Talk:Paternity fraud

Paternity fraud as a form of domestic violence against men

Paternity fraud is a form of non-physical domestic violence against men.

Here is the section from the domestic violence page that for some reason seems to keep getting deleted - despite being topical and having references. Please feel free to expand and improve on this section (domestic violence against men) of the domestic violence page.

Here's the entry :

Violence against men

(Note : Internal and External references for this section are hypertext linked, feel free to expand on them)

As in all forms of domestic violence, violence against men can take a physical form, or can take the form of psychological, economic or social domestic violence. Many people ignore or minimize the importance of non-physical violence, even though (1)it may be far more common, (2)it may induce more severe suffering, and (3) it can have longer lasting effects on the victims' lives and well being.

Self-reinforcing sexist stereotypes and role expectations of men being strong, aggressive and in control, and women being passive and defenseless victims perpetrates the cycle of domestic violence against men, induces under-reporting and stigma, and minimizes proper law and enforcement in this area.

Physical violence against men

Physical violence against men is the term known for physical violence that is committed against men by the man's intimate partner.

Very little is known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by their partners. Few incidents are reported to police, and data is limited. Dr. Richard J. Gelles contends that while "men's rights groups and some scholars" believe that "battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention" and that "there are as many male victims of violence as female", he states that such beliefs are "a significant distortion of well-grounded research data." In addition, researchers Tjaden and Thoennes found that "men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners (although this may represent differences in willingness to report being victimized, or differences in attitudes and awareness about resources available to male victims of physical domestic violence between these two cohorts). Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant."

The available data indicate that:

• 3.2 million men experience abuse (such as "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting") per year.
• In the United States, approximately 800,000 men per year (3.2%) are raped or physically assaulted by their partner.
• At least 371,000 men are stalked annually.
• 3% of nonfatal violence against men stems from domestic violence.
• In 2002, men comprised 24% of domestic violence homicide victims.
• Over 20 years, the instances of homicide from domestic violence against men decreased by approximately 67%.
• Approximately 22% of men have experienced physical, sexual, or psychological intimate partner violence during their life.

There are many reasons why there isn't more information about domestic abuse and physical violence against men. A major reason is the reluctance of men to report incidents to the police, unless there are substantial injuries. This is partially due to stigma, and sexual stereotypes, and may also be due to unsupportive gender-biased attitudes by professionals and

researchers in the area of domestic violence. Data indicate that although mutual violent behavior is quite common in intimate relationships, men are seriously harmed less frequently than women.

Psychological, Economic and Social violence against men

Psychological, economic and social violence against men is very common, can be severe and relentless, and is often minimized or ignored. Unfortunately, it is often even more overtly minimized or dismissed by professionals who work in the area of preventing and treating domestic violence.*

Rather than see themselves as advocates of victims - whoever they may be - many professionals in this area see themselves as gender advocates, fighting for women, who as an entire class, are oppressed. Critics of this view of domestic violence push for professionals who are gender-neutral and avoid sexist stereotypes can they be a constructive force in helping men recover from victimization, as opposed to implicitly blaming the victim - thinking that they must have done something to deserve it, or unjustly advocating for abusers simply because they are female.

Paternity Fraud as Violations of Parental Rights

Men suffer considerable emotional, psychological, economic and social harm from paternity fraud. Paternity fraud is considered to be quite common (from 10 to 15 % of children - based on studies from blood banks and other genetic data). Over the past decade a substantial movement has arisen that titles itself "The Men's Rights Movement", MRM. This movement claims to challenge the traditional "Duluth Model" of Domestic Violence. They claim that domestic violence, and general familial dysfunction, is a product of individual pathologies as opposed to the "Male oppresses Female" paradigm of the Duluth Model. One of their main criticisms is that the foundational concepts of the Duluth Model are not empirically criticizable, but must be either accepted, or rejected, wholesale, remeniscent of Karl Popper's claims about the unfalsifiability of Marx's Labor Theory of Value.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the law offers no protection to the male victim of paternity fraud. MRM activists claim this rewards and encourages the victimizers leaving men largely defenseless. The coercive power of the state is used to continually perpetrate the ongoing victimization of the male spouse - even after the relationship has ended. Further, with the beginnings of same-sex marriage on the horizon it appears as if the birth- mothers of cohabiting lesbian couples are utilizing some of the same tactics that heterosexual women use against men.

In most jurisdictions the law assumes that the male spouse is automatically responsible for any children that are born during the marriage. MRM's claim this is an outmoded throwback to earlier traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law, when adultery was a seriously punishable crime, and before the invention of safe and effective paternity testing.

Forced paternity as domestic violence against men

Consent to have sex with someone does not constitute consent to have a child with her or him. Forcing someone to have a child against her or his will, or without her or his consent constitutes domestic violence. Forced paternity is one of the more common forms of domestic violence against men.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the law assumes that consent to have sex equals consent to reproduce - at least if you are male. This represents one of the common sexist traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law, and before the invention of safe and effective contraception, and emergency contraception.

Fraudulent claims of domestic violence as a form of domestic violence

Fraudulently claiming that a partner has engaged in domestic violence is - in itself - a form of domestic violence. It is a particularly cruel form of domestic violence because the coercive power of the state is coopted to continue the abuse and prevent escape.

A person fraudulently accused of domestic violence suffers strong psychological and emotional trauma. Often her or his career is destroyed. He or she is widely stigmatized and rejected by friends, acquaintances, employers, colleagues, neighbours, and even strangers. Often this stigma can occur even with the mere unproven accusation of domestic violence. It can destroy a victim psychologically,economically, socially, and physically.

Furthermore, fraudulent accusations of domestic violence can be used to remove custody of children. Since many people would rather suffer severe physical injury or even lose a limb rather than lose their children, it is clear that this form of non-physical domestic violence can cause more suffering than many if not most cases of physical violence.

It is difficult to assess the frequency of fraudulent claims of domestic violence. Hopefully, it is a fairly rare - albeit severe - form of domestic violence, however, data is not readily available. Some consider the idea that a woman could lie about such a subject to be inconceivable, but there are many well documented historical and recent examples of other false accusations including rape. (See : [1] and [2]).

