Identical twins sued for paternity - woman screwed!

[BlooInBloo]

(sorry, couldn't help myself)

This is a toughy - I'm not certain there's much that can rightly - according to our laws - be done for the mother.


http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LegalCenter/story?id=3195632&page=1

"Twin brothers Raymon and Richard Miller are the father and uncle to a 3-year-old little girl. The problem is, they don't know which is which. Or who is who.

The identical Missouri twins say they were unknowingly having sex with the same woman. And according to the woman's testimony, she had sex with each man on the same day. Within hours of each other."

[rateyes]

1. They both should split child support. nt

[Frogger]

2. Why?

One of them isn't the father and owes nothing.

[uppityperson]

5. Why not?

Either could be, both had sex same period of time, why should only the lucky sperm donor be the one to be responsible? Either could be.

[Lex]

7. Exactly. We know a child was born so that's a given fact.

It's not like there is no responsibility there because there is in fact a child.

[pnwmom]

12. If she was deceiving them both, it could be that neither would

have had sex with her if they knew she was also doing it with the brother.

Should the deception, if it occurred, be factored into this?

[uppityperson]

No. Because they did.

[pnwmom]

26. Why should the brother who didn't impregnate her have to be

responsible for the pregnancy?

[Maru Kitteh]

219. Fine. If the twins can come to an agreement about who is responsible

then that brother can pay the support and let the other one off the hook.

Otherwise since they are equally accountable, their responsibility is shared.

[Bobbieo]

36. Maybe they were deceiving her.

[LisaL]

39. Then maybe it would have been in the article.

:eyes:

[noamnety]

52. Nope. The requirement to pay child support isn't negated

by either the mother or father dating someone else.

If you are married and have a brief fling with someone, and you and your spouse conceive a child, both parents are still responsible for contributing toward the child's upbringing.

[LisaL]

56. They weren't married.

[pnwmom]

91. Details, details.

Something tells me you actually read the whole article.

:think:

[noamnety]

97. Yes, I think it's obvious the three of them aren't married.

Didn't mean to imply otherwise - I was responding to the more abstract question posed. If a person conceives a child, then finds out their partner was seeing someone else without their knowledge, are they relieved of all child support obligations? The answer is no. Even in a most extreme case where there is clearly grounds for divorce (adultery), the answer is STILL no.

[trotsky]

165. Correct reasoning, lwfern.

Because the child's welfare must always come first. Yeah, it sucks, but this is at least one area in which our society tries to show some compassion to its children.

[Gormy Cuss]

138. No, because it's child support, not alimony.

The child deserves to be supported, period. If the three adults here acted like adults they'd work it out.

[LisaL]

21. If they weren't identical, the one who wasn't the lucky

father wouldn't be required to pay.
Doesn't seem fair to me that just because these men are twins, one of them is required to pay for a child that might not be his. On the other hand, life is not fair.
Since it's clear one of them is the father, maybe they should split it.

[ContraBass Black]

70. If the law states that the biological father is liable, and neither can be

Proven to be, then legally, they could be off the hook. The law is the only thing to go by.

What is the relevant law in this case?

[LisaL]

88. If you test their DNA, they both come up as biological fathers.

The problem is, only one of them is the father.

[murloc]

119. Same evidence exonerates them both as well

Since it implicates another man as father and as we know, nobody has 2 fathers.

[uppityperson]

126. insert joke about having no father

don't want to get religious people upset though

[murloc]

118. Why not? Because the law doesnt provide for it

Best you can get is 50% evidence of liability which doesnt even meet the standard of preponderance.

[Maru Kitteh]

223. Actually it does. The 50% evidence is your construct - based on your feelings

about the situation. The man named by the mother on the certificate tested positive for paternity. This satisfies the law and has done so repeatedly.

[BlooInBloo]

6. I guess (a) People are *certain* it wasn't the woman's decision to hook up with 2 twins...

... and (b) It's perfectly fine to hold people responsible for things they didn't do.

I don't know where either idea comes from, but I suspect it'll be all too common, if this thread takes off.

[uppityperson]

8. What didn't they do that they are being held responsible for?

and what does determining who pays child support have to do with anyone being "*certain* it wasn't the woman's decision to hook up with 2 twins" (which I haven't read here yet)

[BlooInBloo]

14. One of them didn't impregnate her. That one shouldn't be liable for anything paternal...

... I'd be curious to see an attempt to disagree with that conclusion, without ducking its premise.

