Support NeoGAF

[Zog]

This section looks at current UK statute laws which either have a gender imbalance in the wording of the legislation, or which are significantly imbalanced in their application


Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953
When a child is not born within a marriage, inclusion of the father on the registration of birth (birth certificate) is entirely up to the mother (Section 10). A father may not register a birth of his own child.

Abortion Act 1968
The father has no right to take part in the decision to abort a foetus. The law states that the decision is taken by the mother and two medical practitioners.

Children Act 1989
The mother gets parental rights automatically, but the father, if unmarried, needs to acquire them in ways which require the mother’s consent.

Human Tissue Act 2004
Unless married or having parental rights, the father may not take a sample for a DNA test from a child without the mother’s consent. In other words: if the mother claims he is the father he has no right to check! This facilitates paternity fraud.

Sexual Offences Act 2003
Both rape and sexual assault are defined as offences done by a man. Rape is defined as penetration with a penis. ‘Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent‘ (Section 4) is therefore assumed to be male, despite there being numerous ways men can be coerced into sex.

Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 and Equalities Act 2010
Amends the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to specifically allow female-only election shortlists etc. It removes the law backing equality of opportunity and permits bias so long as it is “adopted for the purpose of reducing inequality in the numbers of men and women elected” .

Minister for Women and Equalities
The remit of the minister is to deal with discrimination, so, why ‘Women and Equalities’? Why not just ‘Minister for Equalities’?

Imbalanced legislation - Equi-law UK

UK laws which either have a gender imbalance in their wording or which are significantly imbalanced in their application.

equi-law.uk

What a sorry excuse for a patriarchy.

 

[Kenpachii]

So, if you are a girl. And you see a rich guy. You get pregnant from some random. Then say the dad is the rich guy. Then when the dad asks you to provide DNA proof. The girl refuses.

Does this make the rich guy now the dad of the kid and has to pay for it?

Or do i read it wrong.

 

[Zog]

So, if you are a girl. And you see a rich guy. You get pregnant from some random. Then say the dad is the rich guy. Then when the dad asks you to provide DNA proof. The girl refuses.

Does this make the rich guy now the dad of the kid and has to pay for it?

Or do i read it wrong.

That's how I read it too.

 

[Kadayi]

So, if you are a girl. And you see a rich guy. You get pregnant from some random. Then say the dad is the rich guy. Then when the dad asks you to provide DNA proof. The girl refuses.

Does this make the rich guy now the dad of the kid and has to pay for it?

Or do i read it wrong.

Not entirely. Basically, you couldn't take a sample under duress or without consent, but in the event, you disputed paternity, then it would be extremely unlikely that any payments would be awarded without confirmation that you are in fact the father.

 

[Zog]

Not entirely. Basically, you couldn't take a sample under duress or without consent, but in the event, you disputed paternity, then it would be extremely unlikely that any payments would be awarded without confirmation that you are in fact the father.

...so she could claim that Patrick Stewart is the father and he has no recourse unless she goes after child support?

The mother gets parental rights automatically, but the father, if unmarried, needs to acquire them in ways which require the mother’s consent.

This would seem to apply, he needs the mothers consent to get parental rights and without parental rights, he can't test for DNA without the mothers consent.

Unless married or having parental rights, the father may not take a sample for a DNA test from a child without the mother’s consent. In other words: if the mother claims he is the father he has no right to check! This facilitates paternity fraud.

Is the paternity fraud problem so bad that they keep it guarded to protect society? How is paternity fraud not straight up illegal?

 

[Kadayi]

...so she could claim that Patrick Stewart is the father and he has no recourse unless she goes after child support?

This would seem to apply, he needs the mothers consent to get parental rights and without parental rights, he can't test for DNA without the mothers consent.

The law cuts both ways. If say someone claimed that Prince Harry was the father of their child, not with the purpose of child support, but for the purpose of self-promotion etc, that would basically be slander in the eyes of the law and Prince Harry could dispute it. The onus would be on the claimant to support their assertions through evidence like DNA. Failure to do so would open them up to financial liabilities.

 

[Zog]

The law cuts both ways. If say someone claimed that Prince Harry was the father of their child, not with the purpose of child support, but for the purpose of self-promotion etc, that would basically be slander in the eyes of the law and Prince Harry could dispute it. The onus would be on the claimant to support their assertions through evidence like DNA. Failure to do so would open them up to financial liabilities.

