I think DNA should be done at all hospitals when a baby is born what do you think?

Question

When a child is born I believe that DNA should be done . This would stop the adoption agencys from being able to steal children from birth fathers and if the mother decided not to tell who the father was. And the man finds out she put the child up for adoption then he could ask the court to do the DNA from the hospital. I beleive it would save alot of time in the courts and waiting to get the child tested.

Answer 1

I think there should be DNA testing so they can identify people in criminal cases. I also think they should store baby's fingerprints on file

Answer 2

hmmm.  what about fathers of babies who are married to the mother or not married and want to parent?  i think just to demand DNA testing to ensure that birthfathers are not overlooked in the adoption plan isn't going to do much to combat the issue you state. especially since most babies born do not get placed for adoption.

i do believe, however, that some serious adoption reform is needed to include birthfathers in the loop. i'm just not sure that this is the best approach.

regards.

Answer 3

In contested adoptions, it should be the first priority.  I have seen a case in Georgia where it was drug out over a year. Last I heard that case still hadn't been settled.  They were supposed to be doing a DNA test in August.  

The maternal grandmother in that case pushed for that adoption.  Ricky Watters, the football player and his wife were supposed to be adopting this child.  The young father put his name on both Georgia and Florida's state registry.  The agency was going to have the father charged with statuatory rape in order to get him to relinquish his child.  The attorney is that case was Patricia Stowbridge.  Real piece of work that one is.  She has violated the rights of many natural parents.  Ricky Watters and his wife returned the child.   I believe another attorney, Jeanne Tate, lost her case against a natural father in the Florida Supreme Court here a few months ago.

Answer 4

Who will pay the price, taxpayers of mothers and children on Medicaid.  No thanks.  If you have unprotected s*x with a women and do not stay in her life long enough to find out if she is pregnant, why should John Q. Public pick up the cost of a DNA test, we are already picking up the cost of the medical care.

Answer 5

Do you mean that all babies should be tested for DNA, or that only babies that are being adopted should be DNA tested?

One major problem to that is that you can't force someone to give birth at a hospital.  More and more babies are being at home.  

Another problem is, in cases where donor sperm is being used (for cases of fertility problems) sometimes the parents of the baby don't want their family to know that they had used donor sperm.  

And, most babies are not born on Medicaid, and even if they were, you are proposing more tax payer money being used unnecessarily in MOST cases.   As a future adoptive parent, I wouldn't want to adopt a baby unless I was 700% sure that the baby's biological mother AND father weren't 700% sure that this is the right decision for them.  

However, we don't plan on adopting an infant domestically, unless through the foster care system because of cases like this.  We plan on adopting a child who needs a home, not one who a million other couples are fighting for.

Answer 6

Who would pay for it? I don't want to pay higher taxes so we can determine who the father is for thousands and thousands of children born each year. If you need a DNA test, you need to pay for that DNA test.  Not to mention, what if there are several possible fathers, or what if the father...or several of the potential fathers refuse the test, then you would need a court order.

The cost to implement something like that would be enormous, and it's something that is not everyone's responsibility to foot the bill for. It's one of those services that if you need it, you pay for it. If the birth father is unknown, a mother can put the child up for adoption, there is just a longer waiting period before it becomes official. I'm sure there are guys that are upset when they find out that a child that was potentially theirs was put up for adoption, but they are the minority, the majority of guys who are having s*x with women who might not be able to figure out who daddy is probably aren't going to care that they played a part in bringing a child into the world.

Answer 7

A dna test doesn't do anything if you don't have a perosn to match it with.  Women are still allowed to give their children up for adoption if they say they don't know who the father is so what good would it do.  Have you ever seen those shows where a girl tests 7 different men and still doesn't know who the father is?  So the hospital taking the baby's dna is not going to do anythin until you have a person who is actually the father in the room.  And personally, I don't want my government paying for dna tests because dumb women can't keep their legs shut and don't know who their baby's father is.  That's not my problem.

Answer 8

It is an intesting idea.

It creates problems though.  How long would the birth father have before his right to claim is gone.  1 month...1 year..when ever he finds out?  This would be devastaing to a child to be tken from the only home he has known and given to a stranger, evenif it is the birth father.

A better idea to prevent birth fathers from being separated from their children is to avoid having s*x with women casually  Even better, marry the women then you do have a legal claim on the child.

Answer 9

I feel it should be mandatory to have DNA taken when born and set up a DNA database, like they have for fingerprints.

Answer 10

I think that would cost a lot of money for something that could rarely happen.  If a father thinks he is a father and questions it he can always ask for a dna test himself and pay for it, otherwise it is really not an issue.

Answer 11

YES YOU R RITE.....I AGREE

Answer 12

it would cost but i think so

Answer 13

There is a problem with your theory.  Where do you stop?  With genetic testing, you can check for possible future illness, developmental problems, etc.  Then do you treat the infant for a disease that he doesn't have yet or might not get.  You can open up a new can of worms without even trying.

The other problem is siblings and twins share a lot of the same DNA (in the case of identical twins) they may share it all.  So no I don't agree.