Bill will create certainty for families
New Member’s Bill will create certainty for families United Future today announces a new Member’s Bill that will allow the Courts to order DNA testing, to confirm or otherwise the parentage of a child in question. It is the Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill. “This Bill will finally allow father and child the opportunity to know for sure if they are father and child or unrelated, in cases when parentage is in question,” says Judy Turner MP, who is sponsoring the bill.
This bill is well intentioned but is the wrong way to go. The point is that every child has a right to have it established who their biological parent is or is not. Secondary to that, anyone named on an official document as a father or mother of a child has the right to know if they are the biological parent of that child.
There isn’t any situation where those two rights should be withheld.
Now why I think this Bill is wrong is that it should not be for the Family court to decide if a DNA test can be done to prove paternity. That is ridiculous.
Does a father need to apply to the court for permission to take his child to school? Of course not. The child has a right to go to school and if the father takes the child to school then the onus is on someone else to prove why this would be bad for the child.
The same logic applies.
A child has the right to have it established if “dad” is his/her biological father. If a private individual is caring for the child, paying for the child’s care/support, is named as a parent on an official document, or is alleged to be a parent then that automatically gives the right for the child and for that individual to have a DNA test to determine if they are the biological parent. If that private individual is prepared to pay for the test then it is no concern of the court’s or the government’s. The mother does NOT have the right to prevent that test being made. That would place the mother’s interests or desires above the child’s human rights.
The mother might apply to the court to prevent that test being done but the onus would be on the mother to prove that serious and life-long harm would be done to the child that out weighs the child’s right to have paternity proven. Frankly I can’t think of ANY situation where that would occur. The only cravat I can think of is that the child may not be told the result until a certain age — but that is a separate issue to having the right to have the test performed. In addition, in my view any such application from the mother should NOT be funded by legal aid and if it fails it should AUTOMATICALLY mean that the mother must pay costs to the father.
If a child was conceived as a result of rape and the alleged or even proven rapist wants to determine if he is the biological father then I can’t see any reason why this should be prevented. If the child is a consequence of a rape then there is no harm in establishing said rapist is the biological father. That has nothing to do with allowing the rapist to care for the child. It is also separate from informing the child of the outcome.
If a child was adopted then the same logic still applies. If the biological mother or biological father are willing to pay to have a DNA test done then the adopting parents have no say in the matter. On the other hand this does not mean that the biological mother or biological father have any right to make themselves known to the child or to raise the child — if they gave their written consent to an adoption.
What may be able to go to the Family Court is an application that the state should pay or arrange for the DNA test to be done because the father is not willing or is unable to pay for it. In that case perhaps there is a role for the Family Court to decide if it is important enough for the child for the state or [in special circumstances even the mother] to pay the costs of the DNA test.
Comment by Dave — Fri 3rd August 2007 @ 5:41 pm
The Family Court don’t care about the children or who is the dad , as the greedy pus balls only want a file number to get rich on !!
The Family Court must be destroyed !!
Comment by dad4justice — Sat 4th August 2007 @ 8:26 am
Two points, the first circumvents this problem and requires a civil rights question of DNA testing at birth which I believe but am not sure already occurs. Whether or not this is a good thing is secondary to the fact that if it is maintained the situation you describe can be relegated into era and history.
The second for me that you raise, leading us more directly into the area of reformation in gender attitude to biolgical associations – if not ownership (a word that has to be navigate efficiently if we are ever to get over these hurdles) is that if the father is concluded as an “equal” under this kind of status, then any child born of rape is the product of crime, and the victim, the mother should have right and authority over the circumstantial developmet for the child until such time (difficult if legally aborted) the child decides to access a jurisdiction to alter those circumstances.
This variation in souls with each other and responsibilites as such goes to remedying the core of our present extreme as agitated disparity between men and women.
Did you stay with me Dave?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Sat 4th August 2007 @ 12:32 pm
1. Yes I agree automatic DNA testing at birth for all children = problem solved. No DNA testing at birth never happens – you are getting mixed up with the blood test. A blood sample is taken and stored but no DNA test is done.
2. Your attitude is probably the most common one but it has two fundamental flaws:
(a) It places the mother’s rights above the rights of the child,
and
(b) It misunderstands the issue.
Firstly this is about the child’s basic human rights. These rights need to be placed above other people’s rights or desires for a change.
The mother should not have authority over this at all. As I said I can’t see ANY situation where this right should be withheld from a child. You certainly haven’t provided one.
The right we are talking about is establishing paternity.
That means establishing paternity.
Not more, not less.
Anything that arises out of that establishment is a separate issue all together. Equality has nothing to do with it.
What the father then does with that information is a totally separate issue.
Comment by Dave — Sun 5th August 2007 @ 8:19 pm
I’ll have to read what you think I said again, where I cannot make any connection between what I htink I said and what you think I said. I think I said exactly what you think i said only I think I have read all of the legislation that says exactly what you want it to say. Which means legally you are right. Practically the reverse is being implemented as if it is constitutionalised.
(1) it hasn’t been constituionalised legally or properly for that matter and;
(2) The constiution itself is a manipulation over just and proper legal practice.
