In most countries, including France, you are on the hook for child support if you named yourself as a parent. In France you may contest it by applying to court during the first five years, after that only a prosecutor can take the steps to revoke that status. Between the unfairness to make an adult pay for a child who isn't theirs and the unfairness to throw an innocent child into financial distress, protecting the child takes priority everywhere I know of.

>Between the unfairness to make an adult pay for a child who isn't theirs and the unfairness to throw an innocent child into financial distress, protecting the child takes priority everywhere I know of.

I wonder how would you react if you received a notification that half your paycheck will be henceforth withheld to support some random kid.

this comparison is not entirely fair, because in this scenario, the kid's mother did not deliver a grievous, unforgivable insult to you - which is the case with those poor souls who got scammed into paying child support for some whore's bastard whelp.

the state doesn't give a flying fuck about the child's 'financial distress'. the state simply doesn't want to support it.

That's where French law actually makes sense: after 5 years, it's your kid, even if not biologically, not a random kid. I don't think I would be chuffed, but I understand it's not the kid's fault, too, and I'm not so narcissistic as to think that them having my genes is so important. My anger at the mother should not reflect on the kid.

someone steals your car. five years later, the state legally transfers ownership to them.

does this also make sense to you? surely you are not so narcissistic to insist that it is still your property.

>after 5 years, it's your kid

no, it isn't. you got scammed.

>I don't think I would be chuffed

because you're just hypothesizing it, evaluating this scenario dispassionately, through the lens of emasculation brainwash you've been unwittingly subjected to your entire life.

I genuinely hope that you would feel differently if this situation had actually occurred to you.

A human being is not a car, and your reference to 'emasculation' is very worrying.

so, no objections if the state randomly selects you to pay child support for some completely random kid?

>your reference to 'emasculation' is very worrying.

your supposed willingness to raise (or at least financially support) a cheating, lying whore's bastard is even more worrying.

no man in his right mind would calmly accept that. not unless he's been conditioned to perceive traditional behavior - even something as fundamental as insisting on fidelity from their partner - as something passé. what is this if not emasculation?

This 'random kid' stuff is absurd. The child is five or older. For all these years you have been calling it 'my son' or 'my daughter', and it has been calling you 'papa' or 'dad'. You've changed its diapers, sang it to sleep, fed it, clothed it, played with it, taught it words, hugged it after a bad dream. You are its world.

If after all that time it turns out to be not genetically yours I'm sure that hurts. Probably hurts a lot, if it's a betrayal by your partner.

But to pretend that it is in any way the same thing as the government assigning you 'a completely random child' is an absurd hyperbole. Five+ years is a decently long time to be (or think to be) someones father, but for the child that is literally its whole life.

So tell me, if it turns out after 5 years your child isn't biologically yours, you would just abandon it? It's been a nice few years but now it's over, leave to buy cigaretes and never return? And you think remaining its father is the un-manly thing to do? That sounds completely insane to me.

my brother in Christ, people abandon their biological children all the time without anyone clutching their pearls about it.

>So tell me, if it turns out after 5 years your child isn't biologically yours, you would just abandon it?

you've been betrayed and deceived, and what are you going to do, turn the other fucking cheek? forgive the whore who got creampied by another man while in a relationship with you and raise her kid? that sounds completely insane to me. that sounds completely insane to any man in his right mind. no amount of scolding and conditioning will change how men feel about such things.

>my brother in Christ, people abandon their biological children all the time without anyone clutching their pearls about it

I'm pretty sure a father abndoning a child like that is one of the most taboo social nonos a human can commit I'm almost any culture? Where I am from in rural america physical vigilante violence is reserved for such types. So yes very pearl clutching

I hope you find peace.

>Between the unfairness of making an adult pay for a child who isn't theirs, and that of throwing an innocent child into financial distress

As others have stated above, this isn't really about protecting "family harmony" / "saving the child", it’s about cost.

If paternity tests were easily accessible, many men would easily contest child support and if successful, they would opt out. The state benefits from keeping paternity disputes out of court because it ensures that private individuals, rather than government welfare programs, remain responsible for child support.

