Bill Would Require Kansas Babies To Undego Paternity Test

[proud2BlibKansan]

TOPEKA, Kan. -- A Wichita state representative is sponsoring legislation that would require every baby born in the state to undergo a paternity test to identify the newborn's father.

State Rep. Melody McCray Miller is a Democrat. She said the measure's intended to help men who've been named as a child's father, or who want to know if they are biological father of the infant.

http://www.kmbc.com/politics/26836510/detail.html

[RB TexLa]

1. I don't understand how the state can legally put someone's name on a birth certificate

based solely on the mother's word.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I agree

Seems like a no brainer to me.

[RKP5637]

7. Yep, yet another WTF moment. n/t

[Yupster]

16. Gonna cause an awful lot of divorces

as married men find out they aren't the father of their wife's baby.

Happens all the time now, but usually after either a divorce or a test for an inherited disease.

Normally the man gets screwed and has to pay child support anyway since the time period to challenge the birth certificate had long expired.

Famous case near me where divorced man had to send child support to his ex wife at her boyfriend's house for the children whose parents were the ex wife and boyfriend. Turns out mom and boyfriend were having an affair and having kids together while mom was still married to her husband. Too bad -- ex husband must pay child support anyway -- to the kids' real parents.

[shanti]

3. what about

putting "unknown" on the bc when they DO know who the father is? it happens all the time. the only way to get the truth is by DNA.

[defendandprotect]

45. What right has the state to know?

If there is a custody issue -- or support issue sometime in the future --

THEN a blood test could be taken.

Why subject EVERY baby and family to this if unnecessary.

Women should start having babies at home again -- get the hell out of hospitals!

[RKP5637]

4. Wouldn't that be something, find yourself on several birth certificates for child

support of someone you had never known.

[WinkyDink]

5. I hear it's an epidemic.

[RKP5637]

11. Is it really or are you joking. Given what goes today, not surprised if epidemic. n/t

[WinkyDink]

87. Cracking wise.

[RKP5637]

99. Oh! n/t

[FreakinDJ]

8. Even WITHOUT notifing the "Father"

insane

[defendandprotect]

43. What business is it of the state who the father is? Unless there is a challenge...

[FreakinDJ]

6. Watch the women's group oppose this enforce

the results will be quite telling

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. What makes you think they will oppose it?

[FreakinDJ]

12. Wait and see - they have before

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Why?

[pnwmom]

10. Should a baby have an invasive test (i.e., a blood test) for a purpose

that may not be in the baby's self-interest? Are all babies that are identified this way going to be better off it it turns out their mother's husband is not the father? Who will have the right to consent on behalf of the baby? The mother? If we assume that paternity is unknown without a test, then why would we allow a man to give his consent on behalf of a baby to whom he may NOT be related?

Currently, we don't allow tests on children that are not for the benefit of that child. I think this bill may be opening up a large can of worms.

[rocktivity]

34. Newborns don't normally get a blood test

not even to check for other diseases?

:shrug:
rocktivity

[pnwmom]

55. Not without consent. And it's only supposed to be for their benefit.

And what percent of tests give incorrect results? (Give false positive or negative results.) Imagine how much that might traumatize a family.

[jeff47]

64. It doesn't take a blood test

Usually it's a swab of the inside of the cheek.

[pnwmom]

68. So, if the paternity is assumed to be unknown, why should the

non-father be able to consent to any test that is not being done for the baby's benefit?

[jeff47]

93. It's not to the baby's benefit to know who the father is?

I admit a better solution to this problem is to allow the father to challenge paternity before being forced to pay child support. But I fail to see the harm in running a q-tip over the inside of the baby's cheek.

[Hamlette]

13. this is outrageous

and I'm shocked to hear some of you support it.

We have anti bastardization laws for a reason: the children.

Duh.

If a dozen women put you on a birth certificate and you are not the father, THEN you challenge it.

But to make the parents and child in the vast majority of cases where paternity is not an issue undergo unnecessary testing because some guy is afraid he will be tagged for a kid that is not his? Getouttahere.

[backwoodsbob]

15. so the one out of a hundred (or whatever)

men who aren't the father should suck it up?

[FreakinDJ]

38. Some communities as High as 20%

only the hair dresser knows for sure

[Hamlette]

41. no, that father should get the DNA test on his own

if he wants to. There is nothing that would prevent him from doing so. Just don't make the 99% of us who don't want the test go through with it.

