Praising Judy Turner twice in a week!
The Herald reports on a bill by United Future’s Judy Turner that will allow DNA testing of children for paternity tests. At present a parent can block such a test for a child under 16.
The Government doesn’t seem that keen on it, but the Law Commission backed such a move in 2005.
I would make the point that a court ordered DNA test should only be ordered, if agreement can not be obtained. It is a last resort, not a first resort. But it is important that they can be ordered when paternity is in doubt.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: DNA, Judy Turner, paternity tests, private members bills, United Future
March 20th, 2008 at 7:45 am
“The Government has said it will consider the issue, but is waiting for a Ministry of Justice review on the Law Commission’s report.”
The law Commission report no.82 titled Dispute Resolution in the Family Court was written in March 2003 and this is the first recommendation to be implemented! Or is it, as the Minister seeks another review? More bloody money down the drain. Has Mr Barker replied to the request from the United Nations after they were alerted to widespread unlawful male gender discrimination within the family court systems? No he hasn’t done a bloody thing, as the back tyre on his Harley has more brains than this drongo weed. I hope Judy can get support from National (Labour painted blue) but I won’t be holding my breath as Judith deadbeat dad Collins is waving the flag for the vicious feminazi’s. The Family Court is a sinister gravy train designed to alienate children from their parents and destroy all meaningful family bonds. DNA testing at birth is common sense, however, since when has New Zealand had any of that !! I pay child support for a child even though I am the legal guardian !! I do wonder what drongo Barker is going to do about the huge backlog of criminal cases? Oh, that’s right just let the criminals off and they can become MP’s in Aunty Helen’s red team or John Boy Walton’s blue team !!
March 20th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Well it’s usually clear who your Mum is…
This is a very good idea.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Dad:
I find the reference to JC’s late father repugnant. And I think that you would find Collins’ approach to these matters more complex than you describe if you could take a deep breath and look a little more calmly.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Excuse me idiot I was not referring to any family member belonging to Collins . I was making reference to her rants and raves about ” deadbeat dads” who take off to Australia and fail to pay child support. Don’t try and twist things snake. Collins, an ex Family Court lawyer and the National Party are like Labour , that is they don’t recognize unlawful gender discrimination in the Family Court. Nick Smith tried to highlight the injustice of the corrupt court, but look what happened to him.
Stop calling men “deadbeat dads” Judith !
March 20th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Why should not all babies be DNA registered at birth, all babies have a blood test now for genetic and other possible health problems.
Likewise all immigrants upon arrival ?
Whilst it will take generations it will surely be beneficial for the longer term future.
It will help identify overstayers quickly (even those with false documents), and other, rapidly increasingly, undesirable criminal elements.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Dad, These sorts of misunderstandings are more likely to occur when you engage in careless vituperation.
I can understand your frustration, but you must understand that politicians are timorous little beasties when it comes to taking a stand, and the febrile prose and other tactics that you use simply scares them off associating with any cause you are promoting.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:59 am
jafapete – talk later, must go as busy with a High Court Injunction. And, “misunderstanding” is not in my vocabulary dude.
The Family breakdown and anger issues are serious issues for our country at present.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:02 am
This is a great idea, personally I would go a lot further than that and have compulsory DNA testing for every person in NZ.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Following the Appeal Court decision in 2005 in T v S, the family court may make the court a guardian of the child to enable a DNA swab to be taken to determine paternity where this is in the best interests of the child. S was regarded as the father at birth but the mother T named another guy as the father to defeat S’s application for ‘access’ (now called ‘contact’). Mother had refused to allow a sample to be taken from the child but this was over-ruled as it was regarded to be in the best interests of a child to have a father who would take an interest in the child.
However a mother can still almost arbitarily name an ‘innocent’ man as the father who is then lumbered with maintenance payments. The woman can in such cases refuse on behalf of the child the taking of a DNA sample since it cannot be usually argued that it is in the best interests of the child. It is possible that factions within the feminist movement wish such a situation to remain, judging by Labour’s coolness on the private members bill.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I would say that peterwn is close to the truth. The woman is “always right” or it appears to be so in this country. This would be a step back for the feminist movement as some of the more bent amongst them would be called out.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Well done JudyTurner! It’s great to see United Future standing up for children and parents and this is exactly what this bill amounts to.
Rick Barker’s approach to this is what annoys me about the left in this country and in others. They would be unwilling to subject children to a simple cheek swab DNA test but would be happy if that meant that children couldn’t know their fathers and vice versa and that fathers could ignore their responsibilities to their children!
Another example of political correctness gone haywire – this kind of thing really doesn’t do Labour any favours.
Anyone know where National are on this issue?
March 20th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Only a mother can be aware of whether or not there is any doubt over paternity and this highlights how unfair advantage women have over men. Custody and access rights are always in the women’s favour. Radical feminists hate fathers and the Family Court is that anti dad forget filing a paternity application.
It is obviously unsatisfactory from a public policy point of view that women are able to commit paternity fraud without there being a civil remedy for the wronged father.
There is no duty of disclosure of personal matters relating to parental behaviours, which can be affairs or paternity deceit. The law is a cold ass, what does the Family Court know about personal morality! The law, as expressed by the High Court, is neither flexible nor modern enough to provide a remedy.
So it is up to Parliament. In the meantime, perhaps all husbands should have a chat to their wives.
A foolproof solution would be to introduce compulsory DNA testing before any application for child support is accepted.
Radical feminazi whores hate gender equality !!!!
Edit – Burn the bitches and witches !!
March 20th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Well done Judy Turner. It’s great to see United Future standing up for children and parents and this is exactly what this bill amounts to.
Rick Barker’s approach to this is what annoys me about the left in this country and in others. They would be unwilling to subject children to a simple cheek swab DNA test but would be happy if that meant that children couldn’t know their fathers and vice versa and that fathers could ignore their responsibilities to their children!
Another example of political correctness gone haywire – this kind of thing really doesn’t do Labour any favours.
Anyone know where National are on this issue?
March 20th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
National hate the Family as well. They helped Sue Bradford install fear within all parents with the anti -smacking bill.
Are National going to start a Ministry of Mens affairs ? Pigs will fly !!
March 20th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
More to the point, will National cut out all those little bureaucrats writing reports and planning their next assault on D4J and all the other fathers and potential fathers in the nation? Soothing noises from John Key about no-one loosing their jobs…….? BLEEAH.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I would certainly be in favour of court-ordered paternity tests where this is in doubt. This is sorely needed by many fathers (and some men who aren’t actually fathers) I expect.
However I would be completely opposed to compulsory testing of all children and immigrants, like some posters have been suggesting. This smacks too heavily of big brother style socialism to me. The database could be used for too many purposes, some of which may not be desirable. Proposing compulsory testing of all children is a complete overreaction to the issue. The paternity of most children is not in doubt, DNA tests are only required for the few cases where women have been sleeping around (or are very dishonest and claim they have been).
Best advice – stay away from loose or dishonest women, avoid putting yourself in this situation! If you end up in it, DNA testing is an excellent tool to help fix up the mess.
Well done UF for bringing this one up.