Various paternity cases in the news

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20070318&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=703180504&Template=printart

This article reports on several ramifications of DNA testing in the US
legal system. I was impressed by this ruling:

<begin quote>
Judge Virginia Whittinghill ordered a counselor to meet with the child. She
concluded he had bonded with Hinshaw and that it would be "very devastating
to him if he was not in his life." She described Hinshaw as the boy's
"psychological father."

Whittinghill not only granted Hinshaw's motion for joint custody, she also
made his home the boy's primary residence and ordered his ex-wife to pay
him $25,000 in attorney's fees.
<end quote>

This seems to be recognition of the importance of the role of the father
even when not the biological father.

[Rob]

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20070318&Ca...
This article reports on several ramifications of DNA testing in the US
<begin quote>
Judge Virginia Whittinghill ordered a counselor to meet with the child. She
concluded he had bonded with Hinshaw and that it would be "very devastating
to him if he was not in his life." She described Hinshaw as the boy's
"psychological father."
Whittinghill not only granted Hinshaw's motion for joint custody, she also
made his home the boy's primary residence and ordered his ex-wife to pay
him $25,000 in attorney's fees.
<end quote>
This seems to be recognition of the importance of the role of the father
even when not the biological father.

The 'marital presumption' with its 'long and distinguished history'
was 'destined to foster stability within families' from another world.
A world where a husband had some influence over his wife's behaviour,
where women were held accountable for infidelity on pain of detachment
from their children's lives and a world where paternity could never be
absolutely certain.

All that has changed. Whether we like it or not our society has
decided that marriage is no longer a significant consideration in
children's upbringing. DNA tests now give the husband the power not to
be duped, he must be encouraged to use this power not just because it
is his and the child's right but for sound practical reasons. Much in
the future will depend upon DNA; identity, crime, medicine... the list
grows longer by the year.

So the bastard child joins the other children from broken homes,
sharing both natural parent's lives.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.

[Rob]

Post by Rob

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20070318&Ca...
This article reports on several ramifications of DNA testing in the US
<begin quote>
Judge Virginia Whittinghill ordered a counselor to meet with the child. She
concluded he had bonded with Hinshaw and that it would be "very devastating
to him if he was not in his life." She described Hinshaw as the boy's
"psychological father."
Whittinghill not only granted Hinshaw's motion for joint custody, she also
made his home the boy's primary residence and ordered his ex-wife to pay
him $25,000 in attorney's fees.
<end quote>
This seems to be recognition of the importance of the role of the father
even when not the biological father.

The 'marital presumption' with its 'long and distinguished history'
was 'destined to foster stability within families' from another world.
A world where a husband had some influence over his wife's behaviour,
where women were held accountable for infidelity on pain of detachment
from their children's lives and a world where paternity could never be
absolutely certain.
All that has changed. Whether we like it or not our society has
decided that marriage is no longer a significant consideration in
children's upbringing. DNA tests now give the husband the power not to
be duped, he must be encouraged to use this power not just because it
is his and the child's right but for sound practical reasons. Much in
the future will depend upon DNA; identity, crime, medicine... the list
grows longer by the year.
So the bastard child joins the other children from broken homes,
sharing both natural parent's lives.

Another angle on this topic is covered here:
http://jennifer-roback-morse.blogspot.com/
under the blog: 'Rejoinder to Glenn Sacks'
"For opposite sex couples, [the] presumption of paternity was not
intended to protect either the wife or the husband. The presumption
was intended to protect the Marriage..."

Marriage is no longer something this society wishes to protect,
certainly not at the expense of identity, security, health and
longevity.

The presumption of paternity is dead and should be given an official
burial. Otherwise it will serve only to be used selectively by the
reproductively powerful (women) against the reproductively
disadvantaged (men).

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

On 23 Mar 2007 02:57:42 -0700, Rob wrote:

[...]

Post by Rob
http://jennifer-roback-morse.blogspot.com/
under the blog: 'Rejoinder to Glenn Sacks'
"For opposite sex couples, [the] presumption of paternity was not
intended to protect either the wife or the husband. The presumption
was intended to protect the Marriage..."
Marriage is no longer something this society wishes to protect,
certainly not at the expense of identity, security, health and
longevity.

I find it ironic that the "defence of marriage" slogan is used by people
protesting same-sex marriage. Compared to the social forces threatening
marriage, the same-sex issue is neglibible. I think marriage would be
better defended by re-examining attitudes to divorce, adultery and
paternity issues.

Post by Rob
The presumption of paternity is dead and should be given an official
burial. Otherwise it will serve only to be used selectively by the
reproductively powerful (women) against the reproductively
disadvantaged (men).

I was encouraged that at least some of the cases reported in the original
article I quoted seemed to be treating men fairly. That was more than I
expected.

[Rob]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by Rob
http://jennifer-roback-morse.blogspot.com/
under the blog: 'Rejoinder to Glenn Sacks'
"For opposite sex couples, [the] presumption of paternity was not
intended to protect either the wife or the husband. The presumption
was intended to protect the Marriage..."
Marriage is no longer something this society wishes to protect,
certainly not at the expense of identity, security, health and
longevity.

I find it ironic that the "defence of marriage" slogan is used by people
protesting same-sex marriage. Compared to the social forces threatening
marriage, the same-sex issue is neglibible. I think marriage would be
better defended by re-examining attitudes to divorce, adultery and
paternity issues.

Post by Rob
The presumption of paternity is dead and should be given an official
burial. Otherwise it will serve only to be used selectively by the
reproductively powerful (women) against the reproductively
disadvantaged (men).

I was encouraged that at least some of the cases reported in the original
article I quoted seemed to be treating men fairly. That was more than I
expected.

I see that but I believe it to be more about reducing the importance
of fatherhood, by characterising it as a mix of happenstance friend
and mentor, than treating men fairly.

--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.