[defendandprotect]

46. EXACTLY .... and it's no one else's business who the father is ....!!

[FreakinDJ]

51. Unless of course you are the Victim of Fraud

then it is UNLAWFUL

[pnwmom]

57. If you are at ALL concerned about that, then get the test.

Don't make all the families without that concern do it just because you're worried.

[defendandprotect]

65. Right .. then, you ask for the info you need -- requiring this of every child/family is nuts!

[joshcryer]

75. Uh, the 18% group is poor. It's only 3% at the wealthy end of things.

You can argue that a man in the 18% group should pay for it himself, and I might agree, but at least bring the cost down so some dumb kids on the street isn't having their life irrevocably changed for nothing. If you're in a certain class group it should be freely provided by the government.

[Hamlette]

82. does it cost more than an abortion?

probably not.

I'll agree to fund DNA tests when the government funds abortions.

[joshcryer]

83. I believe the government should fund abortions.

[Hamlette]

85. until it does, I object to funding DNA tests

which may leave more children without support

And I would advise both parties to use a more effective means of birth control until we live in utopia.

[pnwmom]

56. No. If they suspect it's not their child, they can get a test ordered.

But the state shouldn't be requiring the 99 babies out of a hundred whose fathers accept them to have an invasive test.

[joshcryer]

76. At best they can order a cheap test that's $80. If it's negative, they need accredited tests.

Which range from $250-$400.

[notesdev]

17. You often can't challenge it

There is a window of time that you get to challenge paternity, and if you find out afterward it's not yours, you're stuck paying support for someone else's kid.

Given the legal obligations imposed on a man who is named as a father of a child, men do have the right to know for certain whether children alleged to be their own really are, before they are subject to the extremely heavy hand of the law on this issue.

For me it boils down to a question of which is worse: that a man should find out his wife cheated on him, or that a man should be deceived his entire life and possibly be made to pay support for another man's child?

On the principle that "honesty is the best policy", I think DNA testing for paternity at birth is a fine idea.

[RKP5637]

19. I think it's a good idea since as you say you often can't challenge it. That's what

cinches it for me.

[Liquorice]

20. What do you mean by "extremely heavy hand of the law..."? Do you

mean as it relates to child support?

[notesdev]

27. I do

They don't mess around when it comes to "deadbeat dads"

[MH1]

25. wouldn't it make more sense to allow the paternity challenge if there's a reason?

why is there a window in the first place? Paternity can't change. If the couple are married for several years with kids, then one day split up, before he pays child support, shouldn't he be entitled to have paternity confirmed? What is the argument against that?

I don't think testing should be done when it isn't wanted or needed. It's just a waste. But don't stop a someone from challenging when it matters.

[notesdev]

29. The law isn't about justice

it's about making sure someone pays for the kid, and if it's done in an unjust manner that's just too bad. I agree with your view that paternity should have to be proven in order to compel someone to pay support, but the law does not at all presently work that way.

[joshcryer]

72. I don't think you're aware of the legal ramifications, if you raise a kid that isn't yours...

...that kid has come to expect the lifestyle you have given it. You can't just take that away even if you're completely and utterly demolished because of it. That's why there are cases of dads (and possibly moms, though rarer) paying for kids that aren't theirs until they're 18.

[Hamlette]

40. you RARELY can't challenge it

if you have acted as the father for years, the law is reluctant to allow you to stop but it can, and it has depending on the circumstances.

If you have NEVER acted as the father, never paid support, never lived as a family, I have never heard of a court ordering child support when the DNA shows you are not the father.

So the scare that dozens of women have listed you on the birth certificate as the father is BS

Face it, well over 90% of us have sex outside of marriage. About have have sex while married to another. If you have such little regard for your wife that you want a DNA test on each kid, great, get one on your own. You most certainly have the right to do that. But, I'd like to think that most married couples wouldn't think it necessary because they either trust each other or buy into the whole family thing.

But then, I'm paying child support for a child that is not mine and for whom I have no legal obligation because I love him dearly and I want him to have what he needs. I suppose if you don't love kids you might see it differently but frankly I think you are the one who is missing out in life.

[notesdev]

50. Let's call it what it is

A pretense that a person is the father of a child when that is not true is called paternity fraud.