To assume that only men lie or abuse is an unrealistic sexist position. Probably, both men and women are victims of this form of domestic violence. However, given that men are statistically much more likely to be accused of domestic violence than women, it is also likely that men are more commonly victims of fraudulent claims of domestic violence. Motivations for this form of domestic violence are the same as f or any other (See sections below), although legal transfer of child custody may provide added incentive.

Good work fishing that stuff out... so why is the neutrality of that section disputed? It seems pretty clear to me that it's neutral, but it does use terms traditionally associated with women's rights, so I'm wondering if this is a false positive based on an understandably emotional reaction to seeing those terms (such as "domestic violence" and "sexist") used to apply to actions taken by or advantaging women? Could use some comments here. --54x (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

i definitely agree that false accusations of abuse constitute abuse, same way falsely accusing someone of committing a crime (in order to harm that person) is a crime by itself. and if i were to take a guess i would assume this is a crime more committed by women than men. mostly because of a society that keeps seeing women as victims and men as perpetrators of domestic abuse i feel the situation has improved from a few decades ago though, with law-enforcement gradually becoming aware that there is other abuse possible then just 'man terrorizing his wife and children'. and men themselves feeling a bit less social pressure to be 'strong & emotionless', allowing them to admit to being a victim of a crime committed by a woman. (the fact that organizations promoting the rights of father have emerged is prove of that social change: men are no longer willing to comply with the unwritten rule that the mother ALWAYS gets the children, even if she has proven to be a terrible parent. or that a divorce would mean he loses all contact with his children, something considered rather normal and uncontested when my parents split up 30 years ago: when my mother left my father all the social workers she consulted gave help to her driving my father away, rather then encouraging my parents to work out some mutually agreeable co-parenting-style arrangement)

i know of several instances where a couple was fighting, both swearing, both using physical violence, both getting bruises. yet later on the woman would claim the man abused her, and the thing is: she'd really mean it. she simply could not see that her own actions should have her shoulder at least some of the blame for the incident. she'd insist she was only defending herself, 'brainwashed' (imo) with the idea that if there is violence in a relation it's always the man who is to blame. (and just to be clear: when i say the couple was fighting i'm talking about 2-way fights, not about one severely beating the other and that other dealing out a few blows in self-defense)

'POV' template

I have added the {{POV}} template to the section mentioned above, as I believe it does not present a neutral point of view: it is not universally accepted that paternity fraud should be considered a form of domestic violence against men. Some would say that domestic violence only refers to physical or emotional abuse aimed directly at the victim, not falsely claiming paternity; and this is how Wikipedia's page currently presents it. At the very least, if this section is to be kept, it should have 'some argue...' (or something similar) put before most of the sentences to make it clear that this view of domestic violence is not agreed on by everybody.

As the section currently lacks sources, it also appears to violate Wikipedia's policy of no original research - perhaps some of the links provided above should be added into the article as references. Terraxos (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The edits by the contributor in question were a POV hammer and should be removed ASAP. Scanning their contributions and reading their edit summaries will show that they were disrupting WP to prove a point on more than one article, including this one. • Freechild'sup? 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag, because this section no longer refers to PF as a form of domestic violence, the original complaint. However, it does not cite references, so I have tagged it as an unreferenced section. --InsufficientData (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The latest renewal of the Violence Against Women Act in the United States lists reproductive coercion as domestic violence, linked to in the "see also" section as Birth control sabotage. Reading it as any rational person would, Paternity Fraud falls comfortably within it's bounds. Why it doesn't is kinda hard to answer. Summed up courts just avoid the topic and fall back on support laws that say fraud of this type is legal. Here's one example Wallis v. Smith, 22 P. 3d 682 - NM: Court of Appeals 2001 Note the date 2001, it only talks about birth control sabotage NOT domestic violence at that time. I've read a couple law school papers speaking of possibly re-defining reproductive coercion specifically as ONLY being a man on woman crime to avoid the conflict. Nothing to ref past classroom chat yet, hopefully in my opinion I don't find any. --West Horizon (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Move proposal

Given that the titles of WP articles are supposed to be of neutral point of view, I would like to propose renaming this article to Paternal discrepancy. Paternity fraud is a buzz word for FR activists and such like, but scholarly sources and the media often acknowledge the POV nature of the phrase by placing the words in inverted commas, and use the term "Paternal discrepancy", saying variously that this is the "official term", the "more accurate term".[3][4][5][6][7][8], Obviously the redirect would be left in place. --Slp1 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I wonder if another option would to merge it into the already existing Non-paternity event, which covers much the same information. --Slp1 (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Paternity Fraud is an accurate term, regardless of the current use in the media. Or perhaps Fraud based upon paternity claims. Particularly in those cases where the woman knows the man is not the father, but claims he is for the purpose of child support (or other compensation) that is certainly fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.198.179 (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting comment, because actually we don't make these decisions based on whether we think the term is accurate or not, but which is the most common term used in newspapers and books per WP:NAME. As you can imagine often what somebody considers to be accurate will depend on which side of any particular fence you are on; for an extreme example, compare "man-boy love" vs "pedophilia". What we pay attention to is the common usage is in reliable sources. We also must also be Neutral per WP:NPOV and the fact that several sources actually make the precise point that this is a POV term etc suggest strongly that this might be considered a WP:POVFORK. I'll leave this a while longer for other comments, and then will probably do a merge.--Slp1 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To anyone following the issues around paternity fraud (www.canadiancrc.com or fathers 4 justice) its clear that non-paternal event and paternal discrepancy describe a wide variety and category of paternity issues. Most of these issues are not related to the same issues as child or men's rights. Paternity fraud is a distinct men and child rights issue, not unlike Women's_suffrage. Admittedly it does not have the same media attention or history behind it. But just the same nobody would argue that the women's suffrage article should be merged with Civil rights and liberties or the article on Elections. I think paternity fraud clearly falls under the "Related articles" section of WP:POVFORK and should stay as its own fork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.238.97 (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This article should remain paternity fraud. It's amazing, yet somehow totally unsurprising, that some groups would like to euphemisticly describe such a massive and malicious fraud as paternity fraud as a fault-neutral event. I can just see all the people who cheat on their taxes wanting to refer to tax fraud as a "non-duty equilibrium event." Really just another effort to absolve women of any guilt or wrongdoing for their actions. The Women's Association of Lawyers pioneered no-fault divorce which is overwhelming used by women. Women have complete reproductive rights from the diaphragm, birth control, morning after pill, abortion and adoption to outright child abandonment through safe haven laws, but men have no choice as to whether or not they will be a father to a child once he "gets her" pregnant. And, not only is the actual biological father responsible, but indeed any man the woman chooses to name as the father. If a man is violent it's because he's a criminal thug. If a woman is violent, it's because he's a criminal thug. If a man murders his spouse she's the victim. If she murders him she's still the real victim. Even if the mother kills the child this same group wants to blame it on the father [9] To quote Hillary Clinton:

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.

