Who's Your Daddy? (Trees And Things)

pO157: Re: What does he do?

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:40:46 EST

Until the court says no (or worse) some random unaccountable administrator in this case. While you're sitting in jail for 6 months. For the fourth time.

This is why it needs to be codified in the law. I'm told some states (at least mine) require a serv

DEMachina: Re: What does he do?

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:58:27 EST

An almost equally acceptable alternate would be requiring DNA to establish paternity to be submitted prior to any paternity case or divorce processed through the system.

Yeah, I agree. That should always be the first thing that happe

JimmyHavok: Re: Thefadd et al:

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:09:26 EST

The problem here is exactly the opposite of nanny state. If we had a nanny state, there'd be no need to worry about who the baby daddy was, since the nanny state would be taking care of it. But since our drunken daddy state isn't really interes

Dyolf Knip: Re: Thefadd et al:

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:27:33 EST

I'm a big fan of opt-in fatherhood contracts as a way to avoid these sorts of shenanigans. In order to potentially be on the hook for child support (or to be eligible for custody), the father has to willingly sign up for the job. If he doesn't

pO157: Re: Thefadd et al:

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:59:24 EST

Heh. Here's the deal. I'll drop my opposition to the nanny state expanding bullshit that is Hunter's Hope (see above comment) if they include as part of the mandatory testing a paternity test that can be done in secret at the presumptive father's cho

pO157: Re: Thefadd et al:

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:57:25 EST

The problem is that the accused seldom have access to the DNA technology that the state does. Almost every jurisdiction is trying their hardest to use DNA to put people in jail or solve cases, but few want to allow the defense access to it.

Why not make

Steve Urkel: Re: Thefadd et al:

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:53:17 EST

Many men are averse to asking their wives to take a paternity test moments after she's given birth simply because they have a sliver of doubt in the backs of their minds. Many other men are delusional.

thefadd: Re: Thefadd et al:

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:38:44 EST

I don't disagree that the case law in this area is troubling. The burden of proof far too often on the "father." Everyone's motivation is simply to attach the most likely man to the situation and move on with their day. If men started protecting themselves

pO157: Re: Thefadd et al:

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:31:59 EST

There's no laws preventing anyone from doing what you propose so what's the issue?

Are there laws giving defendents in paternity suits and divorcees the right to a DNA test? It would appear not since Mr. Sharpe sat in jail for two years.

thefadd: Re: Thefadd et al:

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:30:26 EST

I thought you were a libertarian--why use the law to settle these matters? There's no laws preventing anyone from doing what you propose so what's the issue?

pO157: Thefadd et al:

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:43:33 EST

What is the objection to ensuring the right man is on the hook for his offspring's expenses? We've seen how government agencies, family courts, and some mothers abuse their power/rights/responsibilities. Mr. Sharpe went to jail in part because they refused

JimmyHavok: Re: What does he do?

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:06:22 EST

Make a law requiring paternity testing at birth

There might be a sudden surge in home births.

pO157: Re: What does he do?

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:42:53 EST

One objection would be trusting whoever is collecting the DNA that they would actually be destroying it and not turning it into some centralized database. That would be my major worry.

An almost equally acceptable alternate would be requiring DNA to est

Steve Urkel: Re: What does he do?

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:34:43 EST

What would be the objections to it? Think of the savings from all the court cases that would be averted,

pO157: Re: On a personal note

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:28:58 EST

When I heard this involved the Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Office System I was not surprised. In my horribly unwise younger early college years I once dated a temporary/seasonal/summer employee of said system (not the Dauphin County branch, though).

DEMachina: Re: Who's Your Daddy?

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:31:12 EST

That's often the case, although there's a huge difference between traffic or small claims court and court court. One thing to be aware of is that, at least in my state, lawyers aren't allowed to represent people in small claims court (YMMV, though).

pO157: Re: What does he do?

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:29:28 EST

I would get behind this. Make a law requiring paternity testing at birth with a provision stating that the DNA itself would not be kept, stored, or added to any database. I've heard too many stories that talk about a guy being on the hook for somebody else

pO157: Re: USPS -- I'm confused, but what's new...

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:27:52 EST

They are probably talking about Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested (eg