To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR

baystateapple

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_to-confront-or-not-to-confront-nwr?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:9d199e32-40d3-402d-8546-d7982b7c6031Post:c3e30332-ca53-4b2c-b4f4-cb8f6b296ec8">Re: To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR</a>:
[QUOTE]Can't really think of a reason a family lawyer would push ALL married people to get DNA tests unless they are looking for more divorce clients.  Lol.  "This is not legal advice." 
Posted by nextrightthing[/QUOTE]

Dude, seriously?

My mother works for a hospital maternity ward that requires paternity papers for all fathers.  They also encourage fathers (especially those who are not married when the baby arrives) to take DNA tests.  It has NOTHING to do with insinuating that the mother has been unfaithful.  It has everything to do with proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the father of the child.  Finding out years later that the child does not belong to the father is heartbreaking and emotionally crippling for both the father and the child (if the child is cognitive). 

Do I think that the ILs have the right to see those papers?  No.  Do I think that the FI in this situation should tell his parents where they can shove their accusations?  Absolutely.  Do I think that there's nothing wrong with FI getting a paternity test?  Yes.  Yes I do.  It is in his best interests, and the best interests of the child.  And considering that the FI already got the paternity test, I really don't see the issue.  He clearly doesn't either.

I don't understand the problem everyone has with Red's sig.  Seriously?  It's been discussed ad nauseum around here.

MyNameIsNot

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_to-confront-or-not-to-confront-nwr?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:9d199e32-40d3-402d-8546-d7982b7c6031Post:a7dc8205-5acb-4aea-a83c-8566e1baa13c">Re: To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR : Actually, that was red's point.  The legal presumption of fatherhood within a marriage is strong. That means if you have actual and serious doubts about being the father you really should get a DNA test right away.  Otherwise, after a certain time frame (something as short as like 6 months after the birth in some states) the presumption is irrebuttable. Meaning: <strong>even if DNA says with 100% certainty that you're not the dad but you were married to the mom and never bothered to get a test, you're stuck paying child support, etc. until the kid is 18.  Period.  No matter what.</strong>
Posted by NOLAbridealmost[/QUOTE]

<div>This.  I had a guy that got divorced a few years ago.  A few years after the divorce, the ex-wife called him and confessed that she didn't think their youngest child was his.  They took a DNA test, and it wasn't.  He's still going to have to pay child support for that kid until it turns 18, because she didn't confess soon enough, and there's nothing we can do about it.  He said he had no reason to doubt her and it never even occurred to him until she confessed.  </div><div>
</div><div>While I don't necessarily think every single person should ask for a DNA test, I do think it's smart.  I really wish that hospitals would push to do it automatically more often because of the draconian laws and make it less of a decision or something one of them has to ask for.</div><div>
</div><div>In this case, though, this isn't the issue.  The guy already decided to get the DNA test.  If it's because he had suspicions or to shut his family up is neither here nor there.  The problem with this guy is that he is kowtowing to his family and letting them treat his FI this way.  OP shouldn't feel like she should have to confront the family.  The FI should have nipped this in the bud before it got this way, either by calling them out or by cutting contact.  OP, I would tell the FI that I wasn't going to put up with this crap anymore, and that he needed to figure out what he was going to do about it.</div>

hannahmassey

In Response to Re:To Confront or Not to Confront NWR:[QUOTE]Really, redhead? nbsp;You're taking the parent's side? nbsp;They are slandering her. nbsp;Your FI needs to tell them to shut the eff up and be nice to you if they ever want to see him or his child again. Posted by MyUserName1[/QUOTE]
Mmmhmm

[Deleted User]

A friend of mine took her son's father to child support after he'd been encouraged by his family to seek a DNA test.  I asked her what the tension was like (because they still lived together).  She said there's no tension, I'm cool.  The way his mama is looking out for her child, I'm looking it out for mine.   It took a whole heap of resovle but she never mentioned it to his mother, to her son's father, never talked about it again (she said).  They didn't either. 

