E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Gary Garner, 32, of Great Falls, Mont., and his son, Skyler, 14. Garner used an Identigene drugstore paternity test kit to confirm that he's really Skyler's dad.
The company that made its name peddling drugstore paternity tests to uncertain spouses and skeptical kin now says that more than 1 in 10 adults in the U.S. has had reason to ask the question: Who’s your Daddy?
Twelve percent of men and 10 percent of women say they personally have been in a situation where paternity testing was "appropriate," according to a recent survey of 1,039 people conducted for Identigene, the Utah firm that markets direct-to-consumer DNA tests.
In addition, nearly 1 in 5 of those randomly surveyed said they have family members or close friends who’ve questioned paternity.
“There are a lot of situations where you can envision needing a paternity test,” said Steven Smith, president of Identigene, which has sold more than half a million kits for $29.99 a pop since 2008. “Somebody’s going through a divorce, child custody. Those things do come up.”
The survey, conducted late last year by the Los Angeles firm Impulse Research, is renewing debate about the touchy subject of confirming whether a child’s reported father is the real thing.
Smith said it proves there’s an unmet need for cheap, simple tests to solve crucial genetic questions.
But scientists who’ve studied what they call “misidentified paternity” say the actual proportion of faux fathers is much lower than the new survey would seem to indicate.
The population-based rate is probably closer to between 1 percent and 4 percent in western countries, with U.S. rates hovering between 2 percent and 4 percent, twice as high as Europe, said Michael Gilding, a professor of sociology at the Swinburne Institute for Social Research in Melbourne, Australia. He has spent years researching the issue.
“It is higher in the U.S. because there are more exnuptial births, less informal cohabitation and more divorce,” he wrote in an e-mail to msnbc.com.
(In other words, the U.S. has more babies born outside marriage and more couples living together.)
Whatever the actual rate, those who’ve used the tests say the results can be life-changing.
For 14 years, Gary Garner of Great Falls, Mont., has questioned his relationship with his wife’s oldest son, Skyler. He always believed he was the boy’s father, but another man’s name was on the birth certificate. Garner admits he and his wife, Rhonda, 33, have had a rocky history. They've been married to each other three separate times and once each to other people. The pair have three other children together, in addition to Garner's child with another woman. But the issue of Skyler’s paternity was always in question -- until Garner finally decided to buy an Identigene kit at a local Walgreens store late last year.
“Anywhere else, a DNA test is $2,500,” Garner said.
On Jan. 4, he took a swab of cells from his cheek and from Skyler’s cheek and sent both samples to the lab run by Sorenson Genomics of Salt Lake City for analysis. For the price of the drugstore kit plus a $129 lab fee, Garner had an answer within days.
“I saw they had the results and I didn’t even want to open up the e-mail,” said Garner, a heating and air conditioning technician.
“When I did, I was like, ‘YES!,’ I felt like I won the most epic battle known to man.”
The tests verify paternity with 100 percent accuracy, according to material on the Identigene site. Garner said telephone counselors told him it was “99.9 percent” accurate and that he couldn’t be excluded as Skyler’s dad.
Overall, nearly two-thirds of the paternity tests Identigene performs come back positive, company officials said. That rate is naturally higher than the population-based rate because those who take the tests are a select group with a reason to wonder about paternity.
It’s taken a while for the news to sink in for Garner -- and for his son.
“Both of us are hurt through this whole thing,” Garner said, adding that he’s planning a father-son trip to an arcade to celebrate the confirmation of what he always believed in his heart.
“Everybody’s just glad that we know now,” he said.
Related stories:
Who's your daddy? Answer's at the drugstore
Keep baby's sex secret to prevent gender-based abortions
Fertility math? Most women flunk, survey says
Leave a Comment:
In a related story, the manufacturers of tin foil state that more than 2 in 10 people look up and wonder "Who's out there."
Tin foil? Really? I think it's kind of sad if you can look up at the night sky and NOT feel a sense of wonder and the enormity of the unknown that's out there.
Sad. There's so much trash in America. Half the dudes stick it in anything that moves, and the sluts prance around like cats in heat. It's a Kardashian-Jersey Shore-Britney world.
Just shows that a ton of people breeding these days are the kind that shouldn't be breeding at all.
