Judy Turner’s Bill would allow compulsory paternity tests
This is a Coup. UnitedFuture’s Judy Turner managed to by-pass the normal members ballot (where it is very unlikely to ever get drawn) and got leave of the House to get her Private members Bill straight on the order paper to allow the family courts to order paternity testing on request of fathers and/or ‘fathers’.
There was concern that there would be appeals and delays from mothers who opposed if it goes to family court for the order – so it is worth noting that the Bill as it stands says that there is no right to appeal a paternity order!
As posted on Pauls News.
My feelings are that upon request and provided the father has not tacitly accepted the baby as his, it becomes an entitlement. By tacit I mean been in a relationship with the child’s mother, and supported the baby both emotionally and physically for a period of say 6 months or more.
Child support is not levied until any DNA test is completed.
Payment is by the “Loosing” party. i.e. Paternity confirmed, the father. Paternity disproven, the mother.
I believe the mother should be limited in her number of attempts to name the father, then treated in DPB as a refusal to name issue.
Failure or refusal of the mother to produce the child when required (Ordered) results in the automatic assumption that the male is not the real father.
Provision is made for either the mother or father to “Pay off” the net cost of any debt.
Comment by Alastair — Thu 20th March 2008 @ 11:34 am
UF, this is great. But I am sure it is not going to be that easy.
Is there anything that we as an Internet group can do? Like maybe sell this ti family groups or something? Somehow we must be able to help.
Comment by julie — Thu 20th March 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Can’t you just see the way the IRD will handle this.
“Even though we accept the fact that you are not legally responsible for paying child support,you must realise that you will have to go through an administrative review.That way our review officers can decide whether to let you off the hook or not.In the mean time,you must still continue meeting your child support costs.The review will go ahead in three months time.We will inform you of the results within another three months.
Yours sincerely
B Warned”
Comment by rosie — Thu 20th March 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Alastair, are there good reasons why “tacit acceptance” for 6 months or any amount of time should remove the right to obtain a DNA test? Doesn’t that mean that a mother only has to lie and con for long enough in order to stay in control of who pays her? And leaving the question of paternity unresolved is not going to be good for the child and especially the child’s relationship with the “father”.
Also, I wonder if it would be better to punish mothers through fines, imprisonment etc if they fail to produce the child for testing. Simply assuming the man is not the father may be punishing the child more than the mother.
How are mothers treated on the DPB when they refuse to name the father?
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 24th March 2008 @ 9:46 am
The 6 months is an arbitary time. I thought put in place to cover the mother “Playing around” from a seemingly stable relationship. I agree there are major issues when a father child bond is possibly severed. Equally I was seeking simplicity where the mother does not produce the child for testing. Simply absolving the father from responsibility, ever appears as good a way as any without also punishing the child to much. To me this was always a consideration.
Comment by Alastair — Mon 24th March 2008 @ 10:05 am
Sorry for my confusion Alastair, but what are you getting at by the idea of including a 6-month or any duration tacit acceptance escape clause to cover a mother playing around on her partner? I don’t quite follow. Also, an assumption that a man is not the father would justify discontinuation of any visits or relationship between the father and child, a potentially devestating outcome for the child and not only in cases where the alleged father was the biological father. Can you expand on your reasoning here?
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 24th March 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Thats OK Hans. I’m confusing myself. Good to have an analytical mind checking me 🙂
The situation I was trying to protect against was where we have an established family, mum has a fling, they get back togethern has a baby, says it is his and (Time) later she takes of with boyfriend, and demands CS from X husband.
Thinking more I probably got to complicated. ANY man receiving a CS assessment is entitled to a DNA test.
Simple, effective. The “Looser” having to pay should act as a limiting factor and not leave the taxpayer with a bill.
Comment by Alastair — Mon 24th March 2008 @ 11:40 pm
I dont want to pay child support because my Ex wont let me see my kids. I have to get up at 3am in the morn and get my butt to work because my ex deserves an all expenses paid life making out shes the hurt one. Shes forever hurting my kids just because she knows it hurts me too. She likes drinking alcohol too. My kids are missing school and my son is having trouble learning. But their mother finds her cheap shots at me are more important. My kids are suffering and being mislead because she hates me. And all the while I cant see my kids. I may sound somewhat of a cliche but living my life under these idiotic conditions is having harsh consequences. Spare a thought for those of us who do give a damn about our children. All the while my ex is telling everyone that shes looking after my children. When in reality …. its those of us who get our butts outa bed at 3am in the morn that do. Nice going Ex. Your life is paid in full.
Comment by Ravi — Fri 6th June 2008 @ 6:46 pm