False Paternity

[Insectoid]

I stumbled on this article today (yeah, it's from 2002). Blew my mind.

Quote:

As families gather this festive season, here is a spicy fact that mothers might be loath to dish out at the holiday table: It's now widely accepted among those who work in genetics that roughly 10 per cent of us are not fathered by the man we believe to be dad.

Quote:

Geneticists have stumbled upon this phenomenon in the course of conducting large population studies and hunting for genes that cause diseases such as cystic fibrosis. They find full siblings to be half-siblings, fathers who are genetic strangers to more than one of their children and uncles who are much closer to their nieces and nephews than anyone might guess. Lumped under the heading of "pedigree errors," these so-called mis-paternities, false paternities and non-paternities are all science jargon for the unwitting number of us who are chips off someone else's block.

I think more shocking than the 10% false paternity figure (which is pretty shocking to say the least) is the fact that hospitals may opt to keep this information from the supposed father.

Quote:

In the early 1970s, a schoolteacher in southern England assigned a class science project in which his students were to find out the blood types of their parents. The students were then to use this information to deduce their own blood types (because a gene from each parent determines your blood type, in most instances only a certain number of combinations are possible). Instead, 30 per cent of the students discovered their dads were not their biologically fathers.

Quote:

"Reproductive deception is morally similar to rape," Dr. Lipton said. "If you trick someone into raising a baby not his own, and he puts 20 years of his life into an endeavour based on a falsehood, that is appalling.

The article also mentioned a guy who, despite not being a genetic parent of the child, has to pay child support (I'm sure you've heard this before).

What do you guys think about this? The moral side, the legal side, and the bind-boggling figures in general? I believe that if you are not the paternal father of a child, you have no obligation to support it. You may choose to, but are not required. I mean, if I was married and my wife fooled around and I found out years later that my 12-year-old kid wasn't mine I'd probably still support him outside the legal system. I dunno if I'd divorce or not (if I ever get into such a situation I'll let you know). Similarly, the paternal father should have access to the kid (the article mentions a father who was denied visitation rights because he was not the child's father-figure).

A paternal father should always support his child, just as a paternal mother should. If your blood's not in his veins, you should have no legal obligation to support the child. If you got yourself into this kind of situation, it's your problem, deal with it. If you got duped, then feel free to walk away. Yeah, it's not fair if the child suffers. But hey, we've been punishing parents through their kids for centuries (how many sons were murdered in the Bible for their parents' faults?). Why stop now?

I am by no means anti-women or anything. Women can be equally screwed over by men (as exemplified by my landlord, who's ex-husband is a deadbeat unemployed addict loser claiming alimony for her violently unstable 15-year-old ADHD kid who decided to live at his dad's house and she can't regain custody, AND her ex-boyfriend left thousands of dollars of unfinished renovations in her house after breaking up with her, and offered to finish for half-price).

But yeah, what do you guys think?

[Tony]

There is no hard supporting evidence for that figure. The article briefly mentions that it is difficult to set up such experiments (presumably because of the ethics board). The "widely accepted figure" of 10% is likely to be strongly impacted by a confirmation bias (rare but kind of shocking event, so we tend to remember those cases, thus inflating the estimation of size when thinking back).

So I'm doubtful about the figure.

Insectoid @ Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:16 pm wrote:

A paternal father should always support his child...

"always"? What's your view on the use of sperm-banks for artificial insemination? Should the donor be responsible for the support? What about adopted children?

Insectoid @ Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:16 pm wrote:

Women can be equally screwed over by men

Not in the same way. It is hard to imagine a situation where a woman gives birth to a child that is not her own. A hospital mixup if the child is let out of sight... maybe. But not through the deceit of husband.

[Insectoid]

Quote:

"always"? What's your view on the use of sperm-banks for artificial insemination? Should the donor be responsible for the support? What about adopted children?

touch?. Didn't think of that.

Quote:

Women can be equally screwed over by men

I only mentioned this 'cause my post seemed very anti-women, which wasn't my intent.

[ProgrammingFun]

Maybe that's one reason you (general) shouldn't be having sex with every person you fall in love with. IMO, it you settled with one person (and general society followed this), chances of false paternity would be greatly reduced.

In addition, you could always check if a baby is yours when its born.

[Insectoid]

Most people wouldn't check, I think, because it may be taken as a sign of distrust. How would I feel if my dad had me checked for paternity? To me that would signify an incoming divorce.