Interesting the way the current vernacular of American English still expresses such inherent sexism. Men who sleep around are called dudes (the same thing you might call a man who does not sleep around), and yet we have a specific and degrading term for women who exhibit the same behavior -- "slut." Why do you suppose that is?
You always hear about women who have children with multiple fathers, but very rarely do you hear about men who have children with different mothers. And when you do hear about it, it is often with a wink and a nod, not the universal condemnation heaped on the women. I'm sorry, but men who behave that way are no better in my book.
Saddened:
It's probably the similar sexism that leads to men paying child support on kids that aren't theirs, or the kind that awards custody to fathers a lot less than mothers in a divorce.
and worse in my book. likely the woman slut will bear more of the financial and rearing responsibility for the children than the man slut ever will.
Well, I consider myself very lucky. When my wife took off with one of her boyfriends - I learned that I was the only one who did not know about all her "friends". When I say lucky, both my kids are exact duplicates of me in every way.
So, no testing needed here.
Sorry, Ruken, but no. It is not a similar expression of sexism at all. Not saying there is not a possibility of a different kind of sexism that leads to fathers not getting full custody over mothers more often (child support is a different issue entirely and I do not agree that sexism is a large part of that -- it is far more about financial and legal realities -- and it is about the innocent children involved), but it is not similar. However, I would not expect you to understand, given that ginormous chip on your shoulder -- but it is a chip that clearly indicates you think women deserve extra insulting epithets, so you are clearly subject to the type of linguistically expressed sexism I did mention. Ah well, to each their own.
Sometimes you're better off not knowing who your daddy is. In the early 1960's my mom packed up everything with four kids and left my father...last time I saw him I was three years old and never saw him again.
He was a child abuser and drunk..he's dead now I was told,GOOD!
Please tell me you're kidding.
You seem to think sexism only occurs towards women. How wrong you are.
Sorry that you didn't have a good dad Mike. So very important.
Ruken, keep reading things the way you want to fit your world view. I am done.
"The company that made its name peddling drugstore paternity tests to uncertain spouses and skeptical kin now says that more than 1 in 10 adults in the U.S. has had reason to ask the question: Who's your Daddy?"
Is that mean 1 in 10 Americans is a bastard? Wow, that adds up....been wondering about the Teapartiers...
If you would actually read things, you'd see in no place did I ever claim women deserve to be called anything. In fact, if you had actually read, I call both promiscuous men and women equally at fault.
Seems you're the one that is trying to contort what people are saying into your own twisted view of the world, not me.
Based on evolution, the onus is on the females to be discerning and selective in choosing a partner to ensure production of the highest quality offspring. Males, on the other hand, have the instinct to try propagating their genetic material as widely as possible. In other words, men are programmed to be sluts, females are programmed to withhold. For better or worse, societal evolution has started to trump biological evolution, resulting in the desire by both sexes to be freer with their genitals. Unfortunately, the lower classes and undereducated have been affected more by the "free love" mentality that started to take hold in the 60's, so, theoretically, at this point in time the bottom layer of the gene pool actually has a reproductive advantage, contrary to our biological predisposition (see the movie "Idiocracy"). It would be interesting to see if this phenomenon was also occurring in cultures that place a high value on career success and intelligence, such as Japan and Korea.
It's been trumped for thousands of years, right around the time women were married off to suit their family's fortunes. Female animals can run away from undesirable males; human women can't. It's only recently women have had a say in their choice of husband.
Wasnt there some movement last summer that women wanted the term "slut" humanized and removed of its negative connotation? Those ho-bags were walking around in their street walking outfits saying there was nothing wrong with walking around like a slutty cat in heat?
@AG99 Valid point. However, the objective of arranged marriages was sort of the same as that of nature, to ensure the best male available pairs up with a female. That's not to say that the selection criteria or methods were ideal. I guess better wording may have been along the lines of, "societal influence now seems to oppose or at least disregard biological predispositions"?
@saddened
Look up the word "cad".
Maybe these folks should have opted for saran wrap?
Hey Doc, You should be wondering about the Democrats. Does John Edwards ring a bell? Oh, but this article dosen't apply to Quinn {Edwards daughter} because she knows who her Daddy is, a scumbag.
Please tell me you're kidding.
------------------------------------
Well said, Ruken! I literally 'LOL'd reading saddened's myopically sexist comments. And, for the record, promiscuity to the extent of unplanned pregnancies is equally shameful to both genders as far as I'm concerned.
saddened wrote "and yet we have a specific and degrading term for women who exhibit the same behavior -- "slut." Why do you suppose that is?"
