Thousands of dads are left in shock as DIY paternity tests soar

Sales of ‘secret’ paternity tests are surging, according to suppliers of DIY home kits.

The DNA tests, which can be carried out with simple cheek swabs, are leading to growing numbers of men discovering they are not the biological father of children they had been led to believe were theirs. AlphaBiolabs, the leading British home test supplier, says up to 30,000 paternity tests are being performed in this country every year – and that the figures are rising by ten per cent per year.

‘Of these, around 20 per cent of men will learn they are not the father of the child they are testing,’ says the company’s director, David Thomas. He added that in some regions the figure is higher, including the North East, where it is 30 per cent.

The explosion in demand for the tests has been fuelled by the ease with which definitive DNA paternity results can now be obtained. For about £99, testing kits which promise 100 per cent accurate next-day results can be bought online.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6585595/Thousands-dads-left-shock-DIY-paternity-tests-soar.html

Terrible. The women must know they've been lying all along.

Raggamuffin wrote:Terrible. The women must know they've been lying all along.

Indeed Rags and was wondering. What if some of these men are divorced and have been paying child maintenance. When they now know they are not the biological father. Should they now be able to be compensated from these women who lied to them?

I wonder if Quill hs any legal thoughts on this.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Terrible. The women must know they've been lying all along.

Indeed Rags and was wondering. What if some of these men are divorced and have been paying child maintenance. When they now know they are not the biological father. Should they now be able to be compensated from these women who lied to them?

I wonder if Quill hs any legal thoughts on this.

In the UK one pays for one's biological children largely via the CSA. I'm not sure what the position would be if a man went to court to say that his child wasn't his biological child and he wanted his money back. I'm not sure about this, but perhaps a court can still say he should have paid as he treated the child as his own.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Indeed Rags and was wondering. What if some of these men are divorced and have been paying child maintenance. When they now know they are not the biological father. Should they now be able to be compensated from these women who lied to them?

I wonder if Quill hs any legal thoughts on this.

In the UK one pays for one's biological children largely via the CSA. I'm not sure what the position would be if a man went to court to say that his child wasn't his biological child and he wanted his money back. I'm not sure about this, but perhaps a court can still say he should have paid as he treated the child as his own.

Its a good point Rags. I really am unsure what the implications could be

Like I say, maybe Quill could shed some legal know how on this

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In the UK one pays for one's biological children largely via the CSA. I'm not sure what the position would be if a man went to court to say that his child wasn't his biological child and he wanted his money back. I'm not sure about this, but perhaps a court can still say he should have paid as he treated the child as his own.

Its a good point Rags. I really am unsure what the implications could be

Like I say, maybe Quill could shed some legal know how on this

He might, but he's in the US so he'd have to know about the law in the UK.

\in \uk law, if you EITHER at birth, acknowledge the child (by having your name on the birth certificate)OR you adopt a child you are considered "responsible" for it and thus liable for maintenance payments. There is afaik no case law that allows an out on the basis of "deception" by the mother

Lord Foul wrote:\in \uk law, if you EITHER at birth, acknowledge the child (by having your name on the birth certificate)OR you adopt a child  you are considered "responsible" for it and thus liable for maintenance payments. There is  afaik no case law that allows an out on the basis of "deception" by the mother

Then maybe there should be if fooled into believing someone is your child and again you were decieved. If you left that relationship. She has obtained money under false pretences.

That cetainly should be fraud

agreed Thor, but with family law still highly "female centric" under the guise of "the childs interests" and bollox to what is just and right..........

Lord Foul wrote:agreed Thor, but with family law still highly "female centric" under the guise of "the childs interests" and bollox to what is just and right..........

Actually mate it seems I am partially right, but it seems men not paternal fathers are still fucked

Named person proves they’re not the parent
When this happens, the Child Maintenance Service or CSA may:

refund any payments made after the date they first denied they were the parent, or offset the amount against maintenance for another child
refund the cost of any DNA tests arranged through the service

https://www.gov.uk/child-maintenance/disagreements-about-parentage

So it does not take into account where men have been lied to. Only when they actually come to know they have

Clearly a change in the law is required on this.

What do you reckon mate?

well yes, it is about time the law was chasnged...the difficulty would be how

the child maintenance service will say ...sue the mother.....we made you pay in good faith.......you legal argument is with her ...its HER you paid, not us...... If there is a case for fraud its up to you to take action, and recover the loss from HER.

the court will say well yes Mr XXXX you have a case but she has no assets that we can distrian upon without penalising the child.... so yes she's guilty of fraud...6 months probation and tough luck mr XXXX.

which leaves him with a problem...if she owns the house well and good, in civil law, he can attaint the loss to the house(whats known as putting a charge on it) ...BUT only when its sold or she dies, which could mean waiting a long long time......

Lord Foul wrote:well yes, it is about time the law was chasnged...the difficulty would be how

the child maintenance service will say ...sue the mother.....we made you pay in good faith.......you legal argument is with her ...its HER you paid, not us...... If there is a case for fraud its up to you to take action, and recover the loss from HER.

the court will say well yes Mr XXXX you have a case but she has no assets that we can distrian upon without penalising the child.... so yes she's guilty of fraud...6 months probation and tough luck mr XXXX.

which leaves him with a problem...if she owns the house well and good, in civil law,  he can attaint the loss to the house(whats known as putting a charge on it) ...BUT only when its sold or she dies, which could mean waiting a long long time......

So basically its another example of the inequality that men fo through, that continually people ignore.

As in their warped world view, this is down to the patriarchy

Which we know makes absolutely no sense here

In other words society has changed to disadvantage men?

They could perhaps try to get the money back from the biological father.

I would think that in cases where a man is still with the mother, or who is separated/divorced but has brought up the child would probably be happy to pay for the child. It's where someone who has very little to do with the mother might want to be reimbursed or at least stop paying.

In a California case about 15-years ago, a dad couldn’t get ex-wife to cooperate with visititation of their daughter.  I’m doing this by memory, but I recalled he already had a court order of dissolution of marriage, providing for the daughter, and went to court for enforcement of the visitation portion.

It was then that mom countered with proof that he was not the biological dad…indeed, her current live-in boyfriend was.

Legal Dad then counterclaimed, attempting to nullify paternity.  Mom counterclaimed to dad’s counterclaim, seeking continuation of child support, but voiding visitation rights.

Held:

1.  Child support must continue, as the interests of the child are affected; under California law the father had 6 mos. from child’s birth to contest paternity, and did not do so.

2.  Visitation rights are terminated.  The child is now with her proven biological father, and the court sees no reason to interfere with the family unit.

So the guy was given the ultimate shaft: must pay child support; for someone else’s child; and not allowed to raise, or even visit the child. The Court acknowledged that the consequence was harsh, but it did so to underscore the duty of fathers to have a child DNA-tested within 6 months of birth.

That’s the best that I recall about the case.  It’s been about 15-years.

Keep in mind that DNA tests do more than determine paternity.  Such tests should be a part of your medical records, and follow you throughout your life.

It won't do to have a family history of cancer or heart attack, when you have records indicating the wrong family.

Incidentally, on a related matter...so much for medical records, eh?

Raggamuffin wrote:Terrible. The women must know they've been lying all along.

There has been a case in the papers recently where a divorced husband has recently found out he couldn't be the father to his three sons because he has been infertile since birth.
His ex wife has been ordered to pay a pittance of her divorce settlement back.
She has been allowed to  not disclose the name of her sons biological father.

Seems unfair all round really.