In the case of sperm donation, I've decided that the mother and her significant other (be that an infertile husband or a girlfriend/wife) assume responsibility, which should hold a legal binding. If a mother is impregnated by donated sperm but her significant other doesn't know, the mother should have legal responsibility and the father should not be legally bound to support the child (the same as false paternity, except the mother is 100% screwed).

In the case of rape, the father (assuming the father is the rapist) should of course be jailed and be required to pay full child support, as well as additional fines for emotional stress. The mother should have no legal obligation to the child (she can decide if she has a moral obligation).

In any case, if a parent (genetic provider or not) decides to assume responsibility, that should be legally binding. You can't decide to support a child today and quit tomorrow.


This is, of course, all my own opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Also, damnit, the board doesn't support accents on my e's. Forgive that '?' in my previous post- that should have read 'touche'.

[mirhagk]

Childbearing is a very interesting topic. What we see as morals in this area is the complete opposite of what would likely be the best decision.

For instance look at the Nazi's decision to make people with genetic disorders and mentally diseases infertile (yes they took it too far, including too many, but look at the basic idea). Your first reaction is obviously that this a terrible thing, and they should be allowed to have a baby too. But is it fair to the child to have a crippling genetic disorder simply because the parent's wanted the joy of having a kid of their own instead of adopting.

I honestly think it's the most selfish thing ever if you know that there's a good chance your kid is going to have a genetic disorder, and you still have children.

[Brightguy]

I read both feminist and men's rights blogs because I've become fascinated observing the groupthink. Even when exactly the same facts are being discussed, each group sees them in a completely different light. It's crazy just how much each side utterly loathes the other side.

On this issue of false paternity, men's rights activists are constantly bringing it up and what we can do about it. Feminists tend to downplay it, if they talk about it at all, and some even argue false paternity is a good thing for society since it allows women to choose who best to be the father. A while back a male feminist wrote an article describing how he actually went so far as to let another man raise a child that might have been his, because the women wanted to marry another man who was told he was the father. Predictably, the MRAs had a conniption...

[Tony]

Insectoid @ Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:41 am wrote:

In any case, if a parent (genetic provider or not) decides to assume responsibility, that should be legally binding. You can't decide to support a child today and quit tomorrow.

That's pretty much how that happens right now. At birth the father (thinking the child is his) assumes responsibility and becomes a legal parental figure. That is legally binding (at least there were court cases that upheld such rulings).

So the argument here is that of entering into a legally binding contract under misrepresentation vs. Statute of Limitations. Of course this is just an approximation, since there is no explicitly signed contact and just implicit assumptions (he says "our child" as "our genetic material"; she says "our child" as "child we are raising together").

How would you balance the two?

[Insectoid]

Quote:

At birth the father (thinking the child is his) assumes responsibility and becomes a legal parental figure.

The father agrees to raise his blood son. If the son is not a genetic parent, the binding is moot. If I sell you an iPad in a legally binding agreement, and the iPad just happens to be made of cardboard (this has actually happened to people), then does the agreement still hold?

If you agree to raise your son, then you agreed to raise your son. If it turns out he's not your son, then the agreement should not hold.

This may not be the current situation in law (I doubt it is) but this is how I think it should be.

[Tony]

The analogy misses the complexity of the length of time that has passed. If one was to test for paternity at birth and walk away because it is false, then there should be no "contract". But taking something like

Insectoid @ Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:16 pm wrote:

...and I found out years later that my 12-year-old kid wasn't mine...

You sell me an "iPad". 12 years later I find out that the iPad is made of cardboard. What happens?

Yes, the "father" was wronged. I don't think anyone would deny that. And as much as guys everywhere would like to have an option of a way out, 12 years in that option also means that some young kid (through no fault of their own) looses a father-figure and possibly the only source of family income. Guess who the courts tend to favour.

A much more interesting question is to figure out just where to draw this line. I'll say that after raising a kid as your own for 12 years, it would be a shitty thing to abandon that child. Perhaps even a 6 year old. How about 3? 1?

[mirhagk]

What about this guys, a girl tells a guy she's dating she's on the pill, so they do it. Turn's out she was lying. (This has happened). Is the guy obligated to take care of the resulting child?

[Insectoid]

Yeah, it would be shitty for the kid. I realize that. However, if a dad gets a life sentence for murder, that sucks for his kid too. Do the courts care? Nah. That's a fair opinion (which much of the public appears to hold).

