Dan77
Since: Jun 2011
Posts: 1
I posted a letter to the Dom Post about your article but I'll repost most of it here anyway:
Your proposal to have compulsory paternity testing may be well intentioned but it is fundamentally flawed.
Whilst the existing law allows one parent to withhold consent for a child to be tested, it is a non-sequitur to assert that this thereby justifies a law change which would compel a father to submit to a test. A law change giving the Family Court the power to order that a child be tested without requiring consent of the custodial guardian is sufficient to remedy that issue, subject to the child's legal right to refuse medical treatment of course. Compelling a parent to undergo any such test under any circumstances would be a clear violation of their legal right to refuse medical treatment pursuant to section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act.
Furthermore, the argument that a child also has a "right" to know who their parents are is patently absurd particularly in the context of anonymous sperm donors. These donors have an actual legal right to confidentiality and probably wouldn't have donated their sperm in the first place without that express guarantee.
Toni Field
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 22
My husband does not request DNA testing to determine that his children are his, but the way the current child support system is geared now makes him feel as if he was only ever a sperm donor in the first place.
Consideration is only ever given to the custodial parent in determining liabilty for child support, no thoughts for the children and certainly none for the father.
This system has to be changed NOW and regulations set in place after consultation with the persons involved, not determined by Cabinet Ministers after consultation with their aides.
Keith Mockett
Since: Apr 2010
Posts: 4
Dan, I think you've got it wrong. Firstly a swab is not a medical treatment. Anyway there are circumstances that allow for compulsion even in a potential breach of rights situation. I would suggest this is one of them.
Secondly, an anonymous donor would remain anonymous, the test would simply prove that the "suspected" father was NOT the father because the DNA didn't match.
My understanding is that many mothers won't identify the father for Benefit reasons. Maybe that's why Labour didn't do anything about it. It'll be interesting how Labour and the Greens will respond to this Bill if it gets drawn.
Bottom line: if you do the "crime", you do the "time". Just making absent fathers pay towards the costs of their children is a start, why should the state and the mother carry the burden?