Slander cuts both ways, not parental fraud. The law makes that a one way street.

 

[Afro Republican]

Summary:

Woman can't rape even though they do frequently, Fathers aren't really fathers and the mother and the government own their kid. If the Dad is not married he can be removed at anytime with no say. They can reject the father from the childs BC which mean the child may never know who their father is. Also a Legal change that allows bias if it's for "equality".

Why would you live there again?

 

[Kadayi]

Slander cuts both ways, not parental fraud. The law makes that a one way street.

Again, that's not how the law works. The inherent problem with non-legally aware people reading what they think is the law is they read something and see it as an absolute, whereas the reality is things are determined on a per case basis and the case law sets the precedent for how things are established in court going forward. Your original post isn't even linking to the full statute law (which is extremely in-depth), it's simply taking snippets of statute law and spinning an alarmist narrative out of them without any acknowledgement of the larger legal context they are set within.

 

[Zog]

Again, that's not how the law works. The inherent problem with non-legally aware people reading what they think is the law is they read something and see it as an absolute, whereas the reality is things are determined on a per case basis and the case law sets the precedent for how things are established in court going forward. Your original post isn't even linking to the full statute law (which is extremely in-depth), it's simply taking snippets of statute law and spinning an alarmist narrative out of them without any acknowledgement of the larger legal context they are set within.

I see, so you are going to fill us in and show us how it's really completely fair? I look forward to it.

 

[Kadayi]

I see, so you are going to fill us in and show us how it's really completely fair?

On what? You're referencing a site that's grasping at legal straws unrelated to actual paternity disputes (the human Tissue act 2004........) to sell you some narrative about how imbalanced the law is against men.

A simple google search: -

DNA testing in disputes over parentage

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) uses DNA testing if someone claims they aren’t a child’s parent. They interview the person named as the child’s parent and the parent caring for the child. CMS asks them and the child to take a DNA test.

www.nidirect.gov.uk

Sure the parent with care can refuse to have a child undertake a paternity test, but they're extremely unlikely to get a settlement agreed without it, and in the event that they are receiving any state benefits they will be docked accordingly.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060214044016/http://www.csa.gov.uk/pdf/english/leaflets/new/CSL110.pdf

Feel free to head down to your local Citizens Advice Bureau though, who will set you straight on any particulars regarding the law and procedures more fully in that regard.

 

[Zog]

On what? You're referencing a site that's grasping at legal straws unrelated to actual paternity disputes (the human Tissue act 2004........) to sell you some narrative about how imbalanced the law is against men.

A simple google search: -

DNA testing in disputes over parentage

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) uses DNA testing if someone claims they aren’t a child’s parent. They interview the person named as the child’s parent and the parent caring for the child. CMS asks them and the child to take a DNA test.

www.nidirect.gov.uk

Sure the parent with care can refuse to have a child undertake a paternity test, but they're extremely unlikely to get a settlement agreed without it, and in the event that they are receiving any state benefits they will be docked accordingly.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060214044016/http://www.csa.gov.uk/pdf/english/leaflets/new/CSL110.pdf

Feel free to head down to your local Citizens Advice Bureau though, who will set you straight on any particulars regarding the law and procedures more fully in that regard.

So paternity fraud is legal. Do you think it should be legal?

 

[Kadayi]

So paternity fraud is legal. Do you think it should be legal?

Dude, you just posted barely a minute after me. If you can't be fucked to even read what I wrote, as someone with a legal background, you're not worth my time and attention.

 

[Zog]

Dude, you just posted barely a minute after me. If you can't be fucked to even read what I wrote, as someone with a legal background, you're not worth my time and attention.

I read your post, I didn't click your link.

Do you think paternity fraud should be legal?

 

[Kadayi]

I read your post, I didn't click your link.

Then you have failed the test.

 

[Zog]

Then you have failed the test.

Your test? LOL.

Since you refuse to answer, I'll just assume that you are ok with paternity fraud being legal. Have a good day.

 

[Kadayi]

Since you refuse to answer, I'll just assume that you are ok with paternity fraud being legal. Have a good day.

