New Paternity Rules Under Fire
New rules aimed at making it easier to settle paternity disputes are under
fire even before they’ve come into force. Critics say couples will not always be able to prove who fathered a child because one partner will still be able to say “no” to DNA tests.
“You’re convicted without a trial at the moment” says paternity campaigner Gordon Dowler. He speaks from experience: it took him 20 years to prove he wasn’t the father of a child because the mother refused to allow tests.
Jim Bagnall of the Union of Fathers says: “Well I suppose it is an improvement, but the mother is still the gate-keeper and she can refuse.”
And here we were under the illusion our justice system is based around “innocent until proven guilty”.
How about a level playing field where everyone’s DNA is recorded at birth?
This is not a civil liberty issue nor is it invasive because the hospitals already take blood from the umbilical cord to establish blood type, RH factor and test for known conditions likely to threaten baby’s survival if not established.
Gordon’s case is nothing short of criminal and, in my humble opinion, David Udy (head of the Child Support Agency), David Butler (Commissioner of Inland Revenue) and Cullen should already have had their resignations accepted.
It simply goes hand in hand with the lack of recognition fathers have been given elsewhere.
I recall only three years ago the angst of friends of mine – fathers of kids at Laingholm Primary School. Staff there were billing themselves with a huge placard front and centre of the school as “The best little primary cshool in the universe”. Yet the fathers were DENIED seeing thier kids school reports because they weren’t the ‘custidial’ parent. This is I’m sure just a tiny tip of the sick anti-father iceberg that’s been created in NZ.
I have another viewpoint about DNA testing being a civil liberty issue. I reckon kids have a civil liberty to know who thier real father is, and fathers should have a civil liberty to know who thier kids are. In the vast majority of cases anything less is criminal and downright inhuman. What experien ce has taught me to expect from feminists in fact.
I dont have a problem with DNA testing to prove paternity, in fact I think it should be mandatory for most cases unless there is a good reason. I would submit it myself if it meant getting child support from the liable parent more regularly!
How is it that you even consider there is a “liable parent”?
This is just a continuation of the anti-Family, anti-children, anti-parent issues of our “beloved” (ha-de-ha) lesbian prime minister.
There were, I’m almost certain, two of you involved in the procreation of your child or children and, in the same way, there should be two of you involved in the upbringing of your child(ren).
Perhaps if the conflict created by our Child Tax and Family Court systems were placed aside, the two of you could establish a better parenting plan that, in the end, provides the best possible outcome for your child(ren).
The answer lies in parents of separated families looking for the best [shared] parenting solution and, as a corollary, the best possible outcome for their children.
The “custodial” versus “liable” model of our Child Tax system does not provide this. Only the big-people in a separation can achieve this so the little-people are not disadvantaged by the separation.
Go in peace! Remember our children!