Just because you personally are OK with that doesn't give you the right to demand that others accept being defrauded.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for throwing around an allegation that disagreement with you on this issue means a person doesn't love kids. That's a hysterical, emotional, and irresponsible response and you should apologize or at the very least remove your shameful remark.

[Hamlette]

63. yeah, well, why don't those who want the test just get the test

and leave the rest of us out of it. I don't get why 1% of you want to make 99% of us who don't want the test, get the test. Is it to prove women often accuse the wrong guy? Sort of like a modern day scarlet letter? Not getting it.

And I'm removing nothing nor am I apologizing.

[pnwmom]

70. Just because you don't trust your mate doesn't mean you should seek to impose

this requirement on all families. If you have children, nothing's stopping you from getting them tested. Why are you so anxious to make all families do this? Have you considered the number of false negatives and positives that occur with all medical tests -- and the impact on families from getting incorrect results?

[joshcryer]

77. What if it was opt out? No imposition, you can opt out.

[pnwmom]

78. Fine. But what's the point of the bill then?

Why do we need the state to be pushing these tests on families?

[joshcryer]

81. To correct incorrect paternity issues. 20% lower class, it unduely harms them.

[pnwmom]

107. Where's the data for that? And what is the harm to the baby

as long as the baby is raised with a father in his or her life?

Since we don't have genetic databanks, all this testing would do -- in the case of an incorrect name on the birth certificate -- is exclude someone as a father, not name the real father. So even fewer children would have caring fathers than before.

[notesdev]

92. If everyone could trust their partners

there'd be no need for divorce and child support laws in the first place.

Obviously, not everyone can trust their partners.

Women have so many protections in marriage it's ridiculous, why the adamant refusal to provide men with one single protection?

[pnwmom]

58. If you have any doubt at all, get a test done as soon as a baby's born.

Otherwise, it's not fair to the child. That's the whole point of existing law -- what's best for the innocent child.

But don't make the rest of the world subject their baby to an unnecessary blood test just because you don't trust your mate.

[Karia]

18. So Kansas will have a DNA bank!

Don't the long-term ramifications of that bother you? Would YOU want the state of Kansas to have your DNA on file just because you happened to be born there???

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. That's a great point

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I honestly haven't made up my mind.

[Ilsa]

23. I think you have hit on how to defeat this. nt

[notesdev]

30. Doesn't say they have to keep it on file

just says they have to do the test.

[boppers]

33. Read me:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/your-babys-dna-and-informed-consent

It may be already happening more than you think.

[rocktivity]

37. DING DING DING! Karia, you're our grand prize winner!

Would YOU want the state of Kansas to have your DNA on file just because you happened to be born there?

Especially after being assured that airport body scans were instantly destroyed, and some ended up on the Internet?

Like gay marriage, the only possible way to do this right is to do it federally--not that a Federal DNA bank makes me feel any better. It doesn't feel constitutional. And in the meantime, if any parent who wants to double-check paternity can ask for the test themselves.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[RKP5637]

59. Good point, lots of things start out with someone thinking it's a good idea, but then it

progresses to worse and worse and ends up being another tool of the state/gov.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

89. And once they have the dna, they can then place it in the national database. nt

[salin]

104. next stop - need a bank of dna for comparisons to id the father...

so is the next step to build a database of dna of all possible father's (e.g. all males) in Kansas?

Talk about poorly thought out policy with all sorts of potential for abuse.

[Gabi Hayes]

21. halooo! check

your PMs

[Ilsa]

24. So, how many necessary medical procedures wont be obtained or

Paid for because the state squandered money on this?

[boppers]

26. And when a test comes back pointing to the mother's own father or brother?

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2284793/

There's a whole lot of hush-hush that this could alter/change/disrupt.... incest, rape, affairs, etc.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Yep.

I teach special ed.

That's all I'm going to say on this topic other than I'm surprised your link claims it's only 50%: Roughly half of babies born to "first-degree" relatives suffer from developmental problems.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

31. self delete

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

32. either test for paternty at birth or before requiring any sort of child-support.

either way, there is no excuse for anyone getting railroaded into supporting a kid that may not be theirs.

[Lil Missy]

35. I see this backfiring on a lot of men who deny paternity

[boppers]

36. "It was my identical twin!"

"Deadbeats" are, I'm sure, a primary target.

