birth cert

[strongbus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maine

Ok long story short back in 98 I was in a relationship(never married) that produced a child. Both me and the mother where young and inexperenced. We had split up before the child was born. Mother went to another state, she didn't put me on BC because as i was told by her faimly still up here that she was going on state aid in that state and didn't want them coming after me for money. I tryed a few times to find and get to know my daughter but never got close to finding the right info to get in tuch with her.

Got a call other day. Seems my ex is moving back to Maine and my daughter wants to see her daddy.

I know that if my ex don't wana admit that i am the father that i would have to get a court ordered dna test. But if the mother is willing to admit that yes i am the father is the just some paper work with the courts that would just be filled out and oked with a judge that would work just fine.(please note I would have no issue with paying CS at all as it would be my duty as a father to help support my daughter).

 

[stealth2]

Well, it would help if you asked a question, but...

You'd be foolish to not get a DNA test.

 

[strongbus]

my question is beside the dna testing is there another way if mother admits that i am the father for my name to get on the BC

 

[stealth2]

No. But you would be foolish to not have a DNA test.

 

[CourtClerk]

No.

I'm not sure the answer to that question is a flat out no...

However, it would depend on what state the child was born in.

 

[stealth2]

I'm not sure the answer to that question is a flat out no...

After 12 years?

 

[CourtClerk]

After 12 years?

If this child was born where I currently live....

absolutely. Without a court order, with the consent of both parents.

 

[stealth2]

If this child was born where I currently live....

absolutely. Without a court order, with the consent of both parents.

Aaaah... I read it as if mother does NOT admit he's Dad. He'd still be a fool to not get a DNA test. IMO.

 

[Wife_in_Dark]

I think I see both sides ...

Aaaah... I read it as if mother does NOT admit he's Dad. He'd still be a fool to not get a DNA test. IMO.

Every US child born since 2000 in a hospital has had their DNA pulled (Big Brother), but this guy night not be thrilled about having _his_ DNA on file, guilty or innocent .

On the other hand, just because this guy thinks the little girl is his, she may not be, and before paying child support, he should get DNA done. It's only $50 each to swab Dad's and Daughter's cheeks, and send in for a private test. Good compromise. If it comes back that she _is_ his daughter, and Mom is all happy to say so too, sign the BCert and don't give his DNA to Big Brother.

One more warning. Once he admits to being the dad, don't be surprised if the state that supported the girl for all these years doesn't hunt him down for BACK SUPPORT.

 

[stealth2]

Every US child born since 2000 in a hospital has had their DNA pulled (Big Brother), but this guy night not be thrilled about having _his_ DNA on file, guilty or innocent .

I'd like to see proof of that.

(btw - this child was born in 1998/9.)

 

[WittyUserName]

Every US child born since 2000 in a hospital has had their DNA pulled (Big Brother), but this guy night not be thrilled about having _his_ DNA on file, guilty or innocent .

On the other hand, just because this guy thinks the little girl is his, she may not be, and before paying child support, he should get DNA done. It's only $50 each to swab Dad's and Daughter's cheeks, and send in for a private test. Good compromise. If it comes back that she _is_ his daughter, and Mom is all happy to say so too, sign the BCert and don't give his DNA to Big Brother.

One more warning. Once he admits to being the dad, don't be surprised if the state that supported the girl for all these years doesn't hunt him down for BACK SUPPORT.

OP, the above is completely inaccurate information. Please feel free to disregard.

1) Hospitals do not routinely take DNA from infants.
2) Private DNA tests may or may not be admissible in court.

 

[Wife_in_Dark]

Yes, they DO!

OP, the above is completely inaccurate information. Please feel free to disregard.

1) Hospitals do not routinely take DNA from infants.

YOU are wrong! They DO keep the DNA!

States retain infant DNA after tests Local News The Free Press, Mankato, MN

"They learned U.S. newborns’ blood is routinely screened for genetic diseases, and that testing is mandated by the government, often without parents’ consent."

Brave New World of Infant DNA Data-Basing | The Barr Code

"Some states (California and North Carolina, among others) retain the DNA samples collected from newborns indefinitely, and other states keep them for up to 23 years. And while many states technically allow parents to refuse to have their newborn’s blood sample genetically tested, such “opt out” procedures rarely are made known to parents."

2) Private DNA tests may or may not be admissible in court.

It doesn't matter if the private, non Big Brother accessible, DNA test is admissible in court or not. $100, just to know what the truth really is ahead of time, is a lot cheaper than thousand$ and thousand$ in back support for a child that isn't HIS!!!

 

[stealth2]

YOU are wrong! They DO keep the DNA!

States retain infant DNA after tests Local News The Free Press, Mankato, MN

"They learned U.S. newborns’ blood is routinely screened for genetic diseases, and that testing is mandated by the government, often without parents’ consent."

Brave New World of Infant DNA Data-Basing | The Barr Code

"Some states (California and North Carolina, among others) retain the DNA samples collected from newborns indefinitely, and other states keep them for up to 23 years. And while many states technically allow parents to refuse to have their newborn’s blood sample genetically tested, such “opt out” procedures rarely are made known to parents."



It doesn't matter if the private, non Big Brother accessible, DNA test is admissible in court or not. $100, just to know what the truth really is ahead of time, is a lot cheaper than thousand$ and thousand$ in back support for a child that isn't HIS!!!

Lady? You are a whack job. Please provide statutes regarding your claims.

 

[CourtClerk]

Lady? You are a whack job. Please provide statutes regarding your claims.

Seems like the baby in this posters situation is going to be MUCH better off with the grandparents if she is representation of what's going on in the other side of the gene pool.

 

[Proserpina]

YOU are wrong! They DO keep the DNA!

States retain infant DNA after tests Local News The Free Press, Mankato, MN

"They learned U.S. newborns’ blood is routinely screened for genetic diseases, and that testing is mandated by the government, often without parents’ consent."

Brave New World of Infant DNA Data-Basing | The Barr Code

"Some states (California and North Carolina, among others) retain the DNA samples collected from newborns indefinitely, and other states keep them for up to 23 years. And while many states technically allow parents to refuse to have their newborn’s blood sample genetically tested, such “opt out” procedures rarely are made known to parents."



It doesn't matter if the private, non Big Brother accessible, DNA test is admissible in court or not. $100, just to know what the truth really is ahead of time, is a lot cheaper than thousand$ and thousand$ in back support for a child that isn't HIS!!!

I suggest you re-read your own article.....

...then come back and explain why it does NOT match what you originally said.