No, wait. Those are my thoughts. Never mind.

Unfortunately, I am unable to determine what exactly I am being persuaded of, and thus, I return to my original thoughts. Whatever those may have been.

There’s one every day.
They won’t read the comments.
They’re too far away.

They can’t tell sarcasm
From a punch in the face
But with their fine wisdom
They show us our place

M is for moron
A fine one indeed
Is this Ashley Bryan
Who seems not to read

It depends on your state. Some states do not allow a third party to raise a paternity claim to a married couple’s child. (that is, they don’t allow Alleged Boyfriend to claim that he is the actual father of Husband’s child with Wife.)

I think your mistaken about birth certificates. The idea is that the child’s biological father is named on them. Not that the mother gets a free pick of which man she wants to be the father - it’s a legal document - deliberately falsely naming someone is perjury.

If someone’s named on the birth certificate it’s presumed that he’s the father (because both him and the mother give testimony to that effect). But if this is shown to be false he no longer his parental responsibility ends.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nm/scotland/family_parent/family_family_scotland/birth_certificates_scotland.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1649600,00.html

This is the flip side of men being identified against their will as fathers for child support, that’s also an intrusion. Though not one you get people fuming about.

You hope. I think it could get spooky if a stalker realized that he could harass a woman with a child by this method, perfectly legally. Ugh.

but I have to say that I am shocked and appalled if the law permits a man with no legal relationship to a child to demand DNA tests.

Well, it’s been that way in many jurisdictions for quite a while. It’s how paternity is established. In my state, a biological father who is not acknowledged by the child’s mother as the biological father can open a case through the state AG’s office. To the best of my knowledge this is the most common legal situation. A very few states have an unrebuttable presumption of paternity on the husband, assuming the mother is married to someone other than the child’s biological father.

And, yes, this has nothing to do with SSM.

Well, plainly not. Of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex marriage (neither does nik’s feeling that children ought to be forced to stay in contact with abusive parents, of course), but I have to say that I am shocked and appalled if the law permits a man with no legal relationship to a child to demand DNA tests.

Good grief. So, basically, any man at all has a right to demand genetic tests of any child, against the will of the child’s parents, if he claims that he’s the child’s father? How… revolting, and how intrusive. No, I hadn’t realized that: I assumed that it would be necessary to get the consent of at least one of the child’s parents before it would be legal to take genetic samples from the child. I was aware that Kimberly Quinn had consented.

I think that’s the point of demanding genetic tests — establishing that he is, in fact, the child’s parent. Whether the appropriate legal safeguards can be established to prevent unrelated men from demanding blood tests of unrelated children is a different matter.

And no, names on birth certificates don’t create an unrebuttable presumption of paternity in all jurisdictions. Cites on request.

In law, the child’s parents are the parents named on the birth certificate.

But I’m not sure how any other situation is defensible.

Then you need to study the law a little more: the principle that a child’s legal parents need not be a child’s bioparents is quite clearly defended in law. I don’t have time or energy to re-educate you.

Re: Blunkett/Quinn.

In law the child’s parents are the bioparents (aside from adoption/donation). Sometimes the bioparents are falsely identified, so someone wrongly gets put down as the father. But the principle is quite clear.

If you want to spell out your problem with a strict biological approach to parenthood I love to here them. But I’m not sure how any other situation is defensible.

So do I. So basically, you’re completely retracting everything you said earlier? Okay.

As far as I can see, all you’re going is insinuating that adoptive parents will only be able to love the children they take in if the childen are utterly cut off from their bioparents.

No, you’re making that up completely - presumably because your earlier opinion, which you say you have now abandoned, that money trumps love, embarrasses you. Good. You should be embarrassed.

How about a world in which people who are the child’s parents should have a legal relation to the child?

They do. A child’s parents have a legal relationship to the child. A child’s bioparents don’t, necessarily. That’s the world we both live in. Legal relationship trumps genetic relationship.

Q&A: Blunkett paternity battle

Good grief. So, basically, any man at all has a right to demand genetic tests of any child, against the will of the child’s parents, if he claims that he’s the child’s father? How… revolting, and how intrusive. No, I hadn’t realized that: I assumed that it would be necessary to get the consent of at least one of the child’s parents before it would be legal to take genetic samples from the child. I was aware that Kimberly Quinn had consented.

There are two options:

(1) Adoption. Child has right to financial support from adoptive parents (and love and caring from adoptive parents).
(2) Permanent Guardianship. Child has right to financial support from guardians and bioparents (and love and caring from guardians).

I think (1) is better than (2). I think in cases where the parents aren’t abusive there could be even greater advantages. As far as I can see, all you’re going is insinuating that .

In what world do you live that you imagine it is lawful for someone who is no legal relation to a minor child to demand that a DNA sample shall be taken from that child without the consent of the child’s legal guardians?

How about a world in which people who are the child’s parents should have a legal relation to the child? I realise that’s not a situation you approve of, but it is the world we live in. It the earlier link wasn’t explicit enough. How about this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4066565.stm

Please let me know if you can reconcile this with you opinion that “A man who isn’t married to the mother who claims to be the child’s father has no legal claim on the child, and no right to demand DNA tests of the child to prove his claim. “

SaraS;

So basically, in exchange for a few dollars (how much $$ do you expect someone who gave up a child to have), you’re handing control over the child to an abuser.

In situations where one parent has abused the child, but the other has not, courts regularly remove all control over the child from the abusive parent. But because the child hasn’t been adopted the abusive parent still remains a legal parent, and is still liable for support. I think your fears are unfounded, as a situation similar to the one proposed is already happening without the problems you anticipate.