Because even being drafted and forced to fight, kill or be killed in war, while also losing their sons, brothers and fathers, doesn't change the fact that women are the real victims in war. When women make career and lifestyle choices that cause them to earn less than men its still men's responsibility. If there's a POV fork it's the one that wants to call fraud an "event" not vice versa. There's nothing POV about calling fraud fraud.--Cybermud (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange that this renaming was even proposed. Clearly a the most well-known term and very widely-used, though unsurprising that misandric activist groups seek to use different terms which clear eliminate blame, meaning and understanding. No doubt if this crime was perpetrated be men on women "correct" term would be "maternity violence" or "maternity rape". It should be noted that legal cases clearly recognise this crime as fraud, for example this one [10]--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually a move proposal does make sense. Most of the conflict seems to be Ethics vs. Law. So add a "Paternity Fraud" section on the Non-Paternity Event, and snip the branch at the top to paternity testing. Leave this page as a stand alone for the civil law branch it's already under. Ethics debates and Law Dictionaries don't mix well. --West Horizon (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Birth sabotage or Paternity fraud?

A work of fiction (TV series Glass home, season 2, produced by and aired on bTV, Bulgaria, depicts the following: a male character, himself infertile since puberty because of mumps, tricked his wife that she was barren. In an in vitro procedure he used his brother's semen to fertilize her. He forged all documents regarding the sperm donor as well. The truth was revealed 17 years later. I am not sure if this action would qualify as a birth sabotage or a paternity fraud or both (having as victims both the mother and the true father) or may be another kind of forgery. What is you opinion? Link: http://www.btv.bg/seriali/glass-home/

Gazibara (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's neither paternity fraud nor is it birth sabotage. So he's bribed a doctor to trick the fertile wife into going to a fertility clinic, even though she thinks she barren and can't have children, that he's taken over to use, unknowingly to her, his brother's seed to impregnate, again unknown to her, her Own fertile egg, to have a child, who's real father is only revealed 17 years later.

Whew! I'm thinking this tv show is made up sci-fi. You could hire a super model to act as a surrogate mother for your brother and the four of them spend 11 months vacation on a beach easier and cheaper than pulling off the above plot. :) (West Horizon (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

Edit for Testing Section

Original entire section entry

The ready availability of genetic fingerprinting, allows men suspicious of the parentage of
a child to request a paternity test to make positive identification of the father. In
many countries[which?], such tests require the consent of the mother or an order made by
a family court[citation needed] though this is not universally true.

grammar

there are at least six different topics about paternity fraud testing relating to paternity fraud trying to be a single paragraph. (1) DNA Testing availability (2) assumes DNA Testing is legal by using the word "allows" (3) asserts the ability to make a positive identification (4) countries that require consent of mother (5) countries that require a court order (6) Also children's and mother's needs for paternity testing are not mentioned, the section only refers to Fathers. I broke it up into paragraphs/sections.

Proposed edit: — Preceding unsigned comment added by West Horizon (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• (West Horizon (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)) --West Horizon (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --West Horizon (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC) --West Horizon (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC) --West Horizon (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Edit fixes posted on main page --West Horizon (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion:

Hello West Horizon. You've done a lot of work here, which is great. However, having had a quick look, it seems like you probably need to read some of our policies and guidelines before continuing:

• Verifiability and Identifying reliable sources will talk about the sort of sources required. Many look okay, but this, for example, isn't suitable as a source
• WP:GLOBALIZE. Lots of this information relates only the the US, and this is a global encyclopedia
• A bigger issue is with our policy of No original research and in particular no synthesis. Most of these sources don't mention paternity testing, let alone paternity fraud; you have put together lots of sources to make a new point.. that paternity testing is good and helpful, and paternity fraud is bad, or something similar. The information you are proposing isn't really about the topic of paternity fraud, and can't be included here. --Slp1 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The footnotes are just 1 each and in places I thought might need them. I can replace with only .gov, government funded and published news sources.

I can look up laws in other jurisdictions also, I'm outlining the article with ones I already know and have a .gov source for. I've tried to quote the U.N. and spread examples around as I go. Could you give a specific example and how many are needed? thx :) West Horizon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. As I said, the big problem isn't with the sources but with what you are trying to do, which is to combine various sources together, most of which don't mention paternity fraud or even paternity testing, to make the point that it is a good idea that kids know who their biological father is. But that is what we call original research and synthesis and it isn't allowed on WP. You'd do better to get your own blog or website and post it there. If you want to expand this article, look for reliable sources about "paternity fraud" (prioritizing academic sources, newspapers etc) and summarize what they have to say.--Slp1 (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I can start slow =) What would just the first section then need to be? In order to be a neutral point of view about Paternity Testing from the context of Paternity Fraud I felt It would have to be sub-divided by each so did an outline to meet that requirement. West Horizon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is good to start slow! One of the other things is that WP is not a How to manual either, so I don't really think that paternity testing belongs in this article at all. But the way to find out is to start researching the topic of "paternity fraud", looking for the highest quality sources that you can (ie academic, media, not activist websites), see what they talk about and summarize that. Also note that the Non-paternity event discusses this too. I'm inclined to think that this article is a point of view fork of that article, but that can be a discussion for another time, and your expansion might help figure this out. Anyway, the main thing is to start by looking for sources about Paternity fraud and go from there. --Slp1 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The most recent and reliable source I can find is the Iowa Supreme Court in a 7-0 decision, June 1st, 2012 JOSEPH O. DIER vs. CASSANDRA JO PETERS No. 11-1581, [11] PDF file for entire decision from Iowa State Government specifically naming Paternity Fraud exactly that, Fraud. Nowhere in the Supreme Court Decision is Paternity Fraud called a Non-paternity Event. I can post up a ton of newspaper and government ref links for that also. one example Paternity testing is how you prove fraud, so both the page and the section are relevent and should be here. My concern is what IS there is vague and misleading so am attempting to fix it with a better article entry :) --West Horizon (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be difficult, but court case are primary sources and need to be used with care and caution on WP. See WP:PSTS. The bulk of the article needs to be made up of secondary sources such as academic journals, books, newspapers etc talking about paternity fraud as a topic. The newspaper article is much better. You could summarize that for part of the article, but you would need to do so fairly, and include all the facts, including that paternity fraud is considered messy and controversial and that the judge said that people should "use caution in bringing such cases, saying they would be hard to prove, emotional and embarrassing". I'm be curious to see what government links you have about "paternity fraud". I'd be surprised if that's the term they would use. --Slp1 (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, be difficult. Anyone can be as critical and only partially as literate. I posted it up here to try and save main page authors the pain of editing a ton of stuff that might not pass muster. Many Government bodies within the last year have been dealing with the topic, finding multiple seconday ref's to post up with the article should be simple considering all the coverage.