[uppityperson]

22. Yup, only 1 sperm did it. Both played though

It is difficult, since 1 person's sperm made it into the egg and the other's didn't. Should someone be penalized, be held responsible because his sperm might not have been the one, because luck of the draw played into the other guys hand (so to speak)?

As a poster wrote below, split the support between the two. Both played, both can pay.

I have a friend that got into one of these "who's the dad" things, before dna was readily accessible. He decided that he didn't know, it could've been his sperm, could've been 1 of another 3 guys also. So, he said sure, I'll pay child support, etc. The other guys breathed sighs of relief and faded away (publicity got too much for them in a small town). Yrs later, dna testing shows he wasn't the biological father, hadn't lived with the mom/child, but kept paying anyway. He said "It could have been me, I am responsible." Good guy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Why don't you pay child support?

Yeah, you're not the father, but neither is one of these men.

[BlooInBloo]

29. ZING! Variant: Maybe everybody she's had sex with should split the cost equally.

[pnwmom]

96. Exactly.

Why should these men be treated differently than any men have ever been treated? How were difficult paternity cases decided prior to DNA testing? I bet there were cases of identical twins in the past. I wonder how those cases were decided.

[uppityperson]

37. please read post #19 for a succinct concise reply.

phrased better than I could.

[Clark2008]

160. Then how would YOU determine who would pay, because

clearly, someone should.

It's not fair to the child.

And, yes, I'm a mother who has a deadbeat ex-husband who never pays (he pays enough to keep himself out of the pokey only to not pay for another 11 months).

I pay for more than my share of my responsibility for bringing the child into the world. Certainly, the sperm donor can, too.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

199. I say the state.

Until somebody can figure out who the father is.

[JVS]

238. sounds resonable to me

but I think there are people out here who want to punish these men for "unprotected sex" or something. Maybe just resentment toward them for not wanting to be fathers.

[LisaL]

30. If they weren't identical, then the one whose sperm didn't make

it would not be required to pay. A clue-multiple men can have sex with the same woman, but if they are not fathers, they won't be required to pay.

[pnwmom]

38. Before we had DNA tests, we determined paternity based on

other things. Suppose this was pre DNA testing and there were two potential candidates, both fertile men who had sex with her on the same day. Would you have argued that those two men should have to split support, because they "played'"? The key problem we have here is that, in the case of identical twins, we are back to the pre-DNA days. And I never heard of any support splitting back then, did you?

[Maru Kitteh]

224. In previous times the court would choose one man - just as it's done here

If the "men" were mature, this whole story probably never would have come to light. Splitting the support would be more equitable, but it would have to be a gentleman's agreement, since the court can't order two men to pay support for one child.

[iverglas]

181. and doesn't this just paid to that whole thing

(not to derail a perfectly charming thread) about how UNIQUE DNA is the marker of a human being, and how that's how we know that a fetus is one?

Hmm.

The fetus seems to have turned into one here ... the father just wasn't one ...

Oh dear! There goes that other whole thing about how the only thing that one human being + another human being can produce is a human being ... if it's supposed to work in reverse, anyhow.

[IdaBriggs]

129. It certainly wasn't for lack of trying, was it? nt

[Dorian Gray]

206. The problem is that the both DID DO it.

They both essentially fathered a child. They are both matches to the DNA. Oh well. Wrap it up if they don't want this type of result.

[JerseygirlCT]

221. So... because it cannot be proven which man is the father, the

only person left responsible is the woman?

Obviously she thinks it's possible either could have fathered the baby, which seems to indicate to me that neither was sterilized or using a condom... But they get off scot-free, while she raises and pays for the child by herself.

Yeah, that seems perfectly fair.

[trotsky]

164. Yep.

Unfair as it may be, the needs of the child ALWAYS come first. This is why husbands of wives who got pregnant while having an affair are reponsible for child support, too.

[dysfunctional press]

227. actually, it's because the laws and precedents occurred pre-dna testing.

and i wouldn't be surprised if those laws are eventually re-written. in a civilized society, you just can't have an equal percentage of the family fortune being turned over to the progeny of the pool-boy...

[rateyes]

174. I'm saying what they SHOULD do as ADULTS...

What the woman should do is simply sue ONE of them. Establish paternity with ONE of them. He will HAVE to pay child support, and then let the brothers fight it out how the support gets delivered.

[uppityperson]

3. make them both pay. Hold both responsible.I wonder if publicity will affect them.

