Husband Awarded £25,000 After DNA Tests Prove Children Aren’t His

[ryoder 1,590]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261427/Richard-Rodwell-Husband-tricked-believing-wifes-children-awarded-25K--bereavement.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Southern_Man 0]

Good. I wish US courts would take this behavior more seriously.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[davjohns 1]

The best case of justice I have heard in a long time. I would love to see the US courts go this way. In fact, I would be happy to argue the case when I return to law practice.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[champu 1]

Quote

Unfortunately I believe that also involved signing off of parental rights.

What parental rights? (legitimate question)

[ManagingPrime 0]

Only surprised that there are not more cases like this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4137506.stm

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately I believe that also involved signing off of parental rights.

What parental rights? (legitimate question)

Meaning signing off on having anything to do in the future with the kids you raised.

I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction but if you're not a biological parent, and you're not married to one of the biological parents, I don't think you have any parental rights to the child to sign away. If the bio-dad and present-dad find out the true father of the child during a divorce between the mother and the present-dad, and the bio-dad wants in on the kids life, then the present-dad may be SOL.

I think the present-dad would have to prove that the bio-dad knew for at least X amount of time and did not do anything about it.

[Skyrad 0]

Poor bastard

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[davjohns 1]

It takes a thick skin. Judges have a rough time of it, too. I've known of more than one that went off the deep end after too much time on the bench wrestling with DR cases.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[babz 0]

Yeah, and if the other article is true up to 4% of men raising someone else's kids.. that's pretty horrid..

Watching Jeremy Kyle (think Jerry Springer with slightly less pantomime) there seems to be a large number of guys wanting paternity tests..

Does make you think though - at the end of the day a guy has no guarantee the kid he's raising is his without a DNA test..

[davjohns 1]

I married a woman and stuck with her twenty years because I got her pregnant...I thought. We got divorced because she kept cheating. You would think I would have caught on. After the divorce, she told my son he was likely the son of another guy. Never admitted it to me.

When I return to the practice of law, I will advise all of my male divorce clients to get a DNA test. If I had my way, it would be automatic at birth.

I am equally passionate about improving the system so deadbeat dads are made to shoulder their responsibilities, but that is another thread.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[babz 0]

That's terrible, I cannot fathom how a woman could think that its acceptable.. even if I'd had a one night stand with a woman who turned out to get pregnant with my child - I wouldn't want another man raising them...

I agree, before a father accepts legal responsibility for a child, a paternity test should be made, quick google suggests DIY kits that do it for £100 - so it's not a huge expense to add, and stops all this..

If you have a child, you support it. Thats my view on life. If you don't agree to this rule don't have sex.

[davjohns 1]

Exactly. You role the dice. If a child is produced, take responsibility. Don't want responsibility? Masturbate.

Biology has made it difficult for women to run from the responsibility unless they are willing to abort. We should make it equally difficult for men.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Southern_Man 0]

Well, it varies a lot by jurisdiction but just to clarify, as I understand it, the current state of the law:

If you are married to the woman you are the presumptive father to any children born during the time of the marriage. Often that duty cannot be discharged at time of divorce even if it is proven that somebody else is the father. The courts just don't care, generally, although there are a few cases in which the duties have been discharged. Generally it involves no further contact between the "father" and children. IMHO, it is alwasy wrong to force the father to support children that are not his which is both fine and consistent. Anyway, here are a few articles I dug up after a quick search:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580398,00.html

Similarly, you can be named if you are unmarried. If the courts can't find you and notify you, or you do not contest quickly, you can be found to be the father without any testing taking place.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[ryoder 1,590]

Oh, man! The story in that link just makes my blood boil.
Effectively, the law is rewarding the bitch for being a bitch.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Southern_Man 0]

Oh yeah, I'm not really aware of civil suits in the U.S. for fraud against the biological father (or mother for that matter). Seems it would be difficult to prove and difficult to get damages awarded, since it was the court that ordered the child support.

Anyway, yes, this is wrong.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[popsjumper 2]

Kinda telling that no women have posted yet.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[wmw999 2,588]

For me it's just a reflection that I don't have a dog in this fight. My only son looks exactly like his father, to whom I was married at the time of conception through birth (and quite awhile before and after).

I think that the choice a man has to make in a situation where he suspects is appalling -- do you choose your sense of self-respect, or your children (i.e. the ones you've raised and bonded with)?

And yes, I think it's wrong for a partner to cheat on their spouse, no matter what the gender.

Satisfactory???

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)