[Ambiance]

Here's a question I've been wondering for a while, thankfully this isn't happening to me:

By what I understand, in most states:
1. Most paternity tests take a few days to get results back, and even those can't be counted as evidence in court.
2. You're expected to sign yourself as the father as soon as your girlfriend/wife gives birth.
3. If you sign yourself as the father, you're stuck with child support even if you later on find out the baby isn't yours, "it's best for the child".

Can someone tell me which statement above isn't true? How can all 3 of them be true without a lot of men getting fucked in the process? If all are true, why aren't all men getting a vasectomy as a result?

[reaper23]

i'm pretty sure there is a time period after birth where you can have the paternity invalidated via testing. you presumably petition the court to order a court sanctioned test after you do the at home one.

of the online tests, some specifically state that their procedures are valid for court ordered tests.

you also don't HAVE to sign the paternity. you're accepting it willfully. don't sign it, problem solved. then she has to petition the court to have you proven as the father.

[calculus]

Yeah they aren't going to throw your baby in the trash if you don't sign their forms. You're not even obligated to fill out any of the social security forms they give you.

[iknowexactly]

(09-30-2013 06:50 PM)Ambiance Wrote:  

Here's a question I've been wondering for a while, thankfully this isn't happening to me:

By what I understand, in most states:
1. Most paternity tests take a few days to get results back, and even those can't be counted as evidence in court.
2. You're expected to sign yourself as the father as soon as your girlfriend/wife gives birth.
3. If you sign yourself as the father, you're stuck with child support even if you later on find out the baby isn't yours, "it's best for the child".

Can someone tell me which statement above isn't true? How can all 3 of them be true without a lot of men getting fucked in the process? If all are true, why aren't all men getting a vasectomy as a result?

Here's Nolo Press's page on paternity:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/p...29847.html

A couple things that stood out to my non-lawyer eye:

1) They cited paternity fraud by women as real.

2) They imply if you are married to the mother, you are assumed to be the father unless you contest it, and therefore would be on the hook for child support for her slutting-around baby if you do nothing.
( get ALL kids paternity tested. I don't see why you 'd have to tell your wife if she'll have a hissy)

3) You don't have to sign anything you don't want to, but if you do it has the force of a court order.

4) The state has a vested interest in getting SOMEONE'S name for a father on the BC, because then they have someone they can chase for money.

[Bad Hussar]

I can't help you with the legal questions, but would just like to emphasise that ALL new fathers should get the paternity test done immediately after birth irrespective of their relationship with the mother. It doesn't matter whether you think you are the greatest "Alpha" ever, or whether these thoughts have some merit. It doesn't matter if you're Muslim and your wife wears the hijab whenever she leaves the house. You still face the risk of paternity fraud. Basically every guy from super-Beta to super-Alpha faces this risk. The risk depends on your relative value to the putative mother, and not your absolute value as a man. And due to assortive mating each man is with a woman pretty much at his own level. So most men face the same kind of risks.

Obviously demanding a paternity test is going to create a shitstorm like no other from the putative mother, but as a man, actually as a person, you must face reality and protect your own interests. In a just world the "state" would conduct a paternity test as a condition of registering a birth. But the world is not just, and men who are not the biological fathers, end up raising and/or paying for kids. Get the test done before acknowledging anything.

[Ambiance]

Right, that's my point. How does the "average guy" not create a shit storm while still avoid being on the hook getting fucked by the state if you sign as the parent?

In the "average relationship", demanding a paternity test before signing, or even not signing your name as soon as the baby is birthed would totally damage a healthy relationship.

As Reaper said, is there actually a "grace period" where you get to "change your mind" on the birth certificate as the father, if you find out the baby isn't yours a few days later?

[samsamsam]

(10-01-2013 10:11 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

Obviously demanding a paternity test is going to create a shitstorm like no other from the putative mother, but as a man, actually as a person, you must face reality and protect your own interests.

If a girl dated me for a while, she would know I think too much and careful about key points. This would be a key point and I would even joke about it during dating that I would test. She better be smart enough to pick up that I am serious, that and when she signs the prenup should be signs that this would not be outside what is to be expected. There is an expression "Trust everyone, but assume nothing." Which has always meant to me, ya I trust you - but I will double check, because at the end of the day I have to be responsible for my own well being.

[Bad Hussar]

(10-01-2013 11:13 AM)Ambiance Wrote:  

Right, that's my point. How does the "average guy" not create a shit storm while still avoid being on the hook getting fucked by the state if you sign as the parent?

In the "average relationship", demanding a paternity test before signing, or even not signing your name as soon as the baby is birthed would totally damage a healthy relationship.

As Reaper said, is there actually a "grace period" where you get to "change your mind" on the birth certificate as the father, if you find out the baby isn't yours a few days later?

samsam above has made a good point. You really need to have brought this up before she became pregnant. Although still upset the girl is less likely to call you out as an "asshole" if you've already stated that you fully intend to be one if she gets pregnant. The smarter and more logical girls (they do exist) will understand why you do what you do.