If too many men successfully challenged paternity, the state would be forced to provide financial aid for more children, increasing costs. Restricting paternity tests shifts the burden away from taxpayers and onto unwitting fathers, all while claiming it’s about social stability.

I disagree here. Blood tests done at birth are done specifically for the benefit of the child (and with minimal risk to the child). A paternity test has no benefit for the child (it doesn't tell you who the father is, simply who the father isn't) and a ~1% risk of harm to the child.

The period immediately after birth is one of the most dangerous times for children, and we (should) specifically take action to protect them in a moment where they are at risk and have no agency. A paternity test would increase the risk of harm to the child (either through violence, deprivation, or neglect). We didn't even get to the subject of possible violence against the mother either, which is likely.

Wild comment. It may shock you to learn that men are actually people too.

If someone is a victim of the most cruel, hurtful, selfish, damaging fraud that I can possibly imagine, they have a right to know.

Your lack of empathy is genuinely astounding.

Let's stop interfering with violent wife-beaters too, shall we? After all, we wouldn't want to risk the guy getting hurt by the police during his arrest. And think of the poor children missing their daddy while he's locked up in jail!

The internet is truly a wild place. You can say something like "We shouldn't do mandatory paternity tests at birth because they bring no benefit to the child" and someone responds with "So you're saying we shouldn't stop wife beaters?"

No bitch, that's a whole different sentence. What the fuck are you talking about.

No chance, bucko.

The essence of your comment is that paternity testing should be avoided because there is no benefit to children and there is potential harm to women. Your focus was not on the mandatory nature of any such testing.

And I believe you understand my analogy in spite of your faux confusion and outrage.

That’s not even my argument though? I was very clear that specifically immediately post birth is a high risk time and that mandatory paternity tests at birth increase those risks with little to no benefit to anyone. I did not say anything about forcing a man to raise a child. You’re deliberately misreading my point to argue against a straw man.

Are you gaslighting? Your comment is just above, you can reread it as many times as I have trying to extract any other argument with as little success.

The benefit is to the "father", obviously, in confirming paternity or alerting him of infidelity and fraud. It's either peace of mind or potentially life-changing. The benefit is incalculable.

Your only arguments for why immediately post-birth is a poor time are that it would be convenient for everyone else (including the perpetrator of the fraud) if the victim was unaware and continued to be exploited for some time (how long? when would be a convenient time for the reveal?). That is outrageous.

A stronger argument in line with the "benefit of the child" thinking would be that slight domestic violence should no longer be grounds for divorce since divorce rarely benefits the child.

Which is obviously a crazy line of thinking, but so is "let's force a man to (financially) raise a child that isn't his".

That’s not even my argument though? I was very clear that specifically immediately post birth is a high risk time and that mandatory paternity tests at birth increase those risks with little to no benefit to anyone. I did not say anything about forcing a man to raise a child.

.. you do realize a paternity test can happen with just a cotton swab? And aside from that, they already get a heel prick / blood spot test to check for a bunch of things. Drawing a tiny bit of extra blood from that in no way presents any extra danger to the baby.

Wouldn't the marginal risk from the blood test be zero, since they do a little blood prick on their foot anyway?

Also, there's a second order effect you're ignoring: a mandated paternity test would change expectant mothers' behavior leading up to the birth. You wouldn't try to dupe someone if you knew you'd be found out. Or, if you weren't sure, you'd more likely be transparent.

> Wouldn't the marginal risk from the blood test be zero, since they do a little blood prick on their foot anyway?

The source of risk isn't performing the test, the source of risk is the father getting upset and killing the mother and/or child.

I did some looking, and it's so rare that there aren't any go-to statistics to cite. There are some reports of men committing murder after a paternity test, but it's unclear to me how what you're saying is anything more the speculation.

It might actually be that mandatory paternity tests reduces the background rate of familicide. All of the reports that I could find were only after the father had invested considerable time into raising the child as their own. The stakes of the deception are much higher. But if they know the day the baby is born (or earlier), then it's much easier to walk away. It also makes it pointless for the deception to happen in the first place.