And only citing the Washington State Law is a good point, maybe a Chart people can edit with local time limits to request a DNA Test, I can start it off with 5 or 6 locals. That would make it a location neutral article also and I can learn how to make wiki-charts. :) --West Horizon (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

First, most of these are good sources; not the highest quality, some of them, but still generally good. Well done!

However, I think that, at least as written, most of this section would more suitable to an article about parental testing, not here. The focus is too much on a topic that is only tangentially related to "paternity fraud" (e.g. how a paternity test is done) and this is indicated by the fact that many of the sources don't mention "paternity fraud" at all. In fact several of the articles mention that a prominent reasons for paternity testing is to establish a father when the man is denying it (in order to avoid providing support?).

There appear to be some problems with verifiability: maybe I looked too quickly but I don't see anything in the sources given about home DNA tests being "too easy to tamper or contaminate the sample being tested."

Some sentences have no references at all.

There is a problem with POV with the assumption that there is an intent to defraud in these cases. In addition, if this ends up in the parental testing article or elsewhere, several of the references talk about the ethical and moral dangers of these tests, as well as the issue of biological vs social models of parenthood and that would need to be included. Here's an academic book that also talks about this [12] (and [books.google.ca/books?id=woi38hB90AwC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA22 another) in the context of paternity fraud allegations. This book [13] would also likely be an excellent source for information. --Slp1 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

... Problems with the first paragraph actually I think fix themselves by removing the extra citations and leaving the one that mentions paternity test "DNA testing", paternity fraud "Liam Magill", and a buccal swab "mouth swabs" all-in-one. Quotes are the article's words. A cheek swab being defined as non-invasive should be obvious not needing a citation and I added it to complete the sentence as a paragraph ending.

... Home tests being mostly invalid for anything other than peace of mind is implied by what follows in the proposal so doesn't need a specific sentence about it for the educated reader, I hope, and took it out. DNA testing #Fake DNA evidence touches on it kinda. Some of these, "DNA swab the cat and send it in" stories I've read might make a funny ref for that page. The ref's there now are sorta grim.

... Emotional issues, loss of parental relationships, long term side effects in a social context, lots of mentions but lacking the reference to paternity fraud which is only implied. I think some would be acceptable ref's however for Genealogical DNA testing #Drawbacks. I added it to the first paragraph as an info link supporting the statement there and dropping the need for more citations. It also highlights the issue in such a way that is within guidelines as I read them and it's also mentioned by almost every ref elsewhere in the proposal.

... Putting a paragraph about it in the "testing" section runs into the no original research and synthesis problem by trying to say it's the test that causes the harm. The High Court decisions I have been reading, for places that ban the test, don't say "the test" causes harm. It says that the test is pointless and banned or invalid because those types of tort actions aren't allowed in the first place. It's still the act that has the potential to cause harm, testing is just the tool. A precedent decision on the test, not the act, would cross jurisdictions into university research, hospitals, crime labs, the list is almost endless.

... Adding a paragraph in the main introduction top of the page I think would be appropriate. It only vaguely hints at the issue so as not to mention it at all. I already listed to start that trying to say this only affects fathers is wrong. If you read the ref's they all mention kids. At the very least adding Genealogical DNA testing #Drawbacks for the "See Also" section I think would be within guidelines.

... The POV issue I don't think is one. Possible intent to defraud would have to already be established for these cases to proceed, otherwise they would be dismissed at the start and we wouldn't be reading about them.

... This is topical banter on a talk page so I hope it doesn't get flagged as spam. As a side, the case study I'm looking for would include a step child in the family. There you would have a judge determining that Child A (p.f.) isn't yours, but paternity fraud is legal here, acting the part of the parent, even unknowingly, is good enough to be held responsible, legally that's what matters. Child B (step) isn't yours, even though you have raised it as yours and still want to be there, you can't, no contact no responsibilities, since you're not the biological parent, legally that's what matters. --West Horizon (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think all the concerns have been fixed that I raised with the main page and ones that have so far been brought up, or at least a common middle ground found. Globalize, found news and legal ref's from New Zealand to India. The Human Tissue Act 2004 is also used by just about every industrialised nation in the world either through references or as an outline for thier own policy. No synthesis or original research, I culled through the ref's again for bad ones and cleaned up how some statements were worded. As presented an educated reader given the same source material can reach the same conclusions presented here as within guidelines. Sources I culled out the primaries and replaced with secondary. I only left up two at the end for "time limits", 20 days is the least I have found and 1 year the longest and no news articles that say paternity fraud and list those specific limits. 4 years (Texas) was up earlier but I couldn't confirm it. Not a How To Manual on how a test is done. The only mention is, "your cheek is swabbed". If a reader wants "how to" information they can look it up on other wiki pages like DNA Profiling. POV issues already cleaned up earlier and it no longer points out only fathers.