Women charge for sexual access. Men pay, be it one-time, a subscription or a longer term contract.
But the fundamental reasons are 1) women want to restrict sexual access of other women to increase the amount men pay 2) men need paternal certainty
I wonder if it's because when most people look up at a night sky they are only able to see very few things. Light pollution is a huge problem and I believe that it has robbed most of humanity from the sense of curiosity and awe for our universe. Out of sight, out of mind. Support the Dark Skies initiative to bring back the beautiful sight of our universe at night and people might start looking up and feel inspired again.
Off topic I know, but still...
The welfare queens like to have father unknown on birth certificates so the taxpayer gets the privilege of supporting the kid not the father.
You're absolutely right! But in all honesty, do you really think the deadbeat biological fathers can actually AFFORD child support? Most of them can't afford a belt to keep their pants from slouching down and exposing their skivvies!
The term "welfare queen" is pretty idiotic... implying that somehow these women have a better standard of living than the average American due to extravagant social safety nets. That's not the case... these single moms are living in crappy ghetto apartments in crackhead neighborhoods and take the bus to get around... and you're going to get on them because they got their hands on a nice cell phone? The "welfare queen" stereotype of a woman with dozens of kids living high on the public's dime is a complete myth; it's not like they're driving new cars and living in cozy three-bedroom homes in suburbia. Trust me, if you saw how your average welfare recipient lives, you'd run screaming in the other direction as fast as possible.
Chris: My company does work on subsidized housing in my state, and from what I can see those residents are living pretty damn well.
Cable, big screen TV, computers, internet...all "necessities" the middle class has to pay for. But I guess with their food and rent bills paid by the taxpayers, they can save their money for what really matters, right?
Jenny wrote "do you really think the deadbeat biological fathers can actually AFFORD child support? "
In most of these cases, paternal certainty is low if not zero. Many pregnancies are concealed from the father, in part because he was never really there.
A term is needed for these mothers : deadbeat mothers? Irresponsible mothers?
Chris wrote "The term "welfare queen" is pretty idiotic... implying that somehow these women have a better standard of living than the average American"
The implication is that loyal subjects are paying to improve her standard of living.
Common man said:
The welfare queens like to have father unknown on birth certificates so the taxpayer gets the privilege of supporting the kid not the father.
Not for much longer.
Homeland Security has paid for the development of, and is now testing, portable DNA scanners. Meant to be utilized at airports, it'll require that the person being tested open their mouth for an inside-the-cheek swab which will then be placed in a portable DNA analyzer and return results. Most of the initial results will be enrollment results but if the DNA submitted happens to be a match or partial match for someone on DHS's database who is, for instance, currently detained at Guantanamo Bay or currently detained as an illegal immigrant, that person can be detained as well. This is primarily for use on children coming through with parents/guardians, DNA analyzers will make sure the child is related to the guardian/parent and is not being smuggled or trafficked into the US.
Portable DNA scanners are going to be used mostly at airports; in addition to the regular TSA screening, you'll be required to give DNA before getting on the plane, and so will your wife and child. This will actually be a good thing; if the plane crashes while you're on it, they'll be able to match the DNA of your remains to the preflight DNA screening with no guessing required.
My mom and dad adopted me, but never wanted me to know and never told me; if DNA screening had been around when I was young, I would have found out they weren't actually my parents a lot sooner; parents absolutely shouldn't have the right or the choice to keep that kind of information from their children. By the same token, a mother shouldn't be keeping the fact that the child has a different father from the child or the Dad either, or the dad keep the fact that the person a child thinks is 'Mom' is actually 'Stepmom'.
Maybe once this DNA screening thing takes off a DNA scan on me will turn up that I'm actually the long-lost child of one of North Korea's ruling family; after all, I was abandoned on an orphanage doorstep as an infant with no paperwork, I could turn out to be a North Korean Princess or something! Course, that would mean I'd go to Guantanamo Bay for being an enemy and a possible sleeper terrorist, but still--actually finding out who my biological parents are and if I have any siblings out there would be neat. I've thought about running my DNA through a kinship test, but it's too expensive right now; when DHS rolls it out in airports it'll be free.