Wonder if any woman thinking of "messing around" with them might think again.

[pnwmom]

49. Can you name a single case where two men were made to

split support because a judge didn't know which was the real father?

Paternity has never been split, as far as I know. The fact that the men are identical twins is irrelevant. Only one is the father. They should be treated exactly the same way any two men would have been treated PRIOR to the advent of DNA tests -- because in the case of these two men, the tests are of no value. The judge should make his paternity ruling in the same way that they would have decades ago.

[uppityperson]

I'm not a lawyer, no I don't. Doesn't mean it hasn't been done or won't be done.

please read post #19 as Bucky states it well.

[pnwmom]

75. I read the post and found it unconvincing.

I have never heard of two men being ordered to split parternity (outside of a marriage situation), simply because the judge didn't know who the real father is. I think the judge should make the determination the same way he would have during the pre-DNA period. But no special rules should apply just because these men are identical twins.

Suppose, in the pre-DNA days, a woman had sex with three men, two blue-eyed, brown haired white men and one black man. The baby born is white, with brown hair and blue eyes. Would the judge have said, okay, the black man is off the hook, but the two white men will have to split the support because they both had sex with her?

No way.

[uppityperson]

80. How should he make the determination?

specifics, not just "like in pre-dna time". You don't like my suggestion of holding both responsible, and just because I do not know of a case where this happened, you say it is wrong. How should they make the determination of who gives child support?

[pnwmom]

85. I can't give you specifics, because no one knows the specifics of this case.

But I assume there would be facts entered into evidence, such as whatever led her to claim it was one twin and not the other. Was one of them using a condom and not the other? Did they both really have sex with her within hours? Is either of them disputing having sex with her that day?

I have no idea how paternity was decided in the past, but the judge does. And that's what I think s/he should be using as a guide in this case.

[Big Pappa]

4. That is damn sick.

"Within hours of each other."

[uppityperson]

10. what?

you mean how dare she have sex with 2 men within hours of each other, the slut?

[Big Pappa]

63. You said it not me.

But you think she might wash up a little in between.

[uppityperson]

71. that was sarcasm. You are quite the big papa

so what if she had sex with 2 men? So?

[Big Pappa]

128. Thats Pappa with two p's.

But I still think she could have washed up a little.:crazy:

[Clark2008]

161. You do realize that she very well could have taken 15 showers

in between and it wouldn't have gotten rid of the sperm from the first, um, "session, don't you?

In any case, the child shouldn't suffer because YOU think the mother's a "slut." And, to be honest, it's not your business anyway. What WOULD be your business is that, as a result of this odd situation, neither man has to pay child support, placing the woman and child on welfare, which is paid for with your tax money.

It behooves the state and the greater good to determine paternity, make the father pay child support and help keep children off welfare.

[baby_mouse]

151. Yeah, did she TELL THEM?

If not...

[Maru Kitteh]

226. Tell them what? And why?

If not, what?

[AlCzervik]

9. have std's been eradicated?

sheesh.

[Book Lover]

11. "Woman screwed" - yes, but what about this child?

Perhaps it is too much to expect that one of these two would step up and say, "You know what, no matter what, daughter or niece, this child is part of our family, and I don't want her to grow up apart from us." Now we have a child growing up who knows her mom, and knows her grandmother, and will learn that one of these two men are her father, but neither one wants to aid her mommy. You would think the specter of this would compel these men to organize themselves and step up. But I guess not.

[Bucky]

19. The legal standard in most states is "best interests of the child".

In some cases non-biological fathers have been required by courts to pay child support for children their wives have had from extramarital affairs. It seems unfair to the non-dad, but the moral reality is that their marriage produced this child and somebody has to pay for the expenses. It's in the child's best interests to have the man of the house pay his share.

Each of the twins here was acting in a way that made him capable of producing this child. It doesn't matter who hit the target first, by having sex each was giving his de facto consent to raise any child resulting from the physical act of whooppee. Any smart judge will decree that all parties contribute to (1) the food, clothing, & shelter of the child and (2) the extensive hours of therapy that, clearly, everyone involved is clearly in need of.

[uppityperson]

33. Thank you. Recommended Reply, best reply.

[LisaL]

48. In "the best interest of the child" would be

to have some millioniare to pay child support. However, if that millionaire ain't the father, he ain't gonna pay child support.