Genealogical DNA testing . . . Putative Father Registry . . . Tort . . . Involuntary Servitude . . . Debtors' Prison . . . Deadbeat Parent are all wiki pages I found during the course of editing that might be appropriate for the "See Also" section as I keep finding material that relates. Non-Paternity Event was brought up earlier and between the main page and here, plus discarded refs, makes a little over 50 ref's and Non-Paternity Event has not been mentioned once. I have been reading through policy that directly relates to 192 countries and still have not seen this term used one single time. I feel It should be moved to "see also". The only mention of Paternity Fraud on the Non-Paternity Event page is "See Also: Paternity fraud"

"Criminal courts can also order a paternity test when jurisdictions overlap." closing sentence of 2nd paragraph doesn't really need citations. The defraud and Tort links above it already say this first paragraph top of both pages. The tort page also has a section, Tort #Overlap with criminal law. I added a couple more references for padding anyway. --West Horizon (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it was the right time to move your section into the article, because I don't think my comments were really helping you to understanding the problems. I have moved it much lower down in the article, because the topic is only peripherally related to Paternity Fraud. I have also made one edit to correct obvious POV editing and failure to reflect the sources accurately. I don't have time at present but will be making other edits at a later date, amongst other things to bring in material from the scholarly sources which need to be cited here. --Slp1 (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with POV with the assumption that there is an intent to defraud in these cases --Slp1 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The POV issue I don't think is one. Possible intent to defraud would have to already be established for these cases to proceed, otherwise they would be dismissed at the start and we wouldn't be reading about them. --West Horizon (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Every case cited on the main page and this talk page involves a willful deception. Can someone please cite examples of Paternity Fraud cases that do not include a willful deception?

Also, if the main page editors would cede the point that Paternity Fraud IS an actual thing and this page DOES need to exist then most of these legal ref's can be removed since constantly countering that concern is why most of them are there. That would mean the entire first sentence that was changed I can basically remove entirely with only a little rewording to make the paragraph complete and readable. thx ! :) --West Horizon (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Ref 1-3 are from other articles above mine. The ref list picked them up. I thought the page had changed my refs at first :)

The ref list might mess things up but I already had placed them into the article. Delete the ref if the talk page doesn't like it. :) I can repost the title and web links of the ref's as a text in it's place. (West Horizon (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

Edit for (Top) or Introduction

Proposed Edit:

• last edited on --West Horizon (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC) , --West Horizon (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC) , --West Horizon (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC) , --West Horizon (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) , --West Horizon (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC), --West Horizon (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC), --West Horizon (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC), --West Horizon (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC), --West Horizon (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Edits posted on main page --West Horizon (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion:

There are multiple problems with your proposed edit, but I am just going to end up repeating things that I have already pointed you to. Please take the time to read and digest the policies here.

Trying :) Could you please post up some links to other wiki pages that also require one or more ref's per sentence like you are for here? I have no context comparison so don't know what style prose the page is trying to be written in. Everywhere else on wiki a ref at the end of a complete paragraph seems to be good enough. Thx :) --West Horizon (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a new thing to read WP:LEDE, though The first few paragraphs are a summary of the actual article, not a place to introduce new material not contained below. If you want to add content, you should do so to the body of the article, not the lead.

There are problems with the sources: Please don't use primary sources such as court decisions for definitions. Opinion columns on townhall.com are not considered reliable sources for facts of this sort.

How do you define an area of Civil Common Law without citing laws? i.e. Common law . Criminal law no problem citing laws on these pages to help define the subject. Also, Supreme Courts don't write laws, Legislatures write laws. High Courts write opinions. By definition, a High Court decision IS a seconday scholarly ref. That is why they are always cited. --West Horizon (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to put forth the argument again that the only way to present Paternity Fraud without any POV issues is to do so in a case law study prose. Here it is, here's the decision, here's the law that dictates that decision. Leave conclusions and ethics debates for the readers to come up with themselves. The other mention is up in "move proposal". --West Horizon (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole section about roman derivation is very, very clear unverifiable original research and synthesis and cannot be included.

Roman law, Legitimacy_(law)#History, everything typed is cross referenced with wikipedia, National Geographic, the University of Florida and the main is from the Encyclopædia Britannica, which is also ref'd on the wiki-page. Can you please be specific? I have only summarized already posted information for tidbits relevent to modern civil paternity law to just make the page funner to read. thx :) --West Horizon (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC) . . . Here's another link as a follow-up. Guardian "ad litem" and "de facto" parent are both common examples of latin terms from codified Roman Law that are used everyday without a second thought. --West Horizon (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The DNA testing thing is not appropriate as a second topic.

Can I make a suggestion? Either edit the article directly and I will then give you direct feedback by what I remove or add, or leave your drafts in your userspace and just linking to it for comments This continually posting of proposed texts and then changing them here is not really the way talkpages are supposed to be used, and makes it very difficult to follow. --Slp1 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is where issues can be hashed so they don't make it to the front page in the first place. Posting up an article so it can be edited with Wikipedia:Patent nonsense doesn't solve anything. Lets get those problems smoothed out here so we have a good article to post up. After any issuses are fixed we can sub-page or remove the chat to clear up the talk page once the article is finished, that's no problem. :) --West Horizon (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Today's edits

Today I have begun systematic check through this article. I have been very concerned to find multiple sentences that were not supported by the references that followed them. I have found that rather than use the authors' own summary and conclusions from a review article, statistics about incidence have been cherry picked to highlight one particular perspective. I have also noted an excessive focus on DNA testing which, as noted above, is only tangentially related to this topic, and have removed this. I will continue to check the sources and add more material in the next little while. --Slp1 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide paternity fraud examples of cases that do not include DNA testing. --West Horizon (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

DNA testing is considered "new evidence" for retrial, DNA testing is also the basis for a Paternity Fraud Cause of action under family law, DNA testing is the basis for new laws and regulations concerning paternity fraud in several countries already cited on the main page. Please explain DNA testing is "only tangentially related". --West Horizon (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

DNA testing needs to be mentioned, and it currently is. WP is not a how-to manual, and the focus of this article needs to be about paternity fraud, not about, for example, rules and regulations about when and where and how such tests can be ordered (most of which was, in any case, totally unsupported by the references you gave). --Slp1 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason given for deleting the summary description:

"Paternity Fraud is a legal grey area where DNA testing provides the Fact of paternity in Civil or Common Law systems that base issues of paternity as Presumptions.

from the top of the page was,

"remove all this info about DNA testing, from the lead"

when the sentence is clearly about presumptions under common law.

How is that surmation a "How-to-manual" on how to commit paternity fraud? I am not seeing how that is too focused on rules and regulations. Why exactly was the entire sentence removed? Can someone please post up precedent cases of paternity fraud that do not involve legal presumptions of paternity?