Well if you bothered to read the links and educate yourself, you have got a better understanding of matters, but as is because you're apparently more inclined to take your legal advice from dodgy websites with an agenda rather than government ones that outline the facts in an impartial manner, there's no helping you it seems.

 

[Zog]

Well if you bothered to read the links and educate yourself, you have got a better understanding of matters, but as is because you're apparently more inclined to take your legal advice from dodgy websites with an agenda rather than government ones that outline the facts in an impartial manner, there's no helping you it seems.

Let me be clear, paternity fraud isn't just about child support. The fact that women can lie and then are allowed to refuse to provide the evidence to prove they have lied is the problem. Can they be compelled with a court order?

 

[Kadayi]

Let me be clear, paternity fraud isn't just about child support. The fact that women can lie and then are allowed to refuse to provide the evidence to prove they have lied is the problem. Can they be compelled with a court order?

There would have to be extremely compelling reasons for them to be able to refuse a DNA test of the child. That would be a matter of specific case law as regards any way a judgement could go, with regards to precedent (whether a court would accept or reject those reasons and compel them to undertake a DNA test). The onus would be on them as the parent with care to provide substantive evidence to support their claims against the father in the absence of a DNA test as a point of confirmation (photographic history of a relationship etc, physical likeness, etc etc).

 

[Zog]

There would have to be extremely compelling reasons for them to be able to refuse a DNA test of the child. That would be a matter of specific case law as regards any way a judgement could go, with regards to precedent (whether a court would accept or reject those reasons and compel them to undertake a DNA test). The onus would be on them as the parent with care to provide substantive evidence to support their claims against the father in the absence of a DNA test as a point of confirmation (photographic history of a relationship etc, physical likeness, etc etc).

Do you disagree with any of the other 6 things listed in the OP?

The onus would be on them as the parent with care to provide substantive evidence to support their claims against the father in the absence of a DNA test as a point of confirmation (photographic history of a relationship etc, physical likeness, etc etc).

Honeslty, the more I think about the bolded.... Isn't this like saying 'if she can trick him long enough to establish a relationship with the child, then her lie should be maintained?

 

[MiyazakiHatesKojima]

Imagine living in a country that embraces Big Brother mass surveillance and this utterly garbage legislation.

 

[Kadayi]

Do you disagree with any of the other 6 things listed in the OP?

I was originally just answering Kenpatchiis post and setting him straight on the particulars.

However given the nature of the site and how they're presenting things though, I'd say I'd take everything they've said at face value with a hefty pinch of legal scepticism, especially given as I pointed out how they're interpreting the law, whilst singularly failing to link to the actual legal articles themselves.

If you personally need advice as to your rights in a paternity case, go here https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk and find your local office. It's free and they deal with this sort of thing all the time and will point you in the right direction.

Honeslty, the more I think about the bolded.... Isn't this like saying 'if she can trick him long enough to establish a relationship with the child, then her lie should be maintained?

Should? If you honestly don't think a child is yours then dispute it and demand a DNA test to prove that you are. Unless the parent with care has an extremely compelling reason to refuse then it's highly unlikely that a court is going to award them a thing. As it stands paternity fraud is pretty low 1-2% which equates to around 1 in 50 children at most. The situations where people end up paying maintenance and then find out that they aren't the father, later on, are generally ones where the father never follows through and demands a DNA test at the time either because they're convinced the child is theirs, or they'd rather not face finding out they've been cuckolded because of the emotional cost. If you are day one 'that kid is not mine' you demand a DNA test.

 

[Ovek]

Fathers get royally fucked in the uk that why it now has a long sad history of Fathers rights movements and the formation of groups like Fathers 4 Justice.

As someone who works with kids in rather poor areas of the UK I’ve seen a judge gave sole custody of kids to their junkie/violent mother that went against the kids own wishes as they knew what their mother was like and didn’t want to be with her. Don’t get me wrong their dad wasn’t a saint be he genuinely loved his kids and would move heaven and earth for them. Have a fucking guess how that went not that long after? Yeah and where is that fucking asshole judge? Not picking up the fucking pieces of those kids lives I can tell you that.

And the sad thing is it happens all the time because the mother by default always gets parental rights.

The UK fails kids every day with god awful schools in the poorest areas, crap social services that are horrifically over worked and awful laws that tie judges hands or so they claim.