[Bucky]

76. The millionaire pays school taxes, state taxes for welfare, federal taxes for housing...

Yes, all of a society pays to support all of society's children. It should be that way. If you like Hillary (or old African aphorisms), we can even say "it takes a village to raise a child."

But in the case of the non-dad paying child support, he was the legally bound and obligated life partner of the woman who became pregnant with that child. They share all family & financial obligations that come into their marriage.

.

[LisaL]

114. These men were not married to this woman.

[Bucky]

153. Not married, no, but certainly they were giving concent to produce a baby.

Once the baby is produced, there is a legal conflict between each twin's right to hold onto his own money and the right of the child to recieve financial & familial support from her/his father. When those two rights come into conflict, which one do you think should win?

[demobabe]

131. the best interest of the child would be for him/her to have a dad in their life

Money isn't the only thing a child needs... they need a Dad.

SOMEONE should step up and take responsibility and be the "designated Dad." What a mess.

If somehow the twins ended up splitting child support, then there would have to be some kind of three-way visitation ordered. That would get into really screwy territory. Would set a really scary legal precedence, too. Can't see that happening.

[uppityperson]

133. They could use a Dad that was wanting to be involved.

Having a Dad who doesn't care about you, don't need that.

[demobabe]

135. Exactly. n/t

[Clark2008]

166. That's not necessarily true. Many states are separating support

and visitation/custody issues so that one isn't influenced by the other.

My state does it - to my chagrin - and my ex-husband is allowed vistation even though he rarely pays child support.

Therefore, if this state is doing that - and I don't know if they do or not - then the twins could pay child support without even having any visitation/custody.

[Maru Kitteh]

228. Child support is not kid rental. Visitation should never be denied because of lack of payment

But visitation is not split from support in that they are always rewarded and required of one father respectively.

[pnwmom]

55. Before DNA testing, was there ever any case where two different men,

both not married to the woman, were ordered to split the costs of raising a child, on the theory that they both had "whooppee" and the judge couldn't decide who was the father?

I don't think these men should be treated any differently than men were in the past before DNA testing was available.

[uppityperson]

64. What do you think should happen?

Rather than just saying how what we say shouldn't be, how should this be handled? Specifics please, not just "like in the past". How like in the past do you mean? This is an odd case.

[pnwmom]

78. When I say "in the past" I mean that before DNA testing,

the judges had certain facts and evidence that they would use to decide cases where paternity was disputed. I have no idea what all the evidence is in this case, but that's how the determination should be made, IMO.

It's an odd case in 2007, but it wouldn't have been unusual before DNA testing, to have a situation where paternity was difficult to decide.

[uppityperson]

84. sounds like that is what they are doing.

Since DNA testing is inconclusive, they are doing what they do. I am just throwing out my opinion. Had a relative that this happened to, as well as a friend not so long ago. Relative was wayyyy back. Both men said ok, gave child support, even though the biological father could've been someone else (again more than 1 male involved). While it sounds like neither of these guys are that upright, I still think that would be a good solution.

[pnwmom]

100. It is a shame that neither seems to care about the child.

[uppityperson]

104. Very much so. Poor kid.

growing up hearing "ain't mine" "well sure as shit ain't mine either". Extreme characterization there, based on very little true knowledge of the individuals. But for example.

[Recursion]

212. I believe there was a sitcom to that effect

[atre]

140. wrong

The legal standard for CUSTODY in most states is "best interests" - NOT child support!

[atre]

144. Nonlawyers shouldn't go around pretending to know the law

I am in fact a lawyer, and I don't pretend to know anything other than the law of the state in which I practice. However, as I state above, "best interests" is the standard that is applied to child custody/visitation determinatins, and not child support.

I don't pretend to know what is the appropriate legal resolution of this case, but your analogy scenario doesn't fly where I practice either. Only if a father assumed parental responsibility in some way (adoption, parenting agreement, etc.) can he be held liable for support for a child that is not his.

[Bucky]

154. Oh, sire, forgive this poor peasant for transgressing onto matters of your noble profession

I don't pretend to know anything other than the law of the state in which I practice.

Well, then I know you're not from Texas. Because the cases I was referring to happened in Texas. Men who weren't the parent of a child were ordered to pay child support because they were married to the mother of the child and the biological father wasn't able, for reasons I admit I'm ignorant of, to pay.

Only if a father assumed parental responsibility in some way (adoption, parenting agreement, etc.) can he be held liable for support for a child that is not his.