Common man said:
The welfare queens like to have father unknown on birth certificates so the taxpayer gets the privilege of supporting the kid not the father.
Not for much longer.
Homeland Security has paid for the development of, and is now testing, portable DNA scanners. Meant to be utilized at airports, it'll require that the person being tested open their mouth for an inside-the-cheek swab which will then be placed in a portable DNA analyzer and return results. Most of the initial results will be enrollment results but if the DNA submitted happens to be a match or partial match for someone on DHS's database who is, for instance, currently detained at Guantanamo Bay or currently detained as an illegal immigrant, that person can be detained as well. This is primarily for use on children coming through with parents/guardians, DNA analyzers will make sure the child is related to the guardian/parent and is not being smuggled or trafficked into the US.
Portable DNA scanners are going to be used mostly at airports; in addition to the regular TSA screening, you'll be required to give DNA before getting on the plane, and so will your wife and child. This will actually be a good thing; if the plane crashes while you're on it, they'll be able to match the DNA of your remains to the preflight DNA screening with no guessing required.
My mom and dad adopted me, but never wanted me to know and never told me; if DNA screening had been around when I was young, I would have found out they weren't actually my parents a lot sooner; parents absolutely shouldn't have the right or the choice to keep that kind of information from their children. By the same token, a mother shouldn't be keeping the fact that the child has a different father from the child or the Dad either, or the dad keep the fact that the person a child thinks is 'Mom' is actually 'Stepmom'.
Maybe once this DNA screening thing takes off a DNA scan on me will turn up that I'm actually the long-lost child of one of North Korea's ruling family; after all, I was abandoned on an orphanage doorstep as an infant with no paperwork, I could turn out to be a North Korean Princess or something! Course, that would mean I'd go to Guantanamo Bay for being an enemy and a possible sleeper terrorist, but still--actually finding out who my biological parents are and if I have any siblings out there would be neat. I've thought about running my DNA through a kinship test, but it's too expensive right now; when DHS rolls it out in airports it'll be free.
Ruken. Sometimes what you see, doesn't mean they just went out and bought those things yesterday.
For example: I am a graduate student living on $800 a month. I don't use any assistance.
However, I have the following: A big screen TV, a Wii, a laptop, internet, a good selection of books and movies, nice furniture, and a car.
So you may think to yourself "man, she has plenty of money!" When in reality, I saved plasma money for months to buy a Wii. The TV came from a friend who was moving and couldn't take it. My laptop is 6 years old. I pay for internet so I don't have to be at school until 3am or on weekends. I have nice furniture, but its over 20 years old and my parents took very good care of it. I have it now because they moved and bought new furniture. I bought my car through years of saving.
Take a closer look at my car, and its barely running.
Look in my cupboards though, and its food from Aldi
Look in my dresser and all of my jeans have been patched at least once. They were all bought at the thrift store, and I haven't bought new sneakers in over a year.
I may keep a nice home Ruken, but looks can be deceiving.
Just another example of the decline of the American Moral fiber.
The fact that everyone believes a study about paternity commissioned by a paternity test kit company says the problem is scientific illiteracy and a lack of common sense, not a decay of the "moral fiber," whatever that is. People have been having sex since the dawn of humanity, and not much has changed in the way they've been having it.
TraceyS:
Having sex isn't the issue. Without it our species would've long been extinct.
It's more of the people having children (especially in the recession) are people that either can't afford it or cannot provide a stable household for their children.
This article is definitely about the latter.
And this is surprising? Would you expect anything less from a country quickly growing cold to the ethics and morals this country had some half a century ago? Figuratively speaking, taking prayer out of schools was step one.
>>> Just another example of the decline of the American Moral fiber.
What decline? We had Slave owners (some our Founding Fathers) who were married and still banging their slaves since the start of our country - and before. There is no decline - its just that its now more in the open and we have the internet so we hear more about it that's all...
People have been having sex outside of marriage and with people other than their spouse since the start of time, we need to get over this belief that "in the past" everyone was prim, proper and never having sex except for in a marriage...
"Whose your daddy? Many Americans uncertain"
"Whose"? How about "Who's"?
Another FoxNews reporter has moved to msnbc. Just what are the qualifications to work for the international news media? Simply a willingness to tamper with the truth?
How about a little truth? The writer has been with NBC for 25 years. Also, an error in spelling in no way affects the truth.
