Why “You ARE the father” so often shocks

This is an important issue you raise, Denise, and one which needs the views of both men and women. It can be a shock, of course, and that is recognised.

However I take issue with you on some aspects of your presentation. Important aspects.

You say: “However, this case is only an extreme example of a very common reason why men are certain a baby cannot be theirs. That reason is that they see no physical resemblance between themselves and the youngster.”

Where on earth did you get this from? A ‘common reason’? I think you would be hard pressed to put any numbers to that ‘common’, let alone a sufficiently high one to say it is ‘common’, and I am willing to be astonished if you want to point me to any reputable study.

The other issue that I find questionable is the incidence of men being presented with the evidence of their actual fatherhood at all. I would have thought that it is small. You rightly point to the advances in DNA testing – and I have often written that such tests should be mandatory for all three parties’ benefit – can make the determination beyond dipute, but very few men ever get the opportunity to get such a test done, even when they have fought tooth and nail to get one done, Indded the Law prevents their automatic ‘right’ to know, giving a veto to the mother.

Women in general seem to grasp this ‘Father’s maybe’ aspect with an iron grip. It gives them a power which is easily abused. That, to my mind, is a far more ‘common’ phenomenon.

All the more reason for a federal law for mandatory DNA testing at birth.

“DNA testing at birth should be routine”

This alone would end almost all of the paternity fraud but I do not think our government really wants to stop it. It is one of the few crimes for which the real victim is penalized for a couple of decades while the criminal is rewarded.

Often the notice of paternity is given well after the time is up to contest it because the wrong address was willfully given to make sure it would not be in time.

Another reason for many men not accepting that they are a father is because many men and women do not realize that conception can happen with one night stands even with “protection”

I also remember seeing one of these shows where Maury was testing potential father number 14 or 15 and he was really putting this man down for not stepping up to the plate to admit he was the father when the envelop was open and Maury declared, “You are NOT the father” Even then, he only had good words for the woman who now would have to be testing potential father #15, 16, 17 or 18 even though by that time I think a word Imus got in trouble for would be appropriate.

I do contend that it is always best to be faithful to one’s own husband or wife and as long as our spouse is faithful to us…that is always the only “safe sex”

There is always a high cost to being unfaithful

http://www.shatterdmen.com/HIDDEN%20COST.htm

NOWMEN.NET said,

All the more reason for a federal law for mandatory DNA testing at birth.

Can’t have this because women will claim it will impugn the integrity of women. LOL, although tons of stuff impugn the integrity of men and no one says anything. i.e. sex offender registration websites, dateline nbc to catch a preditor, etc etc.

amfortas said,

This is an important issue you raise, Denise, and one which needs the views of both men and women. It can be a shock, of course, and that is recognised.
However I take issue with you on some aspects of your presentation. Important aspects.

You say: “However, this case is only an extreme example of a very common reason why men are certain a baby cannot be theirs. That reason is that they see no physical resemblance between themselves and the youngster.”

Where on earth did you get this from? A ‘common reason’? I think you would be hard pressed to put any numbers to that ‘common’, let alone a sufficiently high one to say it is ‘common’, and I am willing to be astonished if you want to point me to any reputable study.

(Denise) I’ve watched many, many TV shows about this and one of the most common reasons given by the men who believe they could not have fathered a particular child is that the child doesn’t look like them.

Well, the entire family court, child welfare, child support systems do not want a man to have any rights or any choices. Make DNA testing mandatory, no test no child support, also develop and widely distribute an effective male oral contraceptive, ie the ” mans pill”
Pass, then enforce and yes, it will have to be enforced, equal parenting rights for fathers/men.
Once the man can say no and not have a unplanned and unwanted child, a lot of things will change for the better. Once the man has equal rights as a parent, that makes things better still. Once the woman is held accountable for socially, legally and morally irresponsible behavior,it will stop. problem solved!
We will have to get rid of the corrupt and out of control family law system and replace it with a fair system based on common law. A common law system has built in checks and balance, in effect it penalizes bad behavior, women are prone to exhibit and rewards good behavior , men are prone to exhibit. Once it is understood that this is the way it is, and no matter how much kicking, screaming and crying the women and the government thugs who back their selfish behavior do, it is still the law and they will obey it.

The male birth control pill is going to incredibly disenfranchise women of the power to beat men over the head with their uterus.

Within a few short years of the pill for men becoming widely available (and recent successful lawsuits breaking down the anonymous barrier of sperm donors) women may actually have to start being nice to men again in order to have children.

In Ghosbusters, when Sigourney Weaver’s character and the acountant nerd get possessed (if you remember) they were referred to as the “Gatekeeper” and the “Keymaster” which is an apt term about child conception.

After the pill for men, it will be men who will become the gatekeeper, and it will be a silent revolution that will shake all women to their very cores.

I feel some sympathy for this man (and his child), Denise, in that the poor man had denied this child was his for some time and realized that he had to make it up to him. He had to eat some crow. Was Maury rather cruel to this man? Typically, both Montel and Maury have been total a**holes towards men even when it turned out the men were correct.