This means that while there aren’t those fathers around with balls enough to stand up and be counted, those who have been emasculated can join talkfests and watch, waiting for those who are doing the hard work to make a mistake, vindicating their miscomprehension of the circumstnaces.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 10:47 am
BTW: yes we agree; yet how long does blood stay preserved as frozen?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 10:50 am
You didn’t read what i said.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 10:51 am
Try this then: Capitalism is principle out of practice not practice out of principle.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 10:55 am
Rather than get too smart and over engineer the required solution it all comes back to a basic fundemental human right.
A father has the right to know they are dad and a child has a right to know who dad is.
Stop complicating it and focus on simplicty of design.
Free DNA tests carried out by a GP. Order can come from the register of Births Deaths and Marriages and police can enforce the order if necessary.
There is no need for DNA databanks and there is no need for the Family Court to be involved.
Its a very simple issue and the solution is simple.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 12:25 pm
The solution is simple. Yes you are right. Ye tthat isn’t the practice. My bottom jaw drops. Human Rights? How does the quote go? “Good luck with your argument on human rights Ben”. And “You are a waste of time”.
For whom is this simple? You or the Human Rights Commissioner? If you – not a problem, I thought you had left the discussion. Why waste your time?
If you haven’t left the discussion then this is exciting. So how does this simple equation get put into simple form? By the Human Rights Commission!!!!
YES: great stuff… we have an army ready to go, it gets ready to take up the challenge and we are able all to agree we have a significant human rights problem with a simple remedy. Good stuff Scrap – not just puff and bluster after all. S.21 1 (a). & s.21 (l) (i) (ii) you’ve got it. Relate this to the NZBORA s.6 and then the only defence (s.5) to a demonstrable justification in a free and democratic society is s.4 Get stuck in bro – go hard. You’ll knock the chook off the roast – roasted breast on cow’s milk if to be funny – with blessings.
Yet, this isn’t the trend by performance. More disagreement is likely – more “boring, boring, boring” instead of as you say… keep it simple stupid! Hope not. Did you check the legislation of HRA s.21 1 (a). Go for it bro.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Good luck 🙂
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Ben,
Bing a time waster and being a waste of time are two completely different ideas. I have identified you as a time waster not as being a waste of time.
I have left the BORA discussion because it is a waste of time.
Puff and bluster I leave to you as your forte.
It becomes very tiresome when you refuse to post your own posts and highjack every post on this site to prattle on, in benglish,about BORA and not the topic of the post.
(benglish – english written in an unreadable manner that only makes any sense to the writer and not the audience)
You continue to be a wanker (time waster) and well it massages your ego its doing tidly squat to change the status quo.
Theres no need for debate Ben. BORA is a waste of time as is the HRC as are the Courts. The only change comes when law is prescreptive and specific. Politicians make the law to effect change ….
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 1:49 pm
So if you are a scrapper – Scrap, waht is simple about your statement on fathers and their son’s anbd daughters’ rights and what specifically by prescreption are you doing to ensure that its construction protects your children’s children?
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Can I say this, without irking you protagonists? Out of the need for change comes a determination that heads people in a direction with a belief that their ammunition will land the fatal shot. In politics you don’t have to be wrong not to succeed, but you do need the most people heading in the same direction to succeed. I doubt much will ever be achieved by isolated individuals with complicated arguments. Historically they appear to be more inclined to become reclusive poets, seldom read and often misunderstood, but usually right.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Mon 6th August 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Thank you Bevan,
but not in my case. You have no choice, because if you don’t activate within your own motivation, then I will do it on your behalf because I am not protecting you I am protecting our young. While you protect yourself rather than on behalf of our young your words will ever remain profound.
While and if I have to drag you through a place you don’t comprehend, then the focus will quuite simply be on me.
BTW, I thought your comment was more provocative as aferred to an irk – and I ask you to think why that might be, because if you agree with me, then you are ready.
Comment by Benjamin Easton — Tue 7th August 2007 @ 10:31 am
I got a friend who meet a korean lady through the dating website. She desperated want to stay in NZ. She looking for a guy to get her residency in NZ. She get pregnant to my friend. Extort him to get some money and my friend call police for trapassing. He did bring her to clinic and terminated it. He pay everything for the medical cost. End up she did go in the operation room but didnt terminate it. So she threaten him with the baby. Of coz my fren didnt believe as he already pay the termination. Make it short story.. She go to Australia to get her residency over there with her ex-partner. And her ex-partner signed the birth certificate.
As processing their residency .. the relationship have to be genuine but then after she got her residency over there.. she tried to claim a child support from my friend..
Excuse me?? Where is the law? Should the biological father in this situation have pay the child support as her partner has signed the birth certificate from the beginning and applying the partnership recidency together…
I can’ understand the family law protect the women right’s more than man’s right. I thought the law is equal.
Is it fair for my friend and the baby? It is important to protect this child has a proper family.. both of the mother and the father who signed the birth cert at the first place. As he know that if he signed the birth cert means that he is agree to be the father for this child…
I am not sure about the family court can determine this matter. If the birth cert doesnt have the father name.. I agree that she can claim the child support for this matter..
Comment by Kiko — Sat 15th August 2009 @ 4:01 pm