Denying paternity, proven wrong, and then denied visitation

[ShyGuyInChicago]

If a man denies fathering a child and his proven wrong, should he be given a chance to prove he can be a good father or should he not be allowed to see the child? Why or why not?

I ask this question because (a long time ago) I was watching a clip of Maury on YouTube where a man has denied his four year old son because he claims he only makes girls. I read a comment from a woman saying this:

she shouldve been praying that he wasnt the father i wouldnt want nobody around my child that makes dumb ass? excuses like "i cant make boys"

and this response to the above comment:

"I'd say: I'll prove you're the father? and when the results come out and proves you are, i dont wanna see you no more, youre not gonna get to see your son and youll be sorry for the rest of your life"

I also read this on Yahoo Answers

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj1yYR05PnMOQE78Esq4pQEjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20061205080256AA2JwwY

"Should there be legal consequences for men who deny paternity of their child and proven wrong?
I will admit that I may be influenced somewhat by the Maury show, but I think that subjecting their wives or girlfriends (not to mention the children) to that kind of grief through no fault of their own is EXTREMELY ABUSIVE, and it is sickening for such women to forgive and forget and allow the father to be in the child's life.

While this has never happened to me, I can assure you that I WOULD SEE TO IT that any man ever denied my child's paternity would NEVER, EVER see that child again. Forget the DNA test. Let him wonder for the rest of his miserable life. A child deserves better in life than a father who doesn't love him or her, and is better off being fatherless."

"Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

I agree that there should be legal consequences beyond child support -- Just as you said, there should be a FORFEITURE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS to the child, even if proven to be the father.

That would deter men to deny paternity on a whim, and the perfect justice for any wronged woman.

Some may say that this may not be in the best interest of a child. I beg to differ. Most of the psychiatric problems we have in our society are rooted in parental rejection, more times than not, by fathers. It is better to tell the child that his/her father died, and discourage further questions."

"I agree with you 100%. This is the same advice that I gave to a close friend of mine 6 years ago, and she is pleased to have stuck to it. She now has a great husband who loves her and her boy and raises him as his own and they don't have to worry about being involved with that loser anymore."

In my opinion if a man denies fathering a child and is proven wrong he should be given a chance to be a father to his child and a chance to do everything a father is supposed to do.

[Korashk]

This topic is ridiculous, and you should really edit the OP to make it more readable and link us to the yahoo answers page.

With that said, no. There should be absolutely no legal penalty for denying paternity.

[Cosmic]

This topic is ridiculous, and you should really edit the OP to make it more readable and link us to the yahoo answers page.

With that said, no. There should be absolutely no legal penalty for denying paternity.

Your contribution means little if you don't reason it.

As far as I can tell, I think we can imply by the nature of denying being a father, that the individual does not want to be the father. The question is then this: Who is the most important within this situation, and thus who should be prioritised... The father, the mother, or the child?

If the father is determined the most important, then the option should be given to allow him into the child's life, should he decide he wants to. However, I would argue that the father is not the most important person in this situation.

If the mother is the most important, it would perhaps be expected that she decides whether the father is expected to play a role in this child's life, depending on her needs and how self-sufficient she would be should there not be a second adult at that time to help her in the raising of a child (keep in mind that whilst there is the potential for a new partner, it is not a guarantee - so consideration should only be given to her current situation). This, I would say, is a more plausible consideration than that of the father, because the mother is inevitably tied to the child.

However, I would argue that it is the child that is most important in this situation, because if we take parenthood to be a role, an occupation as it were, the parents are there to fulfil the needs of the child and ensure that the child receives the best upbringing available; they have a responsibility to the child to fulfil this role; but it can not be dispassionate (in fact, research would suggest that dispassionate parenting is closer to abuse, and does not actually fulfil the child's needs by definition of dis-passion).

Given that the father is inevitably somewhat dispassionate towards the idea of a father role, one could argue that the father's presence within the child's life is in fact damaging to the child, and thus it should be argued that purely on the basis of ensuring the child receives a healthy upbringing, the father should be denied visitation. This conclusion, however, makes the rest redundant and a waste of time and money, with the only possible benefit to satisfy curiosity.

A counter argument to this, of course, might be that the child would be missing a parent and that in itself is arguably damaging, especially since we can not guarantee that given the chance, the father wouldn't rise to the role bestowed upon him. We can not determine, absolutely, that the father would not be a good influence on the child.

So, where does that lead us? To guesswork. This should be on a case-by-case basis, and pretty much has to rest on subjective foundation of the authority's ideal fatherly figure. Perhaps tests could be ran, training could be given, and support offered to the father to ensure his role within the child's life. Many would argue that this is undeserved; but I pose them this question - is vengeance a good reason to deny a child access to potentially useful experience and guidance?

[Korashk]

Your contribution means little if you don't reason it.
Okay, how about asking why there should be? Why should not believing that you're the father of someone's child and being wrong carry any legal penalties other than having to pay child support, which really isn't a penalty like was discussed in the OP.

The person on the yahoo answers page's argument relies on making the faulty assumption that denying that you're the father or not wanting too be a father initially means that you will be a dispassionate father and it would be better if they just weren't there. Logical fallacies abound.

[Cosmic]

Okay, how about asking why there should be? Why should not believing that you're the father of someone's child and being wrong carry any legal penalties other than having to pay child support, which really isn't a penalty like was discussed in the OP.

The person on the yahoo answers page's argument relies on making the faulty assumption that denying that you're the father or not wanting too be a father initially means that you will be a dispassionate father and it would be better if they just weren't there. Logical fallacies abound.

Well I addressed that question in my post...

[Jess]

He shouldn't be denied visitation unless...he's dangerous or something...like he raped a girl and she gives birth but he denies that he's the father..um :|

[Sith Lord 13]

Of course not. There's no reason to.