I'm sure most 'dads' wouldn't walk away after 12 years. And if they do, well, it's a brutal life lesson. Say we have a 12-year-old girl. Her dad finds out she's not his true daughter, and abandons the family. If the daughter is aware of the reason for abandonment, how likely is she to do the same as her mother? Assuming her family wasn't messed up to begin with, she might be less likely. Then again, this is an assumption and may be totally wrong.

By ignoring the issue and forcing the 'father' to support the child we perpetuate the issue.

What if a father has a gambling addiction and squanders the family money? That's not the kid's fault, but you don't see people helping those kids out. Why care about one situation and not the other?

People go through a lot of shit growing up. That's how they learn about the world. What is society teaching us by protecting kids? That it's okay to mess around when your significant other isn't looking. This begs the question- should we even bother with monogamy anymore? We're at, what, 25-50% divorce rates now? How many of those families had children? How many of those children never saw their father or mother again?

Whatever the law, the father figure may or may not be lost in this situation. No law can make a man love a child who isn't his. That's up to him and his morals.

What about the guy in the article, who fathered none of his 3 children? Maybe his whole life he wanted to climb Mt. Everest, but couldn't afford it due to these kids. Even after finding out, he'd still not be able to pursue his dream. His entire life may be destroyed by his wife, who other than losing a husband gets off scot-free. Where is the justice in this? I say, let the husband go, and make the wife get a job and take things away from her so she can afford the kids. Make HER (and by extension her kids) pay for her mistake. Move into a subsidized home, sell your jewelry, and stop eating out every night.

[mirhagk]

I agree with you there insectoid. Honestly you can live just fine on a minimum wage job, you just need to sacrifice a few luxuries (people just keep smoking, eating out, drive cars etc)

[Tony]

Insectoid @ Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:39 pm wrote:

However, if a dad gets a life sentence for murder, that sucks for his kid too. Do the courts care? Nah. That's a fair opinion (which much of the public appears to hold).

That's not comparable. You could try arguing that deception is raise a child is as bad as murder, but society's consensus that it is not seems reasonable.

Insectoid @ Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:39 pm wrote:

If the daughter is aware of the reason for abandonment, how likely is she to do the same as her mother? Assuming her family wasn't messed up to begin with, she might be less likely.

That totally ignores ~50% of 12 year old boys on whom this "lesson" will be missed. Proper upbringing, education, etc. are much better methods of getting a point across than harsh punishments of select individuals. This isn't even a "punishment as deterrent to others" as the general population will not see the realities of that 12 year old growing up.

Insectoid @ Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:39 pm wrote:

By ignoring the issue and forcing the 'father' to support the child we perpetuate the issue.

That might deter some people, but punish much more. It's hard to tell without knowing just what the numbers are and what people were thinking at various moments of their schemes.

Insectoid @ Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:39 pm wrote:

What if a father has a gambling addiction and squanders the family money? That's not the kid's fault, but you don't see people helping those kids out.

They do care and help out. Child endangerment will trigger all kinds of social services to show up.

Insectoid @ Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:39 pm wrote:

What is society teaching us by protecting kids? That it's okay to mess around when your significant other isn't looking.

It's teaching us that society (as a whole) benefits from low crime rate and higher education when kids don't know up in poverty.

Insectoid @ Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:39 pm wrote:

This begs the question- should we even bother with monogamy anymore? We're at, what, 25-50% divorce rates now? How many of those families had children? How many of those children never saw their father or mother again?

You've taken a slippery slope far far far from the original issue. So for lols, this should make a good argument in favour of gay marriage -- no false paternity issues.

Insectoid @ Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:39 pm wrote:

No law can make a man love a child who isn't his.

The law is not attempting to do anything like that.

Insectoid @ Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:39 pm wrote:

... make the wife get a job and take things away from her so she can afford the kids. Make HER (and by extension her kids) pay for her mistake. Move into a subsidized home, sell your jewelry, and stop eating out every night.

I believe courts decide this on case-by-case basis. In your example of 3 children, depending on their age, it might simply be impossible to hold any kind of job without endangering the children through neglect.


@mirhagk -- a student/starving-artist can live on minimum wage. A single parent is another matter.

[Insectoid]

Quote:

The law is not attempting to do anything like that.

You mentioned it would suck if they lost a father figure. I'm just saying that would happen anyway, except in the cases where hospitals do not inform the father of non-parenthood. Which is another issue, that could totally be discussed (much more relevant than my marriage points).

Anyway, I can't think of any more arguments, so Tony, you win this round.