Paternity tests require mother's consent

HIV testing in South Africa is not allowed as a basis for seperating risks in life insurance in South Africa ... although if it were allowed legally you can imagine the repurcussions - I still think we're quite a bit away from the feasability of what you're getting at (even on cost basis never mind legality).

A paternity suit is all well and good but...
1. It takes a long time.
2. It's expensive.
3. If it turns out that the man is not the father he has to sue seperately to get back anything he might have paid already.

Whereas I agree that the interests of the child should come first, maybe some women should take that to heart when declaring who the father is, because only they know (in most cases).

Laws can be strange in Germany anyway. For example, a couple separate but don't get divorced, he moves to Timbuktoo and they never see each other again. Years later she gets pregnant from another man. According to german law the poor guy sitting in Timbuktoo is automatically the father and has to sue to prove that he's not.

I don't think that DNA testing is applicable to drug screening except possibly in EPO cases such as the suspicion that Jan Ullrich is under.
@ Jack: Or the mother consents to another guy's acceptance of paternity.
This law will remain applicable as long as there is no proof to the contrary, but the proof to the contrary must adhere to modern methods in order to provide the (alleged) father with certainty.
And the guy in Timbuktoo has good chances of getting away scot-free - providing he can prove that he was in Timbuktoo at the presumed time of conception. In his case, I would even sue the mother for damages for forcing him to file suit.

I am curious to see how the courts deal with this as they must be aware of the issues here.

Suppose for example a woman gets pregnant and there are 2 or more possible fathers. She decides to go for child support from the wealthiest but he knows he may not be. Once he presents this information to the court there is reasonable doubt about his paternity. If the woman refuses the test she can't prove he is the father. Refusing a test is like maintaining the right to silence, doing nothing can speak volumes.

Courts are not stupid in this respect, they can't order a test but they can probably delay making a decision in the absence of enough information.

She cannot go for child support from the wealthiest without either 1) him agreeing that he is the father or 2) suing him, which will result in a DNA test - but one that everyone knows of, not a secret one.

Unless of course she was married to the rich dude to start with.

If paternity is disputed when a child is born the impact on the child is that it grows up in possesion of the facts which is a good thing, but consider a couple who separate when the child(ren) are older and the father always had suspicions. To force a paternity test then could have a huge impact on the kids if one or all of them weren't his. Put it this way, if you found out your Mum had an affair before you were born, would you go rushing to get a sample of your Dad's DNA? Kids have a right to know this stuff but some may not be ready.

It is a shame when children are put in that position when they are not ready for it - however, I do believe at some point they do have a right to know. A lot depends how and when these children find out, probably.
However, a man going for "secret" testing has more issues than "just" paternity. If he doubts it, then he should be able to tell the mother and child that and if he is wrong and is the father, deal with why he had those issues in the first place.

Yes, they can order a test. They can overrule the woman's refusal if it is conducive/vital to acheiving a final decision. Paternity suits are not about protecting the child's right to its personal information, they are about finding the truth. This present suit is about the legality of introducing the results of secret tests into a paternity suit.

So in effect anyone can still do a secret test but if they want one for court they have to make a case for why they need it. Maybe I'm a bit slow today but I can't see why that's such a big deal.

According to todays T-Online website:

"The standards for a paternity suit in Germany, compared to the rest of europe are extremely high: The father by law- the husband is considered automatically to be the father- must have a justified suspicion that the mother cheated on him. If he can't justify it then he has no right to an official DNA test.

In this particular case, that went through all the courts, the man lost against the high standards of the german law: He lost the suit although he had been officially declared to be 90% infertile. For the courts this was not a justified reason to sue. The man did a secret DNA test which resulted in him not being the father - but he still has to pay. The courts ruled that secret tests are not valid in court."

If 90% infertility isn't a justified reason ...

Because then the test isn't secret any more.
The big deal is the balance between the father's right to know and the child's or anyone's right to protection of its/his/her personal information. Again, this is not just about paternity cases, it is about secret tests for whatever purpose they are performed.

As expected, the BVG as upheld the lower courts' decisions, judging the protection of the child's right to its personal information higher than the father's right to acheive certainty.
However, the court also ruled that the legislative must facilitate verifying paternity. Under current law the alleged father does not have a legal right to know if he is the father or not as he can only challenge his paternity based on reasonable evidence. The new law must become effective by 31.Mar.2008.
Heimliche Gentest bleiben rechtswidrig


Let us hope that this verdict also protects the rest of the populace from illicit testing by insurances, employers and authorities.