As I recall, that was a component in the case I heard about. Again, I beg Your Grace's forgiveness for having dared to discuss anything to do with the law, which I a mere citizen and not an "in-fact-a-lawyer" such as yourself am clearly untitled to opine. If I may only close by kissing your ass, let me only say that you, sire, pull rank most eloquently.

[Maru Kitteh]

231. I remember that case you are talking about

The husband was ordered to pay the support because he had been the "acting" father for the child's entire life. I don't think the bio-father's ability to pay was a consideration if I remember correctly.

On the other hand, at about that same time a case popped up in North Carolina where a man sued his wifes ex-lover for the 17 years of support he had provided to the child he and his wife raised together, who he had believed was his biological child. He won a very large award.

[Clark2008]

162. You're a good man, Bucky.

:thumbsup:

[Truthiness Inspector]

23. I agree. Very good point. n/t

[terisan]

13. Another 2 cases of Irresponsible Sperm Distribution. Such sluts these men are. nt

[TahitiNut]

121. Yeah. Not to mention the Irresponsible Sperm Collection.,

Every child's dream of a good mother. :eyes:

[terisan]

124. I figure women get targeted enough re pregnancy/abortion. It has been too easy

to forget that men have the ultimate control re giving/withholding sperm. Given the enormous cost of raising a child to adulthood, I think proven fatherhood shoud be assessed the full cost.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. Yeah, Gotta Love Us.

Thing is though, they didn't know and she did. Kinda fucked up that way ain't it.

[uppityperson]

134. I wonder what their reputations are like, having had this coverage.

[terisan]

169. They didn't know they were having unprotected sex and could begin a pregnancy ?

It costs well over $100,000 to raise a child in our society. If they are unprepared to pay they should have distributed their seed more responsibly.
Do they expect just the mother and/or the taxpayers to pay for their actions?

[SayWhatYo]

229. On the same note... She should have kept her legs closed...

or better, made sure she was on the pill.

It goes both ways, my friend.

[Maru Kitteh]

233. I can assure you she is doing more than her fair share financially and otherwise

to raise the child. The father needs to do the same. If these particular men gave a crap about each other they would split the support but regardless, the court must still pick one to be legally responsible and pay support.

What makes this story so interesting is the twins unusual lack of regard for each other. Even twins that are total jack-asses are usually good to each other.

[SayWhatYo]

235. Oh yeah, I agree with you.

My comment was in response to that specific user's posts in which he/she is making it out like the men are fully responsible for her getting pregnant. I was saying that the "fault" goes both ways. Even-more-so nowadays since women can easily get birth control... Of course that doesn't mean the it's the womens fault. It means that when there is an unwanted pregnancy, it's usually because both parties didn't do their part to prevent it.

As for the twins jackassness, I agree.

[liberalhistorian]

183. They knew, presumably, that having sex can result

in a pregnancy even if protection is used. They knew, presumably, that pregnancies usually result in the birth of a child. Men are not innocent, naive creatures who have no idea of what sex can produce. Although, the way they caterwaul about it in these cases, sometimes I wonder.

Every time a man has sex, unless he or the woman is "fixed", so to speak, they know that it can result in a pregnancy which, as shown above, usually results in a child. EVERY time. They also have the choice as to whether or not to have sex, just like women do. They are NOT completely blameless and/or innocent.

[Maru Kitteh]

232. They didn't know they were having sex?

Or they didn't know they weren't wearing condoms?
Of they didn't know sex makes babies?

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

15. Good thread header.

Split the support between the two. Both played, both can pay.

~sidenote~ out of 3 adults, not a one used protection? WTF!

[AlCzervik]

16. thats all i'm saying, pregnant is lucky thats all she got, same with those 2.

my god how fucking idiotic.

[BlooInBloo]

18. :) Thanks. Incidentally, note that it's perfectly possible that one of them *did* use BC...

... Since they're identical, it's impossible to be certain how many semen-sources there were.

What a bizarre case - all sorts of things that you usually take for granted in knowing are totally thrown out the window here.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

50. No mention in article about BC

I think if one of these guys had used it, they would have been shouting it from the roof tops for past 4 years. Hey?

[BlooInBloo]

67. That's why I said "possible".

[pnwmom]

62. And that might be why she decided to name one as the father,

even though she had sex with both of them on the same day. If one used a condom, then he probably isn't the father.

Or, maybe she picked the one with the higher income. What a mess.