What legal sources are being cited to support the opinon that New Evidence under trial law is "only tangentially related" to the case it instigated in the first place? --West Horizon (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's start at the top. Can you provide a reliable source that states that "Paternity Fraud is a legal grey area"? Remember that per WP:V and WP:OR, the source has to be reliable, and needs to verify this specific information exactly. Combinations of citations to make a single point, including links to laws and dictionary definitions are not allowed WP:SYNTH --Slp1 (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A grey area, meaing an area of uncertainty. It could be worded as such instead of "grey area" if that is too vague of wording or simply called a cause of action. If you have a better suggestion for rewording then post it up.

As a general surmmation under the WP:LEDE policy posted above where exactly does it conflict?

The following would apply to everything so far that needs to be summed up in the page introduction as a general consensus of editors unless someone would like to post examples of paternity fraud that do not apply to them. West Horizon (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone please cite examples of Paternity Fraud cases that do not include a willful deception? -- West Horizon (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Please provide paternity fraud examples of cases that do not include DNA testing. -- West Horizon (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone please post up precedent cases of paternity fraud that do not involve legal presumptions of paternity? -- West Horizon (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• What legal sources are being cited to support the opinon that New Evidence under trial law is "only tangentially related" to the case it instigated in the first place? -- West Horizon (talk) (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

West Horizon. This is getting frustrating. I did not ask you what "grey area" means. I asked you to provide a citation to a reliable secondary source supporting your preferred text, that "Paternity Fraud is a legal grey area". You haven't. So I presume at this point that you can't. Your point about WP:LEDE is irrelevant, because nowhere in the body of the article is there a citation for anything similar to this either.

Instead, you have repeated a whole bunch of questions that you would know the answers to if you had read the policy and guideline pages that I have pointed out to you over and over again. Let me say it again in a different way. This encyclopedia is not the place for you or any editor to engage in original unpublished research and synthesis. Your questions and requests for legal sources and precedent cases show that you have not understood this. You need to find reliable secondary sources that make precisely the point you cite them for. For example, if you want to say that paternity fraud is a legal grey area then you need to find a source that says this. WP editors do not research primary sources such as legal decisions and make judgements about the status of paternity fraud and DNA testing, or wilful deceptions, or grey areas (or whatever) based on their analysis of them. Articles are written primarily from reliable secondary sources, preferably scholarly sources about paternity fraud (or synonyms such as misattributed paternity/non-paternal events) such as the ones you have just deleted and I have restored.[14][15].Slp1 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words you have no better wording than a cause of action to replace "grey area" with. We will put that up then as a happy middle ground.

Slp1 posted up the WP:LEDE above in the first place. The surmmation guideline clearly says that the page introduction should also include any prominent controversies. The edit reason then given for deleting the controversy section by the same person is

I don't even know why this is here

So I am at a loss to even begin rewritting it to satisfy all parties. I put that back in for now also.

Many contributions to the main page have been deleted for no other reason that "Reference does not mention paternity fraud", I am simply following the example as presented. What citations or reference are you using to support the opinion that non-paternity event is somehow the same thing as a cause of action for fraud proceedings? --West Horizon (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits today

I have removed today as original research a whole section about types and causes; none of the citations mention anything about the items listed being "types and causes" of paternity fraud; many of the citations did not mention paternity fraud or any of its synonyms and one seemed to be about a completely different issue. T whole section appears to be an editor's original research about the matter, but some of the references, listed here, may be useful for the article. [16][url=http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/01/news/adna-paternity1 [17] I have also removed this sentence; In 2012 the Iowa Supreme Court in ruling to allow a paternity fraud tort to proceed opined that allowing such litigation would help deter these types of cases and fit comfortably within the traditional boundaries of fraud law. [18] once again the reference may be useful, but a state level decision simply allowing an appeal to allow the case to proceed, is not really notable in the general scheme of things. I'll also note that in this case, as in others, there appears to be some cherry picking of material. The reference cited mentions that at least one other states have actually refused to allow these claims as being too harmful the children. --Slp1 (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"...legal cause of action..."

If this article is going to restrictively define Paternity fraud to be limited to the tiny, infinitesimal number of cases where it is legally actionable, those promoting such verbiage need to come up with an authoritative source to support that language. Without such an authority, I offer that "paternity fraud" encompasses any instance wherein a mother knowing misrepresents the paternity of a child in order to gain some sort of tangible benefit. Belchfire-TALK 05:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your wording is Tangible benefit is itself too general. For instance, using Mr. A v. Ms. B from the main page cases as an example, Holidays and Meals were refunded spent on the mother as fraud. The same spent on the child, which would be a "tangible benefit", was found not to be.

Dier v. Peters uses the cause of action wording and does a good job of explaining it by usage. It is not on the main page as an Iowa example because it is still in the courts as of this post. A Cause of action is already summary wording, not restrictive, from within the law describing any set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue. LAW DICTIONARY 1 . 2 . 3 . 4

The main point of the definition as written for paternity fraud is presumptions within common law systems. Other legal systems treat paternity as FACT. YOU ARE THE PARENT by law. All the DNA tests in the world cannot change that because by law you are already established as a parent. Common law systems treat paternity as presumptions, which creates a grey area of uncertainty when confronted with the FACT of DNA testing showing a person is not a parent. That grey area is the wiggle room for this area of fraud law in these systems. Other systems do not have this area because paternity is a fact, not a presumption.

Maybe that is the confusion? Paternity Fraud an AREA of fraud law, not simply two words describing one single event or thing.

"Grey Area" was used before, meaning a general uncertainty, but the entire section was deleted by an editor because it was too vague of a summation or there was no reference specifically using the wording "grey area". Cause of action is the best suggested so far. Personally I prefer "grey area" because not every country uses the same language. A judge or magistrate? A High Court or Supreme Court? A lawyer or barrister? etc... same thing, different wording. But if the choice is deleted or a cause of action, well there we go.

Tort might be applicable to a majority of examples but still does not encompass all. Tort already says "cause of action" because that is what you use to file a Tort case with in the first place, so it goes unsaid, being redundant to say both. I would say no however since general knowledge of judicial procedure just isn't as general as it would need to be to use the Tort wording.