If it's going to be really difficult to handle the heat you could try to get the test done on the sly. Maybe not possible in the US without the mothers consent or knowledge, I don't know. In that case maybe look to send samples outside the country to a lab in Central/South America, say. When the news comes back if it is your child say nothing. If it isn't dispute paternity and win your case.

There is no shame in doing this. You face a real potential risk and have every right to protect your interests.

[Ryre]

"They imply if you are married to the mother, you are assumed to be the father unless you contest it..."

No. Unfortunately, the truth is that if you are married to the mother, you are the legal father and on the hook to support the child, regardless of what DNA shows. She can admit the child isn't yours, and you will still be legally the father. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong about this, but I am almost certain this is the law in nearly all if not all states.

The only way I can see to protect yourself is, conceive the child before you are married, get a paternity test when it is born, and only marry the mother if you are proven to be the father. Oh, and don't act like the dad, sign for the kid, support the kid, or other be a father in any way until you get those test results, or else even if you aren't married the court could find that you voluntarily assumed the role and responsibilities of fatherhood.

This is really the only option the law leaves to men who want to be sure not to waste their resources on a cuckoo-baby.

[samsamsam]

(10-01-2013 02:16 PM)Ryre Wrote:  

"They imply if you are married to the mother, you are assumed to be the father unless you contest it..."

No. Unfortunately, the truth is that if you are married to the mother, you are the legal father and on the hook to support the child, regardless of what DNA shows. She can admit the child isn't yours, and you will still be legally the father.

Man I sure hope that isn't true. I would be...pissed (couldn't find the Bad Boys - Will Smith saying pissed )

[Merenguero]

With all due respect, there is some bad information in this thread, at least with regard to the law as it exists in the jurisdiction in which I practice.

A person's name appearing as the father on a child's birth certificate means exactly nothing with regard to who the biological father is. If a guy acknowledges paternity at the time of birth, then later is found not to be the biological father following a DNA test, he cannot be on the hook for child support.

If a guy is legally married to a child's biological mother, there is a presumption that he is the child's father. If the parties later separate and through a DNA test, the husband is shown not to be the child's father, he cannot be ordered to pay child support, unless, of course he agrees to. It is not uncommon that a guy who is not a child's biological father agrees to pay child support. What often happens is that a child grows up thinking that his or her mother's husband is his or her father when he really isn't. If the parties later get divorced, the husband often believes that it would be unfair to tell a ten, twelve, or fourteen year old that he is not his or her father, and therefore agrees to pay child support and does not deny paternity. In any event, regardless of what other factors are present, if a guy is not the biological father and does not agree to pay child support, there is no way that a court will order him to do so. These laws may very well vary from state to state, but this is how it is where I practice.

[Ryre]

Merenguero, that may be the law where you practice. Perhaps there is more variation in the law than I thought. I am not a family lawyer. Here's what I am talking about, though:

Presumed father. If any of the following are true, a man is presumed to be the father of a child, unless he or the mother proves otherwise to a court:

The man was married to the mother when the child was conceived or born, although some states do not consider a man to be a presumed father if the couple has separated.
The man attempted to marry the mother (even if the marriage was not valid) and the child was conceived or born during the attempted marriage.
The man married the mother after the birth and agreed either to have his name on the birth certificate or to support the child.
The man welcomed the child into his home and openly held the child out as his own.

In some states, any of these presumptions of paternity is considered conclusive, which means it cannot be disproven, even with contradictory blood tests. In Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's presumed father statute as a rational method of protecting the integrity of the family against challenges based on the due process rights of the father and the child.

A presumed father must pay child support.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/p...29847.html

The presumption can work to deny parental rights, too. Here's an example of a guy who fathered a child and raised the kid with the mother for four years. When they split he wanted to share custody. But because she was still married to another man when the child was conceived, her ex-husband was legally the father. The biological father had no rights.

http://singleparents.about.com/b/2007/03...ernity.htm

So what I wrote is absolutely true in some jurisdictions, though like I said I don't know how many.

And the opposite is also true: you can be determined to legally be the father despite not being married to the mother nor being the biological father. This can happen where for instance you date a single mother and act as a father to the kids for a time. The court can decide that you have taken on the role of father and that the kids are now entitled to your support. (This is a big reason why Tom Leykis says to never date single mothers.)

I've always been curious what happens when there is more than one person who could be considered the father. Suppose a woman gets impregnated by Mr. A while living (but not married to) Mr. B. Mr. B thinks it is his child and acts as the child's father for a few years. Then he finds out the truth, but too late: he has assumed the role of father.

Does the woman have the right to collect child support from either man? I mean, she could go after Mr. B based on assuming the father role. Or she could go after Mr. A with a DNA test. Does she just get to pick whoever is richer, or whoever she likes the most (or the least)?

[Merenguero]

Ryre:
Good post. As I said, family law may vary from state to state and that list of events which give rise to a presumption of paternity is much more broad than it is in my jurisdiction. Here, the presumption only arises when the two parties are married. A child support obligation only exists when there is a positive DNA test or you voluntarily agree to pay support.