[BlooInBloo]

68. What a mess indeed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Here's an idea- do DNA testing.

Yeah, yeah, identical twins. Same DNA. Well, no, not really. They were concieved identically, but they would have started mutating differently immediately. It won't show up on typical DNA fingerprinting, sure. But I'll bet a person can develop a method.

[LisaL]

24. Here is an idea-read the article.

There is no way to say which one of identical twins is the father.
They are clones of each other.

[BlooInBloo]

27. A valiant effort - I suspect facts aren't gonna get in many people's way here tho.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Here's an idea, read my post.

I acknowledged they're identical twins, but they're offspring will have a slightly different DNA sequence due to a modern miracle known as "mutation."

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

43. Clone part from the article~

"With identical twins, even if you sequenced their whole genome you wouldn't find difference…they're clones," said Dr. Bob Gaensslen, a forensic scientist at Orchid Cellmark labs in Texas. "There are a few things in science that are cut and dried and this is one of them."

Dr. Bob Giles, a paternity testing expert, agrees. "There is simply no test that explains the difference between two identical twins," he said.
>>

interesting case.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. ...

"There is simply no test that explains the difference between two identical twins,"

That's why I'm saying develop one. They were "clones" when they were both zygotes, not since.

[LisaL]

51. What are you talking about?

Provide one link to support this "idea."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Um... OK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

[LisaL]

65. Sounds real convincing-not.

Why don't you provide a link discussing a potential test for determining paternity between identical twins?
There is no way to determine who the father is, just as in case of a crime there is no way to determine which one of twins committed it by DNA.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. A potential test?

I'll propose one- use a shotgun approach, various common restriction endonucleases, standard gel electrophoresis. It's simple and easy and quite possibly won't work, but a point mutation could end up with a palindrome where there wasn't one before, or vice versa.

"There is no way to determine who the father is, just as in case of a crime there is no way to determine which one of twins committed it by DNA."

That sounds like quitter talk.

[uppityperson]

58. Their DNA hasn't changed though.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Of course it has.

A person's DNA changes every minute of every day. Leading to things like tan lines, new species, and cancer.

[LisaL]

66. Where did you get your education?

And have many new species of humans been produced recently?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Human beings have produced a number of new species.

Canis familiaris is considered one species taxonomically, but techinically many breeds meet the definition of seperate species thanks to human selective breeding.

In the plant world there are numerous examples. Modern brussel sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower and others are all descended from the same species. Again, owing to human intervention.

And then of course there's genetic modification. Not mutation in the same sense. But genetic variation in the broad sense.

My education? University of Washington.

You?

[uppityperson]

69. ok, individual cells can mutate.

So do you want to check every sperm from each of these guys to find 1 that might match? Because if they both start from the same DNA, and if so far DNA testing has shown either could be father, I don't see how that would help. And I don't think one's mole impregnated her. Tan lines aren't DNA changing, though cancer cells have mutations.

[LisaL]

72. We are not even talking about them themselves, but

about the kid fathered by one of them. Just like article points out, it's impossible to say which one of them is the father.

[uppityperson]

74. I know, seems an odd twist to take.

possibly an offshoot, mutating subthread on the possibilities of something unrelated to OP?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

81. Wouldn't have to.

The germ line that created the sperm from the child, would develop more sperm. Sample sperm, PCR, compare.

"Tan lines aren't DNA changing"

Sure they are. Increased melanin from tanning is a response to the dimerization of thymine in DNA.

[LisaL]

86. Maybe you should step up to the plate and help those poor

guys to figure out which one is the father, then. Cause the rest of the world seems to think it's impossible.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Step up to the plate? I just did.

I proposed an experimental method for distinguishing who the father is. Now if you'd like to step up to the plate and fund my grant proposal, then by all means. Seems to me it'd be in the best interest of the child.

[LisaL]

93. I am not NIH to fund your grant proposal, sorry.

Your proposal will have to be funded the same way everyone else's is.
You send it to NIH (or other funding agency) it's reviewed by your peers, and if it's any good-viola-you get the money. Try it sometimes, it works. Or should I say, try it, sometimes it works, with the funding levels the way they are right now?

[uppityperson]

95. while big words sound/read impressive, I thought...

Darkening of the skin is caused by an increased release of the pigment melanin into the skin's cells after exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Melanin is produced by cells called melanocytes and protects the body from absorbing an excess of solar radiation, which can be harmful.

Or
http://www.tanningtruth.com/page.php?pid=19
Melanocytes are prompted to produce additional melanin whenever ultraviolet light waves touch them, thereby making the skin darker to protect the body from additional exposure.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. Yes, it is.