But I can still re-write it as Tort if editors prefer. This would need a great deal of expansion of the page however to explain contradictions because not all cases are Tort. What was there doing that before was already deleted as being a "how to manual" once, as "too specific" another time, and finally as not being "global". Also some paternity fraud cases cross over to Criminal courts which is not Tort or civil (family) court. The paragraph describing crossing jurisdictions with Criminal courts was also deleted. "Cause of Action" does not have these Tort conflicts as a definition.

From the main page, Hodge v. Craig uses the wording "action", which is the same thing. Parker v. Parker notes DNA is considered "new evidence", which also says a "cause of action" for a Tort without the specific wording or need to say so. County of Los Angeles v. Navarro a precedent ruling is another way of saying a "cause of action", the action used to base a Tort on.

An example from recent changes resulting directly from paternity fraud litigation would be the United Kingdom. By law a DNA test is considered a cause of action, it does not use that exact wording but it doesn't have to. The changes to U.K. laws resulting directly from paternity fraud litigation was going to start a "Reform" section or go into the "Controversy" section, but that was deleted to support a merge proposal so has not been put in yet. Florida in 2006, already on the main page, same thing.

QUOTE If this article is going to restrictively define Paternity fraud to be limited to the tiny, infinitesimal number of cases where it is legally actionable, those promoting such verbiage need to come up with an authoritative source to support that language. Belchfire-TALK 05:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC) END QUOTE

This is half wrong. Defining it as a cause of action, yes, applies.

Nowhere on the main page does it say "legally actionable", or a pursuable legal recourse as an overall definition. Many places ban paternity as a cause of action, as noted above most countries do, but it is still defined as a cause of action, one that is not allowed.

Defining it as a cause of action and claiming the legality or permissibility of it are two different things. --West Horizon (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Are 0.2% and 10-19% both referring to the same number of cases in different contexts?

"A 2008 study in the United Kingdom found that fathers were wrongly identified in 0.2% of the cases processed by the Child Support Agency. Of those resolved with DNA testing between 2004 and 2008 between 10 and 19% of mothers had named the wrong father; none of the women were prosecuted.[3]"

The phrasing here is a little unclear, at least to me. At first glance it looks like the two are referring to distinct figures with confusingly similar descriptions.. But the source, if I understand correctly, says that both figures refer to the same set of cases, that the wrongly identified 0.2% of total cases processed also makes up 10-19% of those cases resolved by DNA evidence.

At this point I don't even care what the Wikipedia article says-- I just want to know if my attempts at comprehending the source actually succeeded or not. (It's like 5 a.m. and I can't even remember how I got here...) 174.55.184.14 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation and have edited the article accordingly.

I also replaced the claim "Research published in 2016 indicated that one in 50 British fathers is unknowingly raising a child who is the biological child of another man, and that misattributed paternity is rarer than commonly believed." This is cited to a Telegraph article, and it matches what the headline says, but the body of the article says "up to 2%", and the "British" angle seems to have been invented by the Telegraph - the original study isn't specifically about Britain. I've replaced this with a link to the study and edited to better reflect the range of "1%-2%" mentioned in that study. 122.105.102.26 (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't Paternity Testing Invalidate All of This?

I read about the concept just now, came here to read about it and am left with the feeling that the whole concept is fabricated nonsense, manufactured to create the illusion of victimization in order to further the agenda of the "men's rights" movement. The whole question ought to be able to be settled by a paternity test. Given that, what's the problem? And since the concept seems completely invalid then the article's verbosity seems entirely fabricated as well, as if it is being used to advance the agenda mentioned earlier. If I'm wrong can someone please explain otherwise why does this article exist in it's present form instead of some kind of retrospective describing how things used to be prior to the advent of the paternity test.Jonny Quick (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

--- If you read the article, it describes the vast majority of court cases as dismissing the father's claims even if he has DNA evidence that he is not the father. Also, many defrauded fathers are unaware of the fraud, since few of them do a DNA test, so the problem is still widespread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.202.187.241 (talk) 12:49, 08:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Paternity fraud must be examined in it's historical or "temporal", and it's geographical connection. By the common sense, there are more misindentied fathers when 1) contraception is either economically or socially difficult to aquire for couples 2) abortion is restricted 3) DNA tests are not accepted as a legal reason to get off the burden off the faterhood

In short, all depends on the actual conditions in the choosen country. Current article has some shortcomings as it refers only to studies for liberal and developed countries. For the "criticism" I either write a new section here or edit the actual text. --J. Sketter (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Motives

I miss a section on possible motives: 1. Maintain relationship with husband/long term partner and avoid penalty for infidelity 2. Gather more child support money 3. Secure citizenship of the alleged father for the child, when it is awarded by ius sanguinis 4. Make it possible for alleged father to apply for a visa/residence permit based on the child 5. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.51.21.83 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Critisism

As so often some editors like to debate for the joy of debating. Before my edit article said: " Lyn Turner says that the concept of paternity fraud is about the "demonization of mothers"
Whereas the source says: "It [the sourced article] also locates cohabitating paternity in a broader discursive context that has seen an unparalleled demonization of mothers as potential perpetrators of ‘paternity fraud’"

Here you do find a term in the text, yes, but not the claimed connection. --J. Sketter (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you do not remove cited content based only on reading the abstract. If you do not have access to the article, try asking at WP:REX or just ask on the article talk page for clarification before removing the content. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyway the most relevant part in the cited article seem to be:

However, despite the apparent acceptability of living together, getting pregnant was seen, particularly by the paternal families and friends, to be akin to a deliberate entrapment of the man into fatherhood with the purpose of ‘trying to get money out of him’. These responses reflect the public uptake of the discourse of ‘paternity fraud’ and its demonization of mothers (Turney, 2005a) and also the attitude held by men in the study by Whitehead and Popenoe (2002). Once the suspicion of being untruthful about paternity was cast on them, women found themselves having to defend their morality and veracity both to acquaintances and people who mattered to them.

