Greetings all, New Hampshire State Representative Robert Fisher here, and I'm looking for some input regarding cutting down on Paternity fraud.
Now I've spent some time talking to some of my constituents who have run into problems in New Hampshire's family courts (a lot of problems), and I've seen a glaring legal loophole related to paternity, fathers' rights, and fathers' responsibilities.
In New Hampshire, a father must testify to be the father of a child in order to sign the birth certificate. My understanding is that his parental rights hinge on being on record as the father, so he has an incentive to sign the birth certificate, despite being the least qualified person to know if he truly is the father (without a paternity test).
Now, some of my details may not be entirely accurate - I am not a family law expert by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm meeting with our house researchers and legal counsel in the next few weeks for specific details. But in the mean time I'd like to get some input as to the best way to approach the issue of paternity fraud, which seems like something Men's Rights is very interested in.
The simplest solution is one that simply will not gain traction in our state. Mandatory paternity testing would be an undue burden on new parents or the state, and would fail out of the gate on this reason alone. However, one idea that had been suggested was having the mother testify to paternity and not the father. This would push the burden onto her, and disincentivize her from doing so fraudulently.
As it stands now, I am under the impression that baring a family court ruling (they have a wide margin of discretion in NH), the named father would be responsible for child support, and would be responsible for the child even if he is found at a later date not to be biologically related. Further, in New Hampshire I am under the impression that a child born within wedlock is assumed to be the husband's child, which could also be another avenue for paternity fraud.
I would greatly appreciate any input, ideas, or suggestions that might lead us to workable legislation that would improve the rights of fathers in New Hampshire, possibly setting an example for other states to do the same.
Any input or ideas are much appreciated! Thank you!
[–]yelirbear 14 points15 points16 points (43 children) | Copy Link
[+]representativefisher [recovered] (42 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for your input.
One of the issues we face is not only what might be fair or just- but instead what can actually make it through the lawmaking process. There are a lot of opinions that may stand in the way, no matter how just the proposed legislation might be.
The problem with option one is that it may be seen as bad for the child. No matter how legitimate or not the child support claim may be, anything that can instantly be spun as anti-child or pro-welfare will be shot down very quickly. Simply put- once a child/mother is granted child support, removing it will be a very difficult task indeed.
Option two may be similarly difficult to pass. Especially when you consider that some fathers may not be biological in the first place, and sometimes on purpose.
The best way I can see going forward is to front-load the issue, take care of statements of paternity from the beginning- put more scrutiny on the process of determining paternity in the first place, instead of checks on the back end.
Thanks for your input!
[–]MuchofSo 9 points10 points11 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]representativefisher6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]areta381 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]atheist4thecause 5 points6 points7 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[+]representativefisher [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for your input. Free paternity testing would be an easy step in the right direction, my only fear is that a bill with increased spending would see resistance from even legislators who would otherwise support the cause. As it stands now, our budget is very tight.
Regarding anti-mother/anti-child: I'm sure you're familiar with the outrage machine, if they could find a way to twist it into an attack on anything to prevent a change to child support, they will. But you're right, an angle must be found to move forward, so I'm very appreciative of the input here to find such an angle.
The reality of passing legislation like this is that it will take baby steps. As much as I'd like to pass a single bill that would reform all the problems I see in our state, sometimes getting there takes small steps to lay the groundwork for future legislation.
In this case, one of the reasons I'm looking at changing how we determine paternity is because it will set up the framework for easier legislation in the future regarding child support.
For instance, as it stands now, it's more difficult to say that a man who has sworn to paternity should now not pay child support after he discovers his child is not his. There are a multitude of legitimate reasons why a father may claim paternity over a child that is not genetically his. If we were to open the flood gates, this would completely topple the current family courts and put an extreme amount of burden on the state (unpaid child support, mothers/children in need).
Obviously, I am not in favor of forcing men to pay for a child that they are mislead into believing are theirs. However, I think a good baby step in the right direction is removing the initial statement of paternity from the father. Alone, this could set up enough legal framework for a clever father to argue in court that he was mislead and has made no statement to his paternity that could be relied upon in the event of a genetic mismatch. If we shift this burden to the mother, this would either increase paternity testing at birth, or give men more legal standing to challenge child support.
I realize it's not a perfect answer, but it's a step in the right direction. I believe this could set up an environment where a legal precedent could eventually be set in favor of men who are victim to paternity fraud, and open the floor for considerably better legislation.
[–]atheist4thecause 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xNOM 1 point2 points3 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (10 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (8 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]xNOM1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]atheist4thecause 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]representativefisher2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Karissa36 -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]representativefisher [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
This is an interesting idea, and I will talk to the legal counsel about this. I'm wondering what potential problems might arise that I don't know. I'm very happy to be able to talk to legal experts with these ideas.
[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sillymod[M] 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Frank_N_Berry [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link
No clue if that would fly politically. Thank you for just looking into and addressing it, and for reaching out to this community.
EDIT: This works much better for gay/lesbian parents too... Parents sign, gets equal footing. Obviously in this case, there would have to be a checkbox for 'not biological, and other parent knows it and takes responsibility, gets equal right'. But avoids some of the stuff that homosexual parents face.
[+]representativefisher [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas.
This would be a very very easy rule that wouldn't cost the state but may provide net benefit.
[–]Frank_N_Berry4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]0care 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]Frank_N_Berry [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
No. If that were the case, then if the hospital told the parents about baby formula insurance would have to cover that too.
[–]0care 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Frank_N_Berry 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]0care 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sillymod 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]representativefisher1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]beetle717 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]yelirbear 3 points4 points5 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]beetle717 2 points3 points4 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]yelirbear 5 points6 points7 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]beetle717 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]yelirbear 4 points5 points6 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]beetle717 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SirSkeptic 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DoItLive247 1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]MC_Cuff_Lnx 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]representativefisher [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
I've been trying to get research on the cost this would put on the state/parents. I'm afraid the costs involved vary greatly.
[–]yoshi_win 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]representativefisher [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Thanks for your input on this. I'm actually very interested in the time limit, though I'm not entirely sure the article is correct regarding married men (who I think assume paternity immediately). I will absolutely bring this up to the house counsel, this could easily be an additional piece of legislation. Of course, they will have to alert me of unintended consequences.
[–]jtaylor73003 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MRSPArchiver 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SarcastiCock 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]representativefisher2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (8 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[+]representativefisher [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for your input, this is actually an interesting idea. Covert paternity testing may go a long way towards helping. One of the major issues with paternity fraud is how socially normalized it has become for mothers to be offended by the very idea that the father would test. It becomes such a point of contention that it puts at risk the very relationship, so men are very unlikely to even try.
With this sort of change, it would give men the right and ability to determine paternity without any interference from the mother.
There would still be some hitches if the two are married when paternity fraud is discovered, but it's a step in the right direction.
[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Frank_N_Berry 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sjwking 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]GenderNeutralLanguag 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]representativefisher1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]8088XT8BIT 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Peter_Principle_ 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]jtaylor73003 -1 points0 points1 point (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]yelirbear 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]jtaylor73003 -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]yelirbear 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]representativefisher2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]representativefisher3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]representativefisher [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
I will absolutely be submitting what I believe to be the best possible legislation. The question is, what baby steps can we take to bring us in the right direction?
A lot of the comments here really help give me some perspective, and I appreciate that.
[–]Frank_N_Berry 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (6 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (4 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]Karissa36 -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link