The release of melanin is triggered by dimerization of thymine.

It's a protection mechanism. UV damages DNA. This can cause deleterious things like cancer, and death. We've evolved the mechanism to respond to UV by producing melanin, which absorbs UV instead of DNA.

Which is also why very dark skinned people have much lower rates of skin cancer.

Unfortunately, in pale skinned people the whole thing's reactionary. If you have a develop a tan, it means you already went and fucked up your DNA. Tans should be a warning sign, not a goal for beauty.

[uppityperson]

103. o.k.thank.you.

what is "dimerization of thymine"? Dark skinned people have lower rates of skin cancer because their thymine dimerizates less? What is dimerization? I know thymine is one of the (oh hell, bits. agtu? whatever) but what is dimerization.

Also leading to evolution, those exposed to more sunlight evolved darker skin to be able to not die as soon.

[geek_sabre]

108. Dimerization is

just when you have a base (A, G, C, T) forming a bond with itself itself. In this specific case, thymine bonds with thymine, making a kink in the DNA.

The problem with using this as a method for determining paternity is that this kind of DNA damage (its not really considered a mutation), is that it is repaired easily and rather quickly, and thus isn't transferred to the germ line. The only instances where it remains unrepaired is when the person has skin cancer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. Not really.

thymine is "paired" with itself regularly.

But the thymines are bonded to the deoxyriboses, which are bonded to the phosphates in the DNA backbone. A dimer occurs when one thymine directly bonds to another thymine.

Since this occurs in the skin, it certainly wouldn't be useful as a paternity test, just an example of post-conception DNA change.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. Thymine is one of the four bases of DNA.

A, G, C, and T- thymine.

Since DNA is very long, there are numerous places in the sequence where two thymines are next to each other, for example: AGCGTTC

Now when a UV photon comes along and hits two adjacent thymines, it causes two two thymines to bond to each other: AGCGT-TC

A thymine dimer.

(dimer meaning: di = two, mer = like units. A polymer is a chain of many like chemical units.)

A DNA with a dimerized thymine can lead to all sorts of problem, cancer, cell death, etc.

There is a host of machinery that comes along and fixes it, and says "holy shit! this DNA is damaged, we need to stop this." So the machinery signals for the production of melanin, which absorbs UV before it can reach DNA.

"Dark skinned people have lower rates of skin cancer because their thymine dimerizates less?"

Yes. They're bodies produces more melanin, usually shortly after birth, which usually prevents dimerization of thymine from occuring.

"Also leading to evolution, those exposed to more sunlight evolved darker skin to be able to not die as soon."

Well, actually those who had more melanin were less likely to die before they had viable offspring, ensuring their were more likely to pass on their melanin rich genes.

In humans, we probably started off dark skinned. Lighter skin evolving in those places, where skin cancer was not a problem, but presumabely lack of vitamin D in the diet was. Apparently with less melanin, the pitiful amount of UV trickling in through European cloud covers allowed for more endogenous vitamin D synthesis in the skin.

[uppityperson]

115. "die as soon before reproducing" sorry, left out that part.

Interesting, thanks. Taken with what delaware97 says (post #108), interesting. Thank you. So you are saying the kinking of the DNA is what makes melanine increase causing the tan? (subtopic here since I don't see how this is related to sperm/germ cells, but interesting)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

116. The dimerization of thymine...

is what kicks off a complicated series of steps that leads to increased melanin, and ultimately a tan.

Yes.

If you look at your tan line, on the dark side you had thymine dimerize, on the light side you didn't.

[jsamuel]

159. A tan line will not show up in the kid's DNA

[uppityperson]

187. Tanning is temporary though.

Not a permanent change of DNA. Unless there is permanent change and cancer happens to result. Tans go away.

[Zynx]

220. What is this Lemarkist idiocy?

[pnwmom]

123. Neither of the two scientists in the article agrees with you.

"With identical twins, even if you sequenced their whole genome you wouldn't find difference…they're clones," said Dr. Bob Gaensslen, a forensic scientist at Orchid Cellmark labs in Texas. "There are a few things in science that are cut and dried and this is one of them."

Dr. Bob Giles, a paternity testing expert, agrees. "There is simply no test that explains the difference between two identical twins," he said.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

173. One of them is wrong.

The other doesn't disagree with me. There is no current test.