To some extent also

The marketing strategy relies heavily on a moral outrage about high levels of non-paternity in families, which is attributed to elevated levels of infidelity among mothers who wrongly accuse men of paternity for financial gain.3 This has been referred to as ‘paternity fraud’ with the term encapsulating a deeply gendered account of maternal infidelity, betrayal and corruption that has been underpinned by a small number of high profile court cases, such as the Magill v. Magill case in Australia (2002; 2005; 2006)

and

The marketing strategy for direct-to-consumer paternity tests has relied on the fallacious premise that ‘paternity fraud’ is common and that men need a paternity test to prove paternity because mothers cannot be trusted to be truthful about it.5 ‘Peace of mind’ tests are therefore the right of fathers in any circumstance and mothers, if they have nothing to hide, should not be bothered by this. This thinking is endorsed within an adversarial legal context where the disproportionate burden of proof of paternity is borne by the mother.

And frankly too much to quote. Our summary of what the article says seems fair enough to me. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No NPOV in Consequences section

The Consequences section is laughably biased in that it mainly addresses the consequences for children and mothers, and not for fathers, the actual direct victims:

Paternity fraud can have far-reaching consequences for families. According to Niccol D. Kording:

“Marriages, relationships and families end. Children are abandoned by the only fathers they ever knew. Fathers are bitter and fight to disown the nonbiological child. Children lose their sense of identity. And the damage cannot be undone“.

Bad things for the actual victim and everyone else:

• "Marriages, relationships and families end."
• "And the damage cannot be undone"

Bad thing (singular!) for the actual victim:

• "Fathers are bitter"

Bad things for everyone else:

• "Children are abandoned by the only fathers they ever knew."
• "Fathers are bitter and fight to disown the nonbiological child."
• "Children lose their sense of identity."

This is a callous disregard for the interests of fathers (and men), and the experience such fathers have. It ignores the mental health injuries and risks such a betrayal can have, and doesn't acknowledge how it disadvantages such fathers reproductively. It's made worse by the following Criticism section, which questions the validity of how those fathers react to being injured so, and again talks about what happens to the children. This reads like a misandrist, man-hating, man-eating woman wrote it.

Talking about what happens to people other than actual victims (fathers) in the case of paternity fraud is like talking about what happens to people other than actual victims (women) in the case of rape. It's fine to acknowledge secondary consequences as a minor point, but not a major point, and certainly not as the entire point.

The characterization of fathers' reaction to being cuckolded as being "bitter" is grotesque and psychotic. The implication that being bitter is what's bad for fathers, not what they're bitter about, is deplorable.

Hotpine (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hotline: honestly I think that section should be removed altogether until it's replaced with "consequences" and merely someone's opinion. Python Drink (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hotpine I think we need to add more references and information on the general effects of paternity fraud, both for the men and others. And as Python said, not exclusive to one writer's non-neutral opinion. Panamitsu (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Scope of this article

What exactly is the scope of this article? It seems to deal with a concept mostly present in the discourse of men's rights activists, but largely absent from law.

The lede reads:

Paternity fraud, also known as misattributed paternity[1] or paternal discrepancy,[2] occurs when a man is incorrectly identified as the biological father of a child. The underlying assumption of "paternity fraud" is that the mother deliberately misidentified the biological father, while "misattributed paternity" may be accidental.[3] Paternity fraud is related to the historical understanding of adultery.

The concept of 'paternity fraud' as a deliberate fraudulent misrepresentation of the biological father by the mother has little translation into law, because in virtually all countries there is a legal presumption that if a child is born into marriage, the husband is the father. This can be later contested in court (laws vary significantly by country), but the fact that the contesting is successful and the original paternity is annulled, is not, in and of itself, a case of "fraud" (from a legal point of view), because there was no legal choice in the original registration of the child other than list the husband as a father. As for fraud, there is obviously no fraud if the mother told the husband from the beginning that he is not or might not be the father. The article also seems to confuse two different legal actions: one of determination/contesting of paternity which deals only with the child and their legal status and rights (such as relation to the father, entitlement to child support, inheritance, etc); and an action of fraud, where the man who was considered as father sues the mother under the claim that he was the victim of fraud. With regard to unmarried paternity, listing false information on the birth certificate is illegal, just like listing false information in any public document is, but this is not necessary a case of a woman victimizing a man the way this article implies. A man who puts himself on a birth certificate when he knows that he is not the father or might not be the father is equally responsible legally. The article seems to focus only on the mothers' behavior, for instance in the section on Finland it reads: "If a mother deliberately gives false information to the authorities, which contributes to the erroneous establishment of paternity, she may be fined." This is true, but the same is true for a father who gives false information to the authorities. Section 57 of the 2015 Paternity Act of Finland reads: – Perjury in a paternity case "(2) What is provided in subsection 1 applies correspondingly to a man who, in connection with the investigation of paternity, in his acknowledgement of paternity or in his acceptance of acknowledgement deliberately gives false information to the authorities, which contributes to the erroneous establishment of paternity." The section on Finland should not even be in the article, because it does not deal with "paternity fraud". The law, the 2015 Paternity Act, deals with how paternity is established (inside and outside of marriage; the former is established by rebuttable presumption), and how it can be annulled (by joint request of the parents that the child supervisor investigate paternity, or by court application by mother, legal father, or potential biological father). It does not deal with "fraud". Same with the section on Switzerland, it is about a case of a man who initiated an action to contest paternity but was rejected by the court because the statute of limitations had expired. The whole article seems to have developed as a POV fork from paternity related articles. It really needs to be rewritten, if not merged. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C652 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

No NPOV of the criticism section

This section does not appear to be neutral. I say this because rather than criticism of the concept, statistics, etc, the concept is demonized.

I'm especially referencing this sentence:

Lyn Turney says that the concept of paternity fraud is about the "demonization of mothers".

Panamitsu (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Jacobs source (2004) covers another side of this. It may be useful to include it in the criticism section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Source for definition

I thought it looked funny that the deception had to be "by the mother" to count as fraud (why couldn't a custodial grandparent etc. seek child support?) so I read the source cited for the definition. Short version, the 2004 B Jacobs M paper "When Daddy doesn't want to be a daddy any more" says almost the opposite of what is listed in the lede: The author uses the term "fraud" even for cases in which the mother does not deliberately deceive the father and specifically does get into issues of mixups with artificial insemination and in vitro. At most, there is one footnote that mentions that Vermont had "introduced legislation" about paternity fraud and the description of that legislation had something like "by the mother" in it, but the paper did not say whether the legislation passed or used that wording in its final form.

The paper struck me as a good source, so I moved it to the section on U.S. cases (it gives examples of many). We will need to find a different source for the definition of this term. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)