You’ll have to explain why. You seem to be under the misapprehension that achild has rights it actually does not have.
There is no right for a child to know who his biological parents are.
There is no right for the state to know either, unless they are also the legal parents.
If you agree with the OP, then you read the part where it was mentioned that the mother DID NOT KNOW her husband was not the biological parent.
And I still don’t understand why this father would EVER let his daughter get wind of the fact that he had any doubts about her being his biological child. That is just cruel. Plain and simple.
I’ve never figured out how to do multiple quotes, but I think this line for ZPG Zealot is very important…“If you’ve been a child’s father for several years, and the discovery that they aren’t your biological child makes you wish to sever all ties with the child you have loved and comforted and played with, well, then, certainly you are no sort of father.”
I don’t understand all the sympathy for the father here if what the OP added is true…once his wife admitted she’d had an affair many years before, he decided to check to see it the daughter was his biological child…because she’d always been a little different from the other kids. Talk about sending the wrong message to your daughter! No wonder the girl ran away…not only does her dad say essentially that he never really felt the same way about her as he did her siblings, but now she feels responsible for breaking up her parent’s marriage! Way to go, jerk…no wonder the wife had an affair.
The records would be entirely accurate. They would record the legal parents.
Why should the STATE care if a guy unknowing marries his sister? That’s the question. You need to explain why there is a compelling interest for the state to infringe on the right of privacy.
Why? I can think of a few reasons off the top of my head why a woman might not want to reveal the father. If she’s the victim of incest/rape–yeah, obviously we can argue that she’s not the one who has anything to be ashamed of, but if that’s how she feels, why force her? Or if she’s had a one night stand and has decided she wants nothing to do with the father–no child support, no visitation, nothing. It would be nice in an ideal world if we all got to know who our parents are, but I don’t see it as an obligation.
Haven’t you been reading the thread? This isn’t true at all. She can name any random male she likes, but he won’t be listed as the father unless he stipulates to paternity, or following the result of a paternity test.
The only case where a woman can name a random guy as the father and that’s it, he’s done, is a case where that random guy is her husband.
And even then, that’s not it. The husband can disclaim paternity, and if he can prove in court that he isn’t the father, then he can be taken off the birth certificate.
So if you don’t trust the lying cheating skank of a whore that you married, and think that your filthy cum-dumpster of a wife could have been fucking other men behind your back, you can certainly demand a paternity test every she gives birth. And hey, if it turns out you’re not the genetic father, you win! But why does the fact that your wife is a lying cheating skank of a whore, who fucks other men behind your back mean that you need a law compelling every woman in the country to get a DNA test? You’re perfectly free to demand a DNA test when your wife squeezes out another brat. But what you want is a law that says the DNA test is mandatory, so you don’t look like you think your wife is a lying cheating skank of a whore when you demand that DNA test.
In other words, you think your wife could be a lying cheating skank of a whore, but you don’t want your wife to know that you think she’s a lying cheating skank of a whore.
Just an interesting tidbit:
My sister and her husband are currently in the middle of the process of adopting a baby boy. It’s an open adoption, so everyone knows who everyone else is. Before they can legally adopt, the rights of the bio parents have to be legally terminated. Of course the mother just signed the papers, no problem. But there was a slight wrinkle when it came to the father–she knew who the bio dad was, but she was also legally married to a different guy, even though he lives out of state and they hadn’t seen each other for a couple of years. Nevertheless, the marriage made him “Dad” and he had to be given his chance to contest the adoption. So did the actual bio dad.
So my sister and husband had to sweat out waiting to see if *two * different guys would both agree to have their parental rights terminated. They both had a right to claim paternity. I just thought that was interesting.
Again, that (extremely unlikely) circumstance could be prevented by having couples submit to DNA tests as part of their marriage licence application. Some jurisdictions already mandate prenuptial blood tests for things like VD or blood group compatibility. Granted this will do nothing to prevent “out of wedlock” births, but neither will your idea. Who the hell insists on comparing eachother’s birth certificates before having sex? :dubious:
And how much effort (& tax money) do you think the state should put into verifying a woman’s paternal ignorance? How would you even go about doing that? Start by having someone from Public Health grill her about her sexual habits while she’s in the maternity ward? Depose her friends & family? Put her face on a billboard with the caption “If you’ve had sex with this woman in the past 10 months please call your local registry office.”?
Clu-Me-In, you still haven’t explained what interest the state could possibly have in forcing the disclosure of both biological parents on a birth certificate.
Well I do think that a child has rights, and so does the United Nations, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
You’re not going to persuade anybody with that false dilemma, Clu-Me-In. But the cite restates the argument we are having in this thread without resolving it:
Does that mean “the child has a right to have his or her paternity confirmed with a DNA test,” or does it mean “the child has a right to be raised by his family and not be taken from his parents by the state or other groups?” I think it’s the second one.
I say it’s this one —> “The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents”
“Immediately after birth” IMHO means bio-parents unless one is no longer alive, then and only then can an adoptive parent or guardian be susbstituted on a birth record.
That’s slicing things extremely thin in a world with problems like child soldiers, slavery and prostitution. I don’t think the text is intended to differentiate bio-parents from adoptive ones.
And it wasn’t even his first in this thread (ref: post 14). Based on this, I gather a reasoned debate was never sought, just a chance to vent about his friend’s unfaithful wife.
I disagree. I have to believe that the lawyers and Diplomats that crafted that statement recognized that putting “immediately after birth” in that statement would lead to the conclusion that the truth of a childs heritage be told on some State certified document such as a Birth Certificate. That document can be ammended at a later date adding adoptive parents or guardians.
Now wait a minute there. That was never my intention. I wanted to see if I could hear a lawyer and or the opinion of others on the question I asked initially.
Unofficial summaries of articles 7 and 8:
I think everyone here would agree it’s preferable for a child to know the truth about his parents, whatever it is. But it’s still a big stretch to interpret this as a call for mandatory DNA testing to establish paternity.
Well, then stop pulling this “you don’t agree with me, so you obviously believe children have no rights” bullshit. You’re advocating for a very specific right that does not currently exist, and you’re getting some well-reasoned arguments why it does not need to exist.
I mean to add that that is the UN’s own unofficial summary of the document. You can see it here.
Nonsense!! I disagreed when you outright said that children have no rights - that shocked me a bit - and caused me to go digging a bit more, and it became clear to me that children absolutely do have rights just like you and I. Now, why wouldn’t or shouldn’t they? Aren’t they just as human?
In any case, is there some sort of law around these parts that says you cannot be wrong or a member here cannot disagree with your opinion - cos that’s all you’ve got.
I never said that. Nobody here said anything like that. You should reread the thread.