[pnwmom]

178. With no currrent test, this whole argument is moot.

No one's going to develop a test just for this family, even if one were possible.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

179. It wouldn't have to be just for this family.

It could be used any time this came up, or for criminal forensics purposes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

146. Let's be realistic - it takes generations for those kind of changes to be likely to be visible

There is the molecular clock hypothesis, saying you can see small changes in the DNA sequences, and use it to see where an ancestral tree divided, but that's over several generations, and thousands of years. You're saying we should be able to do this over one generation. Since you haven't produced a single number to give an idea of how feasible your idea is, or how much (and how long) it would cost to research and implement, we'll go with the experts in the article who say "can't be done".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

195. It takes generations to change the phenotype.

Well, OK, sometimes it only takes one.

But the phenotype isn't important, only the genotype.

[Tesha]

157. Actually, that's not true.

> There is no way to say which one of identical twins is the father.
> They are clones of each other.

Actually, that's not true. It might have been true at the
instant that the blastocyst split in two, but there are
genetic changes that occur from that point onwards, and
these would affect the formerly-identical twins differently,
causing their genomes to vary slightly.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylation

You may also find that there are differences in mitochondrial
DNA since that isn't inherited in exactly the same way as
nuclear DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA

It is quite likely that a subtle enough DNA test could
distinguish the two twins, and might be able to tell
which is the genetic father of the child.

Tesha

[LisaL]

185. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother.

They have the same mother, so they will have the same mitochondrial DNA.
The child had inherited mitochondrial DNA from her mother, so that wouldn't tell who her father is.

[LostInAnomie]

20. I think I've seen this scenerio played out on Maury a couple of dozen times.

I guess no one can safely do the "I'm not the father" dance on this one.

[JVS]

176. yeah but they can both do the "I can plausibly deny being the father" dance

Call me old fashioned, but it already is unseemly when mothers need DNA testing to figure out who the father is. Screwing around with twins and thus defeating the DNA test is even more unseemly. The kid should be put in foster care.

[liberalhistorian]

184. And I suppose the men are completely blameless and innocent?

They had no idea that having sex can result in a pregnancy and, therefore, a child? They had no choice in having sex, and were forced to do so? Please. Men are as responsible as women for pregnancy, period, end of discussion.

And what about the men? They know one of them is the father and one the uncle, and the child is a part of their family. But do they step up to the plate and accept her into the family? NO. They think of their wallet and reputation first, and NOT what's best for the poor child.

And I doubt that the woman deliberately set out to "defeat the DNA test" by sleeping with twins. Most people, even those who are educated, don't know that you can't determine paternity in the case of identical twins.

And just who are you to decide that the child should be in foster care? Do you know this woman? Do you know what kind of mother she is? NO, you do NOT. You are making a judgment based on your own values, knowing absolutely nothing about this woman. You sound like a holy-rolling freeper.

[JVS]

190. not blameless but less culpable than she is

If someone can't figure out who the father of their kid is, then that person is sleeping around too much. And since the DNA test makes figuring that out easier than ever before, she's a dumbass for screwing twins. She should have showed a bit of restraint in her cavalcade of fucking. Is it my business? Probably not, but then again if one's sex-life makes it into the newspaper, people are going to see and comment.

[Maru Kitteh]

234. Well then, you are officially nominated as head of the committee of "sleeping around too much"

If a man is having sex, and doesn't protect himself with a condom HOW IN THE HELL is he less culpable? He is not less culpable simply becuase you have passed your double-standard judgement of morality.

[JVS]

237. how do you know these men used no protection? Protection fails sometimes.

Also these men claim not to have known that the other twin was involved, so the moronic defeating of the DNA test is not their fault. But the old test remains valid: If one fucks around and is unable to determine the paternity of her child, she's fucking around too much. You might consider this to be a double-standard, but I must point out that the standard arose because the consequence of promiscuity, that is pregnancy, is borne by the woman and not by the man. Also, while paternity can be questionable, the maternity of a child is always obvious. If men got pregnant, there would be much more incentive for chaste behavior on their part.

[rug]

28. Aside from child support, how would custody be decided?

[LisaL]

31. I have a feeling neither one of those men wants custody.

The child will stay with the mother, of course.

[BlooInBloo]

32. I get the feeling that won't be a pressing problem - unfortunately.

[Secular Agent Man]

34. Maybe she'll have twins.

Problem solved? :shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

40. Heh.

[LisaL]

42. She already had one kