Who dunnit?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by hobbit, Nov 12, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. A recent case in the NSW (Oz) courts a fellow was suing his former wife for maintenance he had paid for years when DNA tests revealed he was not the father of the children. There was a fair amount of money involved and I have no doubt the poor bloke was fairly confident the law would favour him. WRONG.The POS on the bench ruled the woman did not have to repay the money and then set a precedent by ruling that women do not have to reveal it when a child is born as the result of an affair.
    This I believe is not the right way to go , granting immunity to women while the poor bloke pays for her one night stand. Now if a bloke pokes someone in the family way he pays no matter how many affairs and kids he fathers. I might add that I feel sorry for the kids involved in these bits on the side as they too suffer if they learn the truth.
    There is a belief that all births should be subject to DNA tests so any doubt or suspicion can be settled.What say the other R&Rers, male and female, to test or not to test TITQ
  2. Perhaps not all births need to be DNA tested, however the right to a test should be freely available. If the mother refuses consent for the child to be tested then a court should rule on it. I hate to think how many guys in the past have paid maintenance for kids they did not produce because this testing was not then available.
    I think that if a supposed father is paying maintenance then he should be in a position to demand a DNA test. Any money he is paying should immediately be held in a third party account until paternity is proved. If paternity is not proved then all payments should cease immediately.
  3. Well i certainly dont need a DNA test, i cannot deny mine are mine, they have all my faults and bad habits.
  4. James Hewitt should be DNA tested as most peaple i know think he's Harrys dad , spitting image , :?
  5. I agree with Slim. It should be a voluntary option.
    Having it mandatory seems a tad bit Orwellian to me. Whats next; testing for genetic purity?
    The sad part is, as you pointed out, the kids are going to be the ones that suffer the parents mistakes, regardless of what happens.
  6. Good one. This has been a long time public belief and one I think may be the reason for the young fellow's propensity for socially, almost suicidal, self destructive behaviour, his drinking and the German uniform act and so on. An example to support the case for DNA testing.Further,no drawn out legal cases , no doubt in the children's minds, peace of mind for fathers and above all, a real deterrent for wayward wives and husbands because if you poke around your going to get sprung. Worth a thought and sometimes Orwellian solutions are required.

Share This Page