You also mentioned that you can legally be the father despite neither being the biological father nor being married to the child's mother. The way it works here is that although you cannot legally be the father in such a case, you can acquire custody rights. Persons other than the child's biological parents (i.e. stepparents, grandparents) can acquire custody rights if there are "exceptional circumstances." When I first was admitted to the bar, I had a case where my client was the child's biological father, although he did not appear on the birth certificate and the child never lived with him. The child's mother passed away. My client was then involved in a child custody battle with the child's maternal grandparents. The grandparents basically raised the child from when she was an infant and they were claiming that there were exceptional circumstances. We ended up settling for some type of shared custody arrangement, but it would have been entirely possible for the grandparents to successfully argue that there were exceptional circumstances and that they should therefore be granted custody instead of the child's biological father being granted custody.

[Ambiance]

Merenguero:

Since you seem to know the law, let me ask you this:
1. If society, and most women expect (because of society's expectations) you to sign paternity at child birth
2. You won't be able to get your DNA test back till a day or two later, if you do one behind the mother's back

How do most men get around that problem? For most men, not signing paternity at child birth and waiting on DNA test to get back just isn't an option, unless they want to put a serious dent in the relationship for a very long time.

Do you have any practical advice for something like this? Something that doesn't include "Don't sign it and explain to the wife ..." or "be alpha"?

[Merenguero]

(10-01-2013 06:14 PM)Ambiance Wrote:  

Merenguero:

Since you seem to know the law, let me ask you this:
1. If society, and most women expect (because of society's expectations) you to sign paternity at child birth
2. You won't be able to get your DNA test back till a day or two later, if you do one behind the mother's back

How do most men get around that problem? For most men, not signing paternity at child birth and waiting on DNA test to get back just isn't an option, unless they want to put a serious dent in the relationship for a very long time.

Do you have any practical advice for something like this? Something that doesn't include "Don't sign it and explain to the wife ..." or "be alpha"?

Where I am, signing paternity is not a really big deal one way or the other. If a guy signs paternity, then later has a negative DNA test, he cannot be ordered to pay child support and by signing paternity at the time of birth you avoid tension between you and the mother. If you are not married to the mother, do not plan on marrying the mother, and do not care about the child (regardless of who the child's father is), I see no benefit of acknowledging paternity at the time of the child's birth, especially since it appears that in other jurisdictions you can be ordered to pay child support if you acknowledge paternity regardless of negative DNA results in the future.

The way DNA tests work is that the child's mother generally brings the child to a test center and DNA is taken with a cotton swab. The alleged father then appears at the center close in time to when the mother and child appear and a similar DNA test is performed. The only possible way to have a test done beyond the mother's back would be to take the child to a test center and have a test done. I have never heard of any guy doing it that way as most mothers are not extremely eager to leave their children alone with a guy who is contesting paternity. The most common and probably most practical way to contest paternity and/or have a DNA test performed is that in the event that the mother files a Complaint for Child Support, you can file a Motion to Submit to Genetic Testing. A judge will then order that you, the child's mother, and the child appear for genetic testing. Usually if the guy who takes the paternity test is the father, he will have to pay the testing fee. It is generally inexpensive. If he his not the father, he generally will not have to pay.

[Ambiance]

Thanks Merenguero.

But for most healthy relationships or marriages, not signing paternity at time of birth, wouldn't that create huge pressures on the relationship for years? It's almost like cheating, where the act can be forgiven but never forgotten? If I get my current gf preg and baby's mine, I'd totally care, I just don't want to be obligated to pay for a child that's not mine.

And I've seen personal paternity test kits where they can't be counted as court evidence, but you just swab a baby's mouth and send it in along with yours, at 99% accuracy.

Thanks for the tips.

[Merenguero]

(10-01-2013 07:12 PM)Ambiance Wrote:  

Thanks Merenguero.

But for most healthy relationships or marriages, not signing paternity at time of birth, wouldn't that create huge pressures on the relationship for years? It's almost like cheating, where the act can be forgiven but never forgotten? If I get my current gf preg and baby's mine, I'd totally care, I just don't want to be obligated to pay for a child that's not mine.

And I've seen personal paternity test kits where they can't be counted as court evidence, but you just swab a baby's mouth and send it in along with yours, at 99% accuracy.

Thanks for the tips.

Simply put, you need to check the law of the state where you live with regard to the obligations created by acknowledging paternity at the time of birth. If you would be screwed by acknowledging paternity in the event that things don't work out between you and the child's mother, don't sign. If it wouldn't matter as it wouldn't in my state and you don't want to cause tension, by all means sign.

[Ambiance]

That helps a lot, thanks Merenguero.

[Cincinnatus]

I have a hard time comprehending legal language but skimming Ohio's laws, as I understand it,

- If you're married to a woman that gives birth to a child, it's presumed to be yours, whether you sign the birth certificate or not

- If you sign a birth certificate, it's yours, wedlock or not

The only way to change this is through a DNA test AND the woman has to agree for you to release paternity rights, whether DNA proves the child was yours or not...