tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post7297456653945607875..comments2023-10-31T05:07:19.353-04:00Comments on Delenda est Carthago: How Do You Hatch a Cuckoo's Egg?Dr. Φhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14086783503820477029noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-51908005478182945162009-04-28T14:16:00.000-04:002009-04-28T14:16:00.000-04:00In my original post, I actually said that she woul...In my original post, I actually said that she would have to prove that he knew. The burden of proof would be on her. The presumption would be that he didn't know.<br /><br />However, the main reason I want to stress early testing is to prevent us from getting there in the first place. One of the main reasons for pushing the issue is so the man is made aware of his chance to challenge paternity, outline how long and under what circumstances he can do so, and explain what his obligations will be even if the child is not biologically his.<br /><br />If, at that point he waives the paternity test, he is in effect saying that he does not care about biological paternity. If he gets a negative result and doesn't reverse the paternity, he is saying that he accepts the child that is not biologically his.<br /><br />I may be open to issuing a paternity challenge in the event of a divorce. I did some poking around last night and apparently the California law is not universal and that in some states there actually is a window to challenge paternity in the case of divorce. Before stating whether or not I think that's a good idea, I would want more information on how that's worked out. <br /><br />I am very skittish on the man being able to say "Oh, now that our marriage hasn't worked out, I don't want anything to do with the kid that I pledged myself to." when he either knew the kid wasn't his or declined to take advantage of his opportunity to find out. I am also concerned that allowing this sort of thing will put non-fathers at a significant disadvantage in custody hearings.trumwillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03156143676616919381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-28155721712938687492009-04-28T05:17:00.000-04:002009-04-28T05:17:00.000-04:00Let me make a partial concession, because I agree ...Let me make a partial concession, because I agree with you that leaving legal paternity forever unsettled is not an ideal state of affairs, and I largely share your assessment of men who want to "right to leave at any time for any reason".<br /><br />So . . . <I>if</I> a paternity test produces a negative result, and <I>if</I> the non-father signs an affidavit acknowledging he is aware of this result, and <I>if</I> he doesn't challenge his legal paternity within two years of that affidavit, <I>then</I> I would say that a paternity challenge at the time of divorce would be a sufficient show of bad faith to deny relief from support obligations. <br /><br />But the situation I am trying to avoid is one where wife says "he knew!" and husband says "no I didn't!" and the judge has to guess who's telling the truth. The affidavit would prove he knew; but if it's not required as proof, then the man would be stuck trying to "prove a negative" and how can anyone show he <I>didn't</I> know something?<br /><br />Now the obvious problem is that there is no incentive for a non-father to sign such an affidavit. I'm going to have to keep thinking about this . . . .Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14252946969701576139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29763791.post-34875795529070784172009-04-27T19:22:00.000-04:002009-04-27T19:22:00.000-04:00As I said in the comments, I would support the gov...As I said in the comments, I would support the government assisting in payment of the paternity test if the man cannot afford it. Even if we don't change anything else, cost should not be the issue preventing a man from determining whether or not a baby is his. It's times like this it's helpful not to be a libertarian :).<br /><br />My expectation is that if, at the time of the test being performed, the guy does not at least know the baby <I>might</I> not be his and hasn't figured out what he would do that the relationship will probably not survive. Otherwise, my advice to the man would be to waive parental rights, be a step-father, and if the marriage survives then look at adoption. If the marriage never really regains its footing, even if it persists like the undead, it's probably best that his relationship with the child is not codified. There are worse things to be than a step-parent.<br /><br />Also, to me one of the responsibilities of being a parent is not what you do today and did yesterday, but the promise to be there tomorrow. A father that wants to maintain the right to leave at any time for any reason is not taking full responsibility.trumwillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03156143676616919381noreply@blogger.com