One of the difficult challenges in “deprogramming” people and addressing false beliefs on their part is the admitting they’re wrong factor. Many people would rather go to their grave rather than admit they’re wrong and it’s rather difficult especially for someone to come to grips with it on national TV. So this may explain why the man was heartbroken despite it being really good news. He had done a lot of damage, unwittingly, to the relationship between himself and his wife and son and this was quite a blow.

I think that it should be standard practice at all hospitals to have a THIRD PARTY technician do a DNA test on all parties in the birth certificate and infant as they leave the maternity ward, collect the data, and then send copies of the results both to the hospital and the parents simultaneously. This would protect the hospital from liability lawsuits for baby mixups as well as reassure the parents that the child is actually theirs.

PolishKnight said,

I feel some sympathy for this man (and his child), Denise, in that the poor man had denied this child was his for some time and realized that he had to make it up to him. He had to eat some crow. Was Maury rather cruel to this man? Typically, both Montel and Maury have been total a**holes towards men even when it turned out the men were correct.

(Denise) As I tried to make clear, I also have some sympathy for the father in the case I discussed and easily saw why he believed it simply was impossible for him to be the baby’s father. Maury wasn’t particularly mean to him.

PolishKnight: One of the difficult challenges in “deprogramming” people and addressing false beliefs on their part is the admitting they’re wrong factor. Many people would rather go to their grave rather than admit they’re wrong and it’s rather difficult especially for someone to come to grips with it on national TV. So this may explain why the man was heartbroken despite it being really good news. He had done a lot of damage, unwittingly, to the relationship between himself and his wife and son and this was quite a blow.

(Denise) My guess is that when the shock wore off, the man was — like other HUSBANDS similarly surprised — delighted. Indeed, he may well have been on top of the world. The immediate reaction was because of the degree of shock and yes, probably, the realization that he had unjustly accused his wife as well as failed to bond with what was in fact his ow baby.

PolishKnigh: I think that it should be standard practice at all hospitals to have a THIRD PARTY technician do a DNA test on all parties in the birth certificate and infant as they leave the maternity ward, collect the data, and then send copies of the results both to the hospital and the parents simultaneously. This would protect the hospital from liability lawsuits for baby mixups as well as reassure the parents that the child is actually theirs.

(Denise) That’s a very good idea! It is true that “the mother we know” — except for the odd case of a mix-up. However, this odd cases — or even the suspicion of them — can have disastrous consequences. I am familiar with the case of a woman who went to prison for the manslaughter of her small son. She denied killing the boy but admitted that she had mistreated him. The mistreatment started, in part, because someone close to her noted that the baby’s complexion wasn’t at all like hers and suggested that the hospital could have given her the wrong baby. The mother did not check this out with the hospital but the thought preyed on her mind and apparently fed an antipathy toward the poor child.

Thanks! I know a woman who just had a child and she was commenting about the almost draconian procedures hospitals go through to (try) to ensure babies are not mixed up. The mother and baby are given matching bracelets and then the nurse on duty is given a bracelet which allows only her, and the mother, access to the child. (Right then and there, it would be useful for MRA’s to argue that the father should also have access since it’s his child.)

One of the legal conundrums of the situation is that before the baby is born, the father has few rights and this is understandable. After all, the patients they are treating: The mother and unborn child respectively, are not necessarily linked to him genetically. If a mother wanted to toss him out, this is similar to any situation where a patient doesn’t want a spouse present.

On the other hand, once the child is born it should automatically be considered in the legal custody of BOTH parents especially if they are married (they’d have no reservations about tracking him down to pay the bill!)

I’m thinking about making a personal stand on this when I have children. If the hospital refuses to give me a bracelet, I would have a legal injunction on hand immediately demanding access as a custodial parent and, importantly, get this BEFORE the ink on the birth certificate is dry. Just as the mother may hesitate to sign off on a birth certificate without reasonable assurance that the hospital has engaged in best practices to ensure it’s hers, the man also should be able to exercise this perogative.

PolishKnight said,

Thanks! I know a woman who just had a child and she was commenting about the almost draconian procedures hospitals go through to (try) to ensure babies are not mixed up. The mother and baby are given matching bracelets and then the nurse on duty is given a bracelet which allows only her, and the mother, access to the child. (Right then and there, it would be useful for MRA’s to argue that the father should also have access since it’s his child.)
One of the legal conundrums of the situation is that before the baby is born, the father has few rights and this is understandable. After all, the patients they are treating: The mother and unborn child respectively, are not necessarily linked to him genetically. If a mother wanted to toss him out, this is similar to any situation where a patient doesn’t want a spouse present.

On the other hand, once the child is born it should automatically be considered in the legal custody of BOTH parents especially if they are married (they’d have no reservations about tracking him down to pay the bill!)

I’m thinking about making a personal stand on this when I have children. If the hospital refuses to give me a bracelet, I would have a legal injunction on hand immediately demanding access as a custodial parent and, importantly, get this BEFORE the ink on the birth certificate is dry. Just as the mother may hesitate to sign off on a birth certificate without reasonable assurance that the hospital has engaged in best practices to ensure it’s hers, the man also should be able to exercise this perogative.

(Denise) What you must make a stand for is SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the baby you bring home from the hospital is yours: a DNA test.