There is treatment for your OCD.
spike I'm no grammar nazi but I came here to say the same thing. It's a little frustrating to read the headline which is intended to succinctly grab your attention - "Whose your daddy? Many Americans uncertain" - 6 little words and the very first word is used incorrectly. And it's a mistake that any 7th grader should catch. I love MSNBC [it's my homepage] but it's surprising how often these things happen here.
To be fair, it's analogous to making a mistake with they're, there, or their.
It's something a writer should know.
Everyone makes spelling errors, it is the constant disparaging of FOX that I find frustrating.
How about this one?
I would have thought "less informal cohabitation" would translate into less couples living together, not more.
Spike: I used to watch Fox, back when I had cable, but after the last presidential election, they fell off a cliff. Their reporting became painfully biased against anything not Republican or ultra-conservative. Objectivity went out the window. They get a bad rap for a reason.
AG,
You are absolutely right about the mistranslated email.
Western Europeans have had a much higher rate of children born out of wedlock, but of those children the overwhelming majority of them have been born to couples that live together, this is of course a pretty stark contrast to us, here in America.
was the title of this article really 'whose' your daddy? oh my.
Would you PLEASE change the headline you have leading to this article. It is NOT "Whose" your daddy. It is "Who's" which is the contraction of "who" and "is." Really? Come on.
Thank you! I'm glad this bothers at least one other person besides me.
Wow, this is really sad. Ten percent or more of women are sleeping with two guys at once! It says a lot about our society.
Its more than that from my own anecdotal view. Also I am thinking with guys it may be higher.
And how many women are those men sleeping with? I'm not justifying it by any stretch of the imagination -- but it is hardly an exclusively female transgression. And to nit pick just a little -- that number does not necessarily mean 10% of women are actually sleeping with more than one man within the window of fertility of conceiving a child -- it just means that 10% of women are doubted by a potential father and/or his family. Often enough, women do know who the father is, but out of spite or a desire to skip child support, the man refuses to believe it. Never take statistics at face value like that -- the story is most often much more complex.
Kids, please stop or I'll have to put you in a timeout.
It takes two to tango, or in this case do the horizontal bone dance. Unless it's rape, they're both idiots.
That's not what they said. They said that 10% could say that they know of a situation where paternity was in question. That's a lot different than 10% saying they aren't sure who their own father is.
I just noticed that he's 32, and has a 14 y/o son.
Nothing like getting started early, right?
Probably was in the same sex-ed class as Bristol Palin.
If paternity were questioned by the father OR the mother, why wouldn't it say "10 percent of the people surveyed?" Perhaps the questionnaire was not well thought out.
One thing is for certain, we definitely are one of the loosest cultures in the Western world... that's what happens with an individualistic society, where family comes second.
It's "who's," not "whose." Come on.
In Pennsylvania a few years ago a story hit the news about a man and woman with three children getting a divorce. The man began to wonder if all the children were his. so he had DNA tests run on all three children and himself. Turns out none of the children were his. Each was fathered by a different man. His wife had lied to him throughout their marriage. she had concealed the fact from him that she had sex with other men and they were the natural fathers. The Pensylvania courts, however, still made the now divorced husband pay child support for the children that were not his. Now there's justice for you.
Isn't presumptive paternity great?
Because they do not want the mother and these children on state welfare roles. Much easier to screw the man than to siphon money from the state. Men do not get a fair hearing in any family court situation. Men are typically seen as sperm donors and/or banks for these types of women. It goes on much more than you think.
How about a mandatory paternity test in the birth certification process? Hospitals do not even notify the father in the case the infant's blood type does not make sense. How would a mother feel if babies were swapped in the maternity ward? But the morality is much different when a woman knowingly conceals paternity from the father.
We can't even get mandatory hand washing enforced in hospitals, how could we get mandatory paternity testing?
Just add paternity testing to the neonatal blood test suite and include one additional signature line box on the birth certification form as to whether the father has seen the results.
The link to this article was "Whose your daddy?" PLEASE MSNBC! Try "Who's" Is there anyone out there proofreading, or who knows how to write correctly??????
We have descended into abyss of morality. This is only going to be worse as the time goes on. Devolution of humanity in front of our eyes!!!!!
Yes, as we all know, having sex is a "new" 21st century thing.
TraceyS:
I think the point he was making was more of the unstable household, and the effects it has on children.
