Bill: Mandatory Paternity Tests Before Birth Certificates Issued

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
... And no one has yet to answer the questions I have asked regarding circumstances such as sperm donation. There are simply far too many holes int he bill as written.
Click to expand...
Another example of the law not being able to keep up with technology.
 
jillio said:
And that is where you are confused, Byrdie. No one is saying that a child does not have the right to know who their father is, and there are already procedures in place to ensure that is remedied. What I am saying is, no one has the right to assume a mother is lying automatically about who the father of her child is. And no one has yet to answer the questions I have asked regarding circumstances such as sperm donation. There are simply far too many holes int he bill as written.
Click to expand...

It's to prevent falsely accusations on the mother's part about who the father is.

There are three sides to this issue and the one issue will win on all. The mother's side, the father's side and now....the DNA side-which will settle the dispute, once and for all.
 
Byrdie714 said:
It's to prevent falsely accusations on the mother's part about who the father is.

There are three sides to this issue and the one issue will win on all. The mother's side, the father's side and now....the DNA side-which will settle the dispute, once and for all.
Click to expand...

You live in a fantasy world, Byrdie. As I said, when a false accusation does occur, there are already procedures in place to address it. Address it when it does occur. There are also men who make false accusation agains women in paternity cases, stating that there is no way that they could be the father of a child because their partner was having an affair, or men who have denied even having sexual contact with a woman only to discover through testing that they were indeed lying to avoid accepting responsibility for their child. This is not woman's domain alone.
 
Im sorry as a woman I dont see how it would be an insult to have to have a paternity test upon birth of the child. This would also prevent upon divorce the father then protesting that the children arent his.

The only way I could see a woman being against this, is if she has something to hide.

What is so wrong with proving that the man you SAY is the father of your child is the father of your child? If anything it proves your honesty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I have had DNA testing done on both of my children. And it proved who the fathers were. Sure some fathers will still deny that the child is theirs. But it also opens up the option of child support.

You can obtain child support, without having to allow visitation rights if you are worried about the safety of your children. Or you can allow visitation but demand supervised visitation.

To me, this law is a much needed one. It will stop mothers from seeking assistance and taking money out of the taxpayers wallets to support that child. And force the deadbeat parents to pay child support.

Alot of mothers struggle to pay bills and support their kids because deadbeat dads dont pay. With a database of parentages. Then it would allow this.

And Jillio in answer to your question. If the child is indeed a sperm donor child, then the parents could get the donor clinic to verify that it is a donor child and exempt them from the testing, thus allowing the husband to put his name on the birth certificate and claim the child as his.
 
Bear said:
Im sorry as a woman I dont see how it would be an insult to have to have a paternity test upon birth of the child. This would also prevent upon divorce the father then protesting that the children arent his.

The only way I could see a woman being against this, is if she has something to hide.

What is so wrong with proving that the man you SAY is the father of your child is the father of your child? If anything it proves your honesty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I have had DNA testing done on both of my children. And it proved who the fathers were. Sure some fathers will still deny that the child is theirs. But it also opens up the option of child support.


You can obtain child support, without having to allow visitation rights if you are worried about the safety of your children. Or you can allow visitation but demand supervised visitation.

To me, this law is a much needed one. It will stop mothers from seeking assistance and taking money out of the taxpayers wallets to support that child. And force the deadbeat parents to pay child support.

Alot of mothers struggle to pay bills and support their kids because deadbeat dads dont pay. With a database of parentages. Then it would allow this.

And Jillio in answer to your question. If the child is indeed a sperm donor child, then the parents could get the donor clinic to verify that it is a donor child and exempt them from the testing, thus allowing the husband to put his name on the birth certificate and claim the child as his.
Click to expand...

But there is nothing to provide for that in the bill as proposed. And if they allow that exception, what about the man who knows full well the child is not his, but chooses to accept it as his own and voluntarily puts his name on the birth certificate?

The problem I have with the bill is that it is an invasion of guaranteed privacy rights, and is in direct opposition to the legal principle of "Innocent until proven guilty." If we allow those to be violated in this case, then nothing will be exempt from the same thing.
 
jillio said:
But there is nothing to provide for that in the bill as proposed. And if they allow that exception, what about the man who knows full well the child is not his, but chooses to accept it as his own and voluntarily puts his name on the birth certificate?

The problem I have with the bill is that it is an invasion of guaranteed privacy rights, and is in direct opposition to the legal principle of "Innocent until proven guilty." If we allow those to be violated in this case, then nothing will be exempt from the same thing.
Click to expand...

Call the state of Tennessee and get the details....

Remember that the news media isn't going to print the propose law in detail, just the gist of it.
 
I think this is great!! This way there will be no

doubt who's obligation/responsibity the child is!
 
Byrdie714 said:
Call the state of Tennessee and get the details....

Remember that the news media isn't going to print the propose law in detail, just the gist of it.
Click to expand...

And the gist of it is sufficient to see that there are too many holes in this proposal.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Because you are making the assumptions of something that is not there as always.
Click to expand...

Explain, please. The only assumptions being made are by this proposal and those who support it.
 
Acutally, few women I met with their lawyers told me that person that is on SSI or SSDI can still get child support because it won't affect SSI or SSDI to have child support. So it pretty much legal.
 
jillio said:
Difference being, I've got the degrees to prove it.:giggle:

Nor did you ask me for an explanation. I asked you for one.
Click to expand...

I really don't think you do. Afterall, you claim to be working two jobs and going to graduate school makes one wonder.... that you spend awful lot of time on the forums when in fact, should be studying/researching.
 
Byrdie714 said:
I really don't think you do. Afterall, you claim to be working two jobs and going to graduate school makes one wonder.... that you spend awful lot of time on the forums when in fact, should be studying/researching.
Click to expand...

Yes, my dear, I do work 2 jobs and attend graduate school. It is doable. Because you are not motivated to do so does not make it an impossible proposition. The majority of my cohorts inthe program work 40 hours a week, as well as attend graduate school. It is the usual situation, rather than the exception. I would think that you would already know that, giventhat you once claimed a law degree. My studying/researching is done at various times throughout the week. It is during those times that I am not on the forum.

Likewise, I am able to discuss my field with a degree of expertise that you have failed to show when it comes to the law. Likewise, you were totally unable to answer questions where you received your JD, and when you tried to fake an answer, it was readily apparent to all.

Now. let's get back on topic and discuss the OP with some degree of credibility on your part.
 
GarnetTigerMom said:
Acutally, few women I met with their lawyers told me that person that is on SSI or SSDI can still get child support because it won't affect SSI or SSDI to have child support. So it pretty much legal.
Click to expand...

same here. i agree with you as it wont affect that as i did got child support and while on ssdi but i dont have custody of TJ so i dont have child support anymore.

it all based on how much the father made and are required to send the money to child enforcement agency then mail check to the mother of the child to use for clothes, foods and medicines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top