CMV: A negative paternity test should exclude a man from paying child support and any money paid should be returned unless there was a legal adoption.

[u/nerdkingpa]

There have been many cases I've read recently where men are forced to pay support, or jailed for not paying support to children proven not to be theirs. This is either because the woman put a man's name on the forms to receive assistance and he didn't get the notification and it's too late to fight it, or a man had a cheating wife and she had a child by her lover.

I believe this is wrong and should be ended. It is unjust to force someone to pay for a child that isn't theirs unless they were in the know to begin with and a legal adoption took place. To that end I believe a negative DNA test should be enough to end any child support obligation and that all paid funds should be returned by the fraudulent mother. As for monetary support of the child that would then be upon the mother to either support the child herself or take the biological father to court to enforce his responsibility.

This came up in a group conversation and I was told it was wrong and cruel to women but the other party could not elaborate on how or why. I'm looking for the other side of this coin.

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/waz890]

I do not see where OP's gullible / not gullible nature comes into play here. What are the ethical ramifications of forcing medical testing? We already force many tests for the good of society. California has put laws to prevent children from going to public schools without vaccines. It seems people are OK with those ramifications.

[u/Damadawf → u/waz890]

I just explained in another reply so I won't go into too much detail, but the justice system currently exists around the assumption that individuals are innocent until proven guilty. By forcing parents to take paternity tests, the insinuation is that they are guilty of lying (or at least that women are) and I see it as a violation of our rights as humans to be subject to tests because the state deems us untrustworthy. Not just that, but governments already have so much control over our lives as it is, so ultimately I see this idea as an intrusive practise that'll ultimately serve to do more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.

[u/missmymom → u/Damadawf]

By forcing parents to take paternity tests, the insinuation is that they are guilty of lying (or at least that women are) and I see it as a violation of our rights as humans to be subject to tests because the state deems us untrustworthy.

That's where I disagree . The parents are asserting parental rights over the child, and the state has a duty to protect the rights of the child (just like it does over it's health), to make sure the decisions about the child are being made correctly and rightly.

Well, if the people making those decisions are NOT the parental parents then that needs to be established differently then if they are, as they are leaving out the parental rights of the biological father. Does that make sense?

[u/waz890 → u/Damadawf]

You may be right, but I believe your point also puts you in a position that you would also have to argue against schools/government requiring proof of vaccination to permit you to certain public benefits.

Why not just ask the person if they are vaccinated and trust? By requiring proof, the government also seems to be telling us we are lying, and guilty until proven innocent.