Just my 2c.
Ruken, up until 100 years ago, people in the U.S. and Europe had far more children then they could feed, and many of them died. It still happens in many parts of the world. There is nothing "new" in having more kids than you can feed. Doesn't make it right, but it's not "a sign of moral decay" or any such drivel like that.
A sad commentary on the state of our society.
this test will make a lot of guys unhappy. they just love to say it's not their kid when faced with a child support order.
You know, I think if I ever had a kid, I'd get a paternity test regardless. It's not a lack of trust in my partner or anything like that, it's just good sense to cross your Ts and dot your i's. Even if there was only a 0.05% chance it wasn't mine, that's still not acceptable for a lifelong commitment and huge financial investment. With that sort of thing, you want to be 100% certain.
Not lack of trust?? I think that is the very definition of lack of trust. What a great new dad you'll be, holding your affection and wallet hostage until your unfounded doubts are satisfied. What exactly is a 0.05% chance, anyway? There is either a 100% chance a child is fathered by another or 0% chance (either she slept with someone else and there is a chance or she didn't and there isn't). 100% chance is not the same as 100% certainty, by the way. If you want to talk odds, that's different. If she slept with one other guy around her fertile window, your odds are 50/50. But when you are talking 0.05% -- that is all about lack of trust. It's either a sign of relationship trouble or the start of it. Good luck with that.
Saddened - just consider it to be a case of better safe than sorry. No matter how well you know someone or how completely you trust them, there's always a chance they will make a mistake or do something stupid. No one is perfect. I personally have never cheated on a significant other, but so many of my friends have relationships in which there have been infidelity issues, I prefer not to take my chances. As I said, it's a lifelong commitment and a huge financial investment and as such, absolute certainty is of the utmost importance.
That's all well and good and your choice. You feel you have reasons for your lack of trust, who am I to question that? I only ask that you are honest about it. You prefaced your comment with "it's not a lack of trust" - but that is a bald-faced lie. Be honest with yourself and your partner. You have trust issues, justified or not. That's your choice.
Saddened - call me a pessimist if you like. Only idiots trust anyone 100%.
I agree with you Chris. I have a friend that has been raising his boy for 18 years only to find out it wasn't his. He is still his dad. But the real biological dad got out of financial, emotional and fatherly support. There are plenty of women out there that are not straightforward and would trap a guy for these reasons.
Heck just watch a few Murray shows where they test 2, 3, 4 or more guys. Ridiculous.
I'm siding with Chris-629698 on this issue. Can't be too sure who "the baby daddy" is.
Oh good, I thought I was the only one who saw my child as an investment, a thing ... really? God forbid you love the child! If the father bailed on the child, it's clear the father wasn't worth a damn.
Saddened displays the clear double standard. Women are free to party sleep with who they want and if they get pregnant they are applauded for being brave enough to have an abortion. If men question paternity and don't want a kid they are deadbeats and irresponsible.
Chris I have two with children one more on the way and every single one of them has either been swabbed or will be swabbed.
I am in a strong marriage, but I'm a realist and understand that women are not loyal beings, they're just not. Most women always have a foot out the door looking for an upgrade, just the way it is, it's their nature. I would be a fool if I didn't know for certainty that the child is mine.
Gentlemen -- tell yourselves whatever you like. If you are in a committed, monogamous relationship, but still feel the need to prove to yourself that any child of that relationship is yours, that is a definite lack of trust.
Contrary to what some of you think, women are not by nature disloyal.
I absolutely would not stay with any man that questioned that or has shown himself to be untrustworthy. I have more self-respect than to allow myself to be treated that way.
I see DNA paternity testing as a valuable service to be added to the standard suite of neonatal blood tests. If there's money to torture an infant by peeling genital skin, crushing it in a clamp, then cutting it AKA circumcision, there should be a process for paternity verification. More ID is needed to rent a moving van. While there may be some changes for the minority of cases, families would be strengthened in a larger number of cases when a father is sure the children are his.
saddened wrote "Be honest with yourself and your partner. You have trust issues, justified or not. That's your choice."
EVERY man has paternity trust issues that are fundamental to male nature. If women were concerned about bringing the right baby home, there would be ... OH WAIT, there is a strict security procedure. After delivery, the baby is fitted with a bracelet for identification for the duration of the hospital stay. Within an hour of birth, the baby's feet are "foot-printed" on a certificate that bears the mother's but not the father's name.
