Submmission Needed – Paternity Implications
The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill is open for submissions.
This is an important bill for Fathers as there are serious implications for paternity registration buried in the bill.
Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are of particular interest as is 84A
To Sum Up
The first is in relation to the part of the bill which places a statutory obligation on both parents of a child to jointly notify a Registrar of the birth of a child. If
The only exceptions are when there is only one parent at law – this happens with some procedures for assisted reproduction, or where one parent is “unavailable”, or where requiring the other parent to sign the form would cause so-called “undue distress” to one of the parents.
This changes the position from the current law, where the obligation to notify a Registrar rests only with people who are legally guardians of the child at the time of the birth.
If this bill goes through there will therefore be a statutory obligation on fathers of children to make the notification, and an obligation on mothers to jointly make the notification with the father – whether they choose to or not.
If the father does not agree to having his name on the Birth Certificate the registrar can use extensive investigation powers to place a fathers name on the birth certificate.
Section 89(e) of the Act makes it a criminal offence to “having had the relevant provision of this Act drawn to the person’s attention, fails or refuses to give any information required by this Act to be given”.
Please have a look at the bill and please make a submission to the select committee.
Remember a child has a right to know both of his parents and while it is easy to identify the mother the only conclusive evidence that a man is a child’s father is a DNA test. Please stress the need for FREE DNA testing if requested by a Father as a requirement for birth registration.
The certificate of birth is the primary document used for establishing proof of paternity for child support (tax) recovery and if it is wrong it is currently and will under this bill will be very difficult and expensive for a father to gain redress against the injustice.
Remember the solution is simple FREE DNA tests,without the mother acting as a gatekeeper, if requested as this will protect the child and the father and provide honesty and truth in parenthood.
Finally lets not forget the kids, they have the right to be sure that dad is dad and not an unrelated stranger.
Regards
Scrap
There is a members bill set to go in the next ballot from Judy Turner (deputy leader of United Future), that will allow men to get a paternity order from the fanmily court. This will enable a buccal sample to be taken from the child adn a DNA test administered without needeing the permission of the mother. A very good and necessary step for the rights of men and children to know if they are father and child, and make sure child support is not taken wrongly from men who are not the father to a child.
Comment by UF — Thu 12th April 2007 @ 10:30 am
UF the question that one must ask is why is does the proposed solution (as outlined in comment 1) require a father to go through the expensive proceedings of a Family Court application and likely obstructive appeals?
This is a particular issue when the Mother is in reciept of legal aid and the Father is not.
In reality a Free non intrusive DNA test could be ordered by the Registar of BDM, samples taken at respective GP’s and certified as a “true samples”. Sent off to a lab and all parties advised of the results with counselling paid for by the State if required.
The state can exercise punitive powers if either parent refuses to provide a sample.
With respect to Judy’s well meaning intentions, as described, its just going to generate more income for the misery industry when a simple solution will suffice.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Thu 12th April 2007 @ 2:10 pm
UF,
I think Judy’s submission is worthwhile. I know that the state should not be controlling such a thing as other members of parliament agree but there does need to be an easy process without alot of money being spent on lawyers.
As a thought, if you could add to the submission a DNA test being taken from birth, then the tax payers would save money also.
Comment by julie — Thu 12th April 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Warren Heap, Jim Bagnall and I talked with Judy-T years back about Compulsery DNA testing and Matching at birth – She agreed it was a good idea
David Udy was in on those talks and agreed it would solve a lot of his headaches
Thus it was made part of HandsOnEqualParent Policy right from the start
Good to see some progress
Maybe I will do a submission in this vain yet again
Onward and ever hopeful – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Thu 12th April 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Jim,
What a great outlook. But I don’t understand why you can’t see your prize sitting just up ahead? LOL
Comment by julie — Fri 13th April 2007 @ 10:21 am
Julie,to answer no 5 post
Something to do with listening to those Kiwi’s who are even older in this game than I and the frustrations pouring out of many other countries
Onward – Jim
Comment by JimBWarrior - HandsOnEqualParent — Fri 13th April 2007 @ 11:14 am
UF,
You obviously enjoy gambling. Turner’s bill is a members bill that is going to ballot. This means (unlike Sue-the-Slapper Bradford’s bill) it may never even be picked from the ballot.
Regardless of all the good intentions, an imbecile like Bradford is yet again practising VIOLENT ABUSE against Kiwi Kids by removing their absolute right to know both their Mum and their Dad.
Let’s all be very clear on this: Mrs Davis (nee Clark), Sue-the-Slapper Bradford, David Cun[silent-T]liffe, Cold-fish Cullen, Peter Dunny-Boy-Dunce, Margaret-the-Evil-Witch-from-the-East Wilson and all of their ilk are simply CHILD ABUSERS.
And every day they perpetrate VIOLENT abuse of every Kiwi Kid.
Most of our issues in NZ society today stem from the actions of a bunch of [in the main] CHILD-less idiots (like Davis and Wilson) or nutcases with visions of grandeur and world domination like Sue-the-Slapper and Cun[silent-T]liffe.
While it would be nice to think Turner will achieve a small reform in this area, I for one am not willing to gamble with my Children’s future when the odds are so highly stacked against all Kiwi Kids.
Comment by Sparkx — Sun 15th April 2007 @ 11:36 am
Sparx – of course a memebrs bill has to be picked from the ballot -thats is why it is called a ballot. I’m not sure what you are talking about by the “UF you must enjoy gambling” comment.
nor can i figure out what the whole Bradford speil has to do with anything in this thread or Mrs Turner’s ‘paternity testing’ members Bill?
Comment by UF — Mon 16th April 2007 @ 9:33 am
UF,
From my perspective, it is gambling because you appear to be relying on this bill as a panacea.
But it may never even see the light of day.
Pretty high odds whichever way you slice-and-dice it.
Comment by Sparkx — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Perhaps we should check bradford for any sign of human DNA?
Comment by Ethos — Thu 26th April 2007 @ 6:36 pm