Maybe I don’t understand you.
If a man acknowledges paternity of a child, and testing establishes that sibling of that child has the same father, would that not establish the man as the father of both?
I have no idea how that would play out in court, least of all in Australia, but it seems logical to me.
Regards,
Shodan
While I agree that it would be awesome to know an eventual outcome, I’m not so sure we’ll ever hear of any DNA test happening.
Both father and daughter maintain they just want his name on the birth certificate, but some how, have amazingly overlooked the most obvious way to achieve that. A DNA test that demonstrates a shared father between siblings.
Three months and it has not occurred to them. Think about that. If your motivation was truly as described, why wouldn’t you? Something’s not quite right there, in my mind.
(Not that the OP has any obligations to share anything they are not comfortable with, that’s not my point. Just that there may be much more to this than is being shared, rightly, with us!)
He acknowledged the first child voluntarily, and is legally responsible for child support, and the court will not revisit that. But it hasn’t been proven by DNA test that he’s the father of the first child, so there’s a link missing if all you have is proof that the two children share the same father. Acknowledged/legal father /= proven biological father.
You really think the courts won’t, with such results in evidence, decide to press further and make him comply with the required DNA testing to resolve the issue? This surprises me.
They’re going to go ahead (probably) and order the DNA testing anyway. Why do a useless test first?
You’re assuming the sibling to sibling DNA test is admissible in court. Is it? I honestly don’t know.
And you’re ignoring my post earlier where I pointed out that the mother would have to pay for a sibling DNA test herself. She doesn’t need DNA testing, she knows who the father is. She has legal advice, she’s going through the process. He will be asked to take a DNA test. If he agrees, she’s fine. If he refuses, he’ll probably be found to be the father anyway based on her testimony and his refusal to provide evidence to the contrary. She doesn’t need to pay for sibling testing out of her own pocket NOW just to get the results sooner. He’ll have to backpay her child support to the date of her application, the birth certificate will get done and he’ll be on the hook for the full cost of the DNA test.
Are you serious ? That’s all it takes now in an Australian court of law now, is a “He’s the daddy” statement from her and a refusal from him ? If so and I was a man in Australia, I’d be getting a vasectomy pretty freakn’ quick.
Why not **make him **take the DNA test, or face jail time and find out for sure .
I don’t know yet whether he can be forced to take a DNA test if he doesn’t want to. I assume (and this is a big WAG assumption) that the court will order him to take the test, and if he refuses will be found in contempt with the penalties that apply. (Can an Aussie legal person advise here??)
We really won’t know anything more until the hearing.
Why get a vasectomy? Wouldn’t it be simpler to take a DNA test? Vasectomies can fail, simply proving you’d had one wouldn’t be enough, you’d have to prove it was still effective and the only methods I can think of for that are more intrusive than a cheek swab.
Sending people to jail benefits no one, costs tax payers money, threatens the purported father’s ability to earn a living and draws the case out, leaving the child in limbo. The purported father has the ability to establish his innocence conclusively by consenting to a DNA test. If he refuses the court can quite reasonably decide that he knows the test will prove he’s the father and that’s why he won’t cooperate.
I thought that the alleged father had such a small income that he wouldn’t have to pay even for one child, so why bother denying parentage of the second kid when he’s not going to pay anything anyway ?
Doesn’t seem to make sense.
I don’t know how it works there but here, if a man refuses to take a DNA test he’s declared the father by default. I knew a guy in that situation and he claimed the kid wasn’t really his and he’d been out of town and missed the notice of the DNA test, but he had been paying child support for years. I asked him why he didn’t just pay for another DNA test himself then (he’d never met the kid anyway) and he said it was too expensive. More expensive than paying child support for 18 years, I guess.
Oddly, he had another little girl he was a great dad to (as the sole caretaker; the mother was deceased). He also had two other kids in addition to those two, that the mother “wouldn’t let him” see.
Yep, same here.
Okay, well then I wouldn’t think contempt of court penalties or anything would apply. He’d probably just be declared the father the same as if he had taken the DNA test and it showed that he was the father. I don’t think it’s considered a punishment like contempt of court, but more like choosing to waive your right to contest an allegation. But then I’m not in Australia.
It sounds like he mostly doesn’t want to be on the hook for all of that relationship stuff.