[joshcryer]

73. Men who deny paternity get tested.

Two of my brothers did.

Invoking Maury, "They are the father!"

[WinkyDink]

88. By a legal requirement or by choice?

[jeff47]

119. By court order, as part of the lawsuit seeking child support (nt)

[Lil Missy]

103. Oh no they don't. They more often declare the mother sleeps around and the father could be anyone.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. I would suggest only one exeption;

A couple, married for longer than 9 months, who both sign a letter asking the hospital to not do the test.

[boppers]

44. "What, Honey, don't you trust me?"

I'm curious, though, why did this exception occur to you? Is there some set of circumstances where this criteria would be of significance?

[Nikia]

97. Some husband's might choose to be the father of children that aren't "theirs"

Many sterile men do when there is a sperm donor through a sperm bank. There may be some men that approve of his wife finding her own "sperm donor" to conceive through the natural way because of the expense and medicalization of artificial insemmination. Some men, sterile or not, might not exactly approve but want to maintain his marriage and wants to be "the father". If he is not sterile, he might not want to know for sure whether or not he is the father. Since traditionally he would be named the father, he might not want to have to go through the expense of adoption as well as the public acknowledgement that he is not the biological father. In cases where the mother is a victim of rape, but will have the baby that may or may not be the rapists, this could be traumatic for both of them, especially if the father is forced to go through legal adoption to be named the father and worse if the rapist asserts his parental rights.
Those are some reasons that I can think of that a married couple may not want paternity testing.
I don't approve of this proposed legislation at all because it violates the couple's privacy.

[defendandprotect]

42. "Cause that's the point folks ... we ALWAYS know who the Mother is ....

but we rarely ever knew who the father was!!

"intended to help men" -- yep!

[defendandprotect]

47. Also, many males are contributing to SPERM BANKS based on NOT being identified--!!

Also, women are using these facilities so that there will be no

paternal involvement!!

More rights being overturned with this draconian law that preserved!!

[RKP5637]

52. That, is an interesting point! Someone donates to a sperm bank and then KS

notifies them they are the father and responsible for child support. You make good points in your posts on this.

[notesdev]

60. That has already happened multiple times

http://www.google.com/search?q=sperm+donor+child+support

[RKP5637]

62. Good lord, It looks like these laws need to be done on a national level so we all follow the

the same rules.

[Hamlette]

67. not exactly true, child support for sperm donors is awarded in very unusual cases

read the cases at your link. These are not complete stranger cases. The law is unsettled but most states now have laws that provide that stranger donors do not pay child support.

[HEyHEY]

115. Cept all the woman has to do is say "I don't want the father on the certificate"

[Mz Pip]

48. Big government

run amok.

[jmowreader]

49. Only under one circumstance would I approve of this

And that's if the political and religious affiliations of the two people who claim to be the baby's parents are required to be listed.

It could be entertaining to find out Protestant Republicans are fathering illegitimate children right and left while Atheist Democrats have a very low occurrence of "this child is not yours" syndrome.

[msanthrope]

53. This should take all of five minutes to get a federal strike.

Assuming the people of Kansas have legislators dumb enough to pass this.

[cynatnite]

54. So, who pays for this?

The mother? Father? State?

Who should pay for this thing?

[Lucian]

61. And how is this the business of the state?

Why would a Democrat come up with this garbage?

[pnwmom]

69. +1000. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. Because the state will collect support from someone.

I'd prefer they collect it from the dad.

[Dark]

66. Who's going to pay for the tests? Medicaid and higher insurance premiums anyone

nt

[pnwmom]

71. No medical test is perfect. There are mistakes and false negatives and positives.

How do we know there wouldn't be more testing mistakes made than actual fraud uncovered? Can you imagine what those families would go through?

[joshcryer]

74. I think this is more of an issue in forensic DNA / criminal DNA testing.

In this case we're not pooling the DNA for a match, therefore the 99.99% certainty number applies, since many many millions more people get paternity tests and this would not really alter the pool very significantly.

[pnwmom]

80. No medical test is that perfect. Reports can get switched,

samples can get contaminated, data can be entered incorrectly -- there are a multitude of mistakes that can be made.

[pnwmom]

79. So all pregnant women are guilty of adultery unless proven innocent

by a paternity test.

Isn't that what this is all about?

The state needs to stay out of our bedrooms. Period. Anyone who has a question about paternity should get the baby in question tested -- don't force this on everyone.

