and if someone knows it is a deal breaker in a parenthood situation, it shouldn’t be concealed from the other potential partner.
Thank you. You see… I didn’t actually raise this question. A more intelligent friend at work out of the blue asked why a birth certificate - a legal document - does not always contain accurate information, and I thought this might be a great place to ask it.
It seems to me that a woman can just simply name anyone who she had a relationship with in the period of time she conceived and it’s done. He’s it. Even if he agrees to sign a birth certificate, doesn’t a state owe a child accurate information on his birth certificate?
When DNA tests can be done instantly and for pennies, sure, why not? What you propose, though, might benefit some but inconvenience many many more others, for an overall benefit that is unclear at best.
What if the woman’s husband dies a few months before the birth and she wants to name him as the father? Do you have to dig him up to collect a DNA sample? Ask his relatives? Search the house for leftover follicles and whatnot?
I’ll admit that IANAL, but if this is the case, then it needs to change. That birth document should confirm (as best it can) the biological parents of that child. What if the biological father dies 5 months before birth? Should his name not be listed since he is no longer a legal parent?
And it seems silly as well because that document can only capture the legal parents at the moment of birth. Five years later, the mother is a crack whore and the kid lives with an adoptive family who he calls “mom and dad” and has never known his biological parents. What is the purpose of the birth certificate designation then? Should it be retroactively changed? Should it be changed every time there is a change in a custodial situation?
I would contend that legal matters belong outside this process and that genetics are what we are looking for here…the exact opposite of the way it seems that it is.
The state doesn’t owe the child anything. Whether his parents do is another story.
There are lots of reasons why the mother may not want a child’s paternity known, and those reasons are entirely her business. In fact, I can think of many situations where keeping paternity secret would be a blessing. And, frankly, if there is a concern about some genetic problem, there are tests that can be done on the child without dragging an unwilling father into it, or spending time and resources chasing down an unknown father.
This is a horrible idea. If you have someone’s True Name then any wizard can cast a geas on them and dominate their pathetically frail will.
Yeesh.
For the somewhat intangible benefit of making sure everyone knows the names of their “true” parents, I can see legislation like this causing a lot of false positives, creating problems for people who get tripped up by DNA-lab errors and whatnot.
And what if (goofy hypothetical to follow) a woman has an affair with her husband’s twin brother? Bedlam!
Being dead doesn’t stop him from being the legal parent.
As for the idea that women should, by force of law, have to identify the name of the father, what would be the penalty for lying on a birth certificate, or for refusing to name a father? How would locking up a newborn’s mother help the kid? Or, if we’re talking about a fine, wouldn’t it be in kid’s best interest if the mother had that money available to spend on the care and upbringing of her new child?
Under what theory of law do you derive the idea that the state has a right to compel this? How does it serve the interest of the state?
It’s not a legal fraud, and the state has no reason to care.
Why? How is it any of the state’s business?
There would be nothing stopping his name from being listed, and he could still be the legal parent (unless the mother wants to designate somebody else).
I think it actually is changed in some cases, but what difference does it make? The state will still know who the legal parents are.
Why are genetics relevant to the state?
As remote as it is, to prevent a man from marrying his sister. A father from marrying a daughter? Accurate documents kept by the state of a child’s true birth record prevent such an occurrence.
That’s such an unlikely, and really, inconsequential possibility that it could not justify the enormous logistical and practical problems it would cause, not to mention the invasion of privacy and the expense.
So what if a guy unknowingly marries his sister? Who gives a shit?
I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there’s just something about those 2 underlined statements that grate on me.:dubious:
Well of course you would not cos it ain’t you. I would and I would be mad as heck at the record keepers.
What possible reason would the state have to know who the genetic parent is? The birth certificate notes the legal parents at the time of birth. If the child’s living situation should change years later, as in your example, the birth certificate doesn’t change.
Your solution is untenable in cases of egg or sperm donation – the parents are well aware they are not the genetic mother or father, and that person is not around to sign the birth certificate (and his or her name is usually unknown anyway).