Women have always engaged in the time-honored tradition of concealing pregnancies and naming fathers. If the fraud rate is 10%, it should be addressed with technology.
Sperm donor; Dad are not inclusive terms. It takes a man to be a Dad.
+1: I was adopted, so I don't know my birth parents. But I do know my mom and dad -- they're the people that raised me to be the man I am now. Genetic commonality is less important than the bond that builds between the caregiver and the child.
bc005 wrote "Sperm donor; Dad are not inclusive terms. It takes a man to be a Dad."
You make a case for new legal reproductive rights for men :
1) opting out of a pregnancy with a paper "legal abortion"
2) opting into a birth after DNA confirmation of paternity
3) mandatory disclosure of pregnancy to the father within five weeks
This family seems to be a tad dysfunctional, too many marriages, too many partners, etc... I hope this young boy doesn't follow in his parents footsteps.
Heh, and people still claim that letting homosexuals marry would "destroy" the traditional values of marriage.
Totally ironic, isn't it?
Right? Idiotic parents are too wrapped up in their own self-centered little worlds to realize the damage they're doing to their kids. What kind of F'ed up idea are these children going to have about family life as they get older? That it's normal to marry and break up with someone THREE times? THREE times? Jesus Christ, people, if it didn't work out even the first TWO times, just call it a day and go find someone that you can actually stay with. If your relationship is that much of a train wreck, there are too many trust issues and baggage for it to ever be healthy again. Just pull the plug and stop torturing yourself and your children.
This is an advertisement for the Murray Povich an @!$%# Steve Wilkos and the half ass companies they use.
Does it really matter after fourteen years? By this time, you either love this child or you don't and no blood test is going to make you feel differently. Legally, it makes a difference, but unless you are going to have the birth certificate changed, it is kind of irrelevant by this time. In four years, he is an adult anyway.
I can see it making a difference in child support, custody, or proof of lineage issues but if you are a family unit that is strong and there are no external claims, does it matter?
That's the problem, sometimes it doesn't make any legal difference. Many places have presumptive paternity, where if you're married (and there's no questions at the time) your names go down on the birth certificate. Say years later you get a divorce, and learn you might not be the child's father. You get tested, and sure enough that's the case. Too bad, you still have to pay child support.
It's crap.
I'm still trying to convince everybody that I believe I'm howard hughes son, and maybe the rich heires Hugo Clarks grand son,, but everybody just thinks i'm a gold digger,, they may be right too !!
"peddling"? is that the best word to use while writing a news article? i certainly does make the article sound "fair and balanced"
Well since paternity is in question and maternity is not....the solution seems simple to me. Only mothers should be listed on birth certificates.
I'm fine with that as long as men are absolved of any financial responsibility for the child.
Kathryn wrote "Only mothers should be listed on birth certificates."
Fathers then have the option of applying for paternity after DNA paternal verification, true or false.
This implies that the child is the property of the mother but not the father. But overall, your statement reflects a belief that women should have a monopoly on reproduction and that men should have reproductive rights only at the discretion of the mother. A father has contributed a sperm. A mother has contributed an egg and 9 months of womb services.
I just find it sad that people in this story are having children at all. They bounce around back and forth, talk about no stability. And use birth control people! Some Women don't name Dad's, so the state doesn't go after them for child support.
I believe in 2013 birth control will be free. I would hope in 2014 the entire welfare system is changed. We have been rewarding people for bad behavior (my family included) for too long. If you want to have a baby, then fine but we are no longer going to offer any kind of assistance for it.
Maybe take some of the money spent on welfare and use it to prove who the father is when there is a question.
Just a though.
Yes!
The child tax credit needs to go.
Punish the kids for having irresponsible parents. Sounds like a great idea.
Yes, by all means...let's take a survey about questionable paternity commissioned by a company that gets rich selling paternity test kids seriously. Am I the only one who noticed the line about scientists who have studied the issue say that 10 percent figure is way off-base?
Is it any different than following guidelines set by Pap smear test companies?
What is very wrong is that a man can not order a legally-admissable DNA paternity test without the permission of the mother. DNA paternity testing is a product that gives men a fundamental reproductive right that has always been at the discretion of the woman.
God bless, a paternity test, just look at the photo!!!