My husband took a "blood" paternity test 17 years ago which proved that 99.9% he was 'NOT' the father of the said child. Since the mother of the child, who used the welfare system to raise this child, doesn't know who the "real" father is and has to list a name in order to qualify for support from LA's welfare system, she moved to a different county and gave my husband's name as the father of her child (all the while knowing the tests proved he wasn't the father !) Now, with the child turning 18 years old this year, the courts want my husband to take a "DNA" test which is said to be much better than the simple blood test from 17 years ago! We've retained a lawyer to contest but the judge might forced him to take it anyway. Should we be concerned? Any advice?
2007-05-24 07:58:31 · 10 answers · asked by Singerofsongs 2 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
Why would you be concerned?
If he's not the father, there isn't a problem and she pays for the test and legal fees.
If he IS the father, then he deserves to pay for the child....no problem there either.
2007-05-24 08:03:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I certainly would fight it because they said 18 years ago he wasn't the Father of this child. They want someone to pay for all the years they were on welfare and I sure wouldn't be the one to do it. Either test is the same, blood or saliva. It's just now they are doing the saliva test mainly. Of course the judge could force him too, but they already have proved he isn't. I would hire a good lawyer who deals with this because if not he could get stuck paying the state back for 18 years. Good Luck
2007-05-24 15:04:11 · answer #2 · answered by Krinta 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the last blood test was done with any competence, you should be ok. DNA is more accurate than the old blood testing, but the old stuff was pretty accurate in ruling people out. You probably are better off getting a clear finding that he is not the father so that you might be able to avoid having to redo this yet again later. The test is simple and painless, although the legal process is not.
2007-05-24 15:34:53 · answer #3 · answered by buffsblg 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DNA is DNA whether its read from saliva or blood. Hes not the father. he should take the test so hes no responsible for paying the state support for this cihld.
He may be able to provide a copy of the test he took 17 years ago and be done with it.
2007-05-24 15:07:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There has been many advancements in DNA testing since your husband first took the test 17 years ago. He should take it again to make sure mistakes were not made the first time
2007-05-24 15:09:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well if you already know he is NOT the father then why doesnt he just take the test to get it over with. No sense in paying for a lawyer when you know he isnt the father. I like the easier route.
2007-05-24 15:02:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't be. There is a 1/1000 chance he is the father.
I am sure its a difficult process and very stressful, but just let things take their course. Show your husband that you support him and who you believe he is. It is sad that this child may never know who their father is, but unless your husband is that 1/1000, there is nothing you or your husband are obligated to do.
2007-05-24 15:16:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
why fight the test? if i remember correctly, "blood tests" of the past were simply typing test and based on the child vs man's blood type you could decide the father. take the damn test. if the results were correct the first time then they be correct this time.
2007-05-24 15:12:40 · answer #8 · answered by foghorn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't be too concerned, the blood test determines whether or not they have the same or compatible blood types, if it came back as 99.9% positive that he isn't the father that pretty much means that their blood isn't compatible.
2007-05-24 15:06:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if he took a test 17years ago the results will be the same this time, no need to worry or waste money for a lawyer
2007-05-24 15:05:36 · answer #10 · answered by JENNIFER C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