[joshcryer]

84. "Adultery" is a bit harsh.

Women want what's best for their child, if they have an opportunity to chose their mate via deception, good for them.

[Lance_Boyle]

118. Of course.

And men just want to spread their seed as far and wide as possible. If they can knock up a hundred women in a year, good for them! :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

90. I think it's more about all children deserving financial support

of two parents.

[pnwmom]

106. Or those who will lose it if their birth families blow apart

whether or not the results are correct.

[WinkyDink]

86. You can't "identify the father" from just the baby, so how exactly will he be tracked down, if he

or the mother doesn't want him to be?

[CJvR]

91. No big deal...

...unless you consider the goverment gaining access to a huge DNA database over just about everyone in the country to be a problem.

Still I think making DNA analysis SOP might be a bit excessive, save the $$$ and just use it in disputes instead.

[proud2BlibKansan]

96. I have heard of no plan to keep this data base

Until I see that as part of this legislation, I won't assume that it is.

[JHB]

117. Other way around...

Unless there is a set, active process for destroying the data (and all copies and back-ups) after a set period, there is no reason to assume it won't be kept.

[bemildred]

94. Dang, I thought it was unconstitutional to make someone pay for a service. nt

[boppers]

105. "unconstitutional to make someone pay for a service"

Like Social Security?
Or Medicare?
Or OSHA?
Or the FDA?

[treestar]

95. Impossible. How do they plan to decide who to test?

the bio father could be halfway across the world by the time the child is born.

[hunter]

98. This kind of law would make baby Jesus cry.

Paternity laws are written to protect children, not their screw-up parents.

If you've got a baby with two parents, those are the parents. End of story.

I know I'm slamming some of the posters in this thread, but guys who say "that's not my kid!" after the baby is born and they've brought the kid home are not thinking about the kid.

Mandatory paternity testing would only turn the family courts into greater soap operas than they already are, and I can't imagine how it would be good for the kids.

Of course the basic problem in the USA is our wretched government, our idiotic justice system, and our fucked up religions. A progressive modern society takes care of kids no matter where they come from. The way things are now this society breaks up families rather than nurturing them.

[RKP5637]

101. I really agree with your last sentence, so very true ...

"Of course the basic problem in the USA is our wretched government, our idiotic justice system, and our fucked up religions. A progressive modern society takes care of kids no matter where they come from. The way things are now this society breaks up families rather than nurturing them."

[JVS]

102. Good. Paternity fraud sucks, and its victims frequently in poverty to begin with.

[pnwmom]

108. And how is this supposed to help the children involved?

By excluding the only father a child has known, without being able to name the biological father?

You think this will pull children out of poverty? How?

[JVS]

109. "By excluding the only father a child has known" Newborns haven't known any father yet.

So paternity testing at the beginning is a great way to prevent them from getting used to a father and then being stripped of that father when the truth comes several years later. And the search for the real father is more likely to be successful 9 months after conception than it is to be later, so the kids win that way. Also paternity fraud is not a victimless crime even if a child benefits. The victims might have other children who are in effect being robbed of their father's ability to support them by such an act.

[pnwmom]

110. Any man who doubts paternity is free to have his child tested anytime.

There's no reason to put into a place a system that assumes that all women are adulterers and that all children are bastards unless proven otherwise.

And being a father isn't only about genes. It's about love and attachment, as all families formed through adoption know. Why should a man who has raised a child from birth reject that child's love if he finds out later that the mother -- not the child -- may have deceived him?

[JVS]

111. It's bad practice to create documentation for things that are not known to be true.

Without proof the name shouldn't even go on the birth certificate. This system is more accurate.

[pnwmom]

112. Legally, the husband IS the father. So, in the case of a married couple,

the husband named on the birth certificate is the true -- legal -- father.

[JVS]

113. Not every birth is within a marriage

If we're going to bother record a name of a father and assign legal responsibility, it should be done accurately.

[HEyHEY]

114. On request they should not be allowed to refuse the father the test

But EVERY baby? How many divorce lawyers are in the state leg?

[JHB]

116. So who's going to pay for this mass testing? And...

...what controls will there be against sample mix-ups when it's done on this scale?
Where will it be done? Will all the work be sent offshore for cheaper lab worker labor?

If you support the bill, these questions have to be answered.