Say all that to say I wouldn't confront his family, regardless of the circumstances because that's for him to do.  Agree with pps though, you can't be held down and forced to take a DNA so the source of your frustration may not be his family.  

zigspective

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_to-confront-or-not-to-confront-nwr?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:9d199e32-40d3-402d-8546-d7982b7c6031Post:37e3b897-077d-41fd-99f6-0cd5837827f6">Re: To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR</a>:
[QUOTE]It has NOTHING to do with insinuating that the mother has been unfaithful.  It has everything to do with proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the father of the child. [/QUOTE]

<div>Sorry but it has everything to do with insinuating that a woman has been unfaithful because if every woman was committed and faithful there would be no need for paternity tests. And I say that as a person who would have no problem if hospitals ran routine paternity tests on infants.</div><div>
</div><div>That said:</div><div>[QUOTE]Finding out years later that the child does not belong to the father is heartbreaking and emotionally crippling for both the father and the child (if the child is cognitive).
Posted by baystateapple[/QUOTE]</div><div>
</div><div>Emotionally crippling? Do you know someone who has been through this? Because I do and nothing could be further from the truth. Not to say that it isn't a shock but people who have two brain cells to rub together get over it and continue on with the relationships that they've always had.</div>

redheadfsu

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_to-confront-or-not-to-confront-nwr?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:9d199e32-40d3-402d-8546-d7982b7c6031Post:0c7e47f5-38b2-4ff1-b02d-917b30c2d586">Re: To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR</a>:
[QUOTE] Emotionally crippling? Do you know someone who has been through this? Because I do and nothing could be further from the truth. Not to say that it isn't a shock but people who have two brain cells to rub together get over it and continue on with the relationships that they've always had.
Posted by zigspective[/QUOTE]
 
Not all dads keep a relationship. Some walk away. I would assume you would agree that losing the only dad you have known because he washes his hands of the situation is emotionally crippling.

baystateapple

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_to-confront-or-not-to-confront-nwr?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:9d199e32-40d3-402d-8546-d7982b7c6031Post:0c7e47f5-38b2-4ff1-b02d-917b30c2d586">Re: To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR : Sorry but it has everything to do with insinuating that a woman has been unfaithful because if every woman was committed and faithful there would be no need for paternity tests. And I say that as a person who would have no problem if hospitals ran routine paternity tests on infants. That said: Emotionally crippling? <strong>Do you know someone who has been through this? Because I do and nothing could be further from the truth.</strong> Not to say that it isn't a shock but people who have two brain cells to rub together get over it and continue on with the relationships that they've always had.
Posted by zigspective[/QUOTE]
Why yes, I do.  Thanks for asking.  While it's great that the person of which you're speaking feels differently, with all due respect, that representative does not speak for the whole.  In either of our situations.

zigspective

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_to-confront-or-not-to-confront-nwr?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:9d199e32-40d3-402d-8546-d7982b7c6031Post:1b069937-c313-422d-9fe9-aac11051b258">Re: To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR :   Not all dads keep a relationship. Some walk away. I would assume you would agree that losing the only dad you have known because he washes his hands of the situation is emotionally crippling.
Posted by redheadfsu[/QUOTE]

<div>I would say it's a pretty small window that children would understand the gravitas of a father leaving their life but not understand that a man who chose to "walk away" and put DNA over actual relationships wasn't a complete loser for doing so.</div><div>
</div><div>And as someone whose biological mother walked away, no, not emotionally crippling, sorry.</div><div>
</div>[QUOTE]In Response to Re: To Confront or Not to Confront - NWR : Why yes, I do.  Thanks for asking.  While it's great that the person of which you're speaking feels differently, with all due respect, that representative does not speak for the whole.  In either of our situations.
Posted by baystateapple[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>You're right, but you're the one who made the assertion that people in this situation would be emotionally damaged.

</div>

monkeysip

I don't have a problem with hospitals requiring paternity tests, and I understand completely how much it must suck for a man to realize 10 years later that he's actually not the father, but must still pay child support, etc.

But you just can't say that this has nothing to do with infidelity.  Getting a paternity test means that there is atleast a TINY chance that the woman cheated.  That means that the person does not 100% trust her. This is why many on this board said they would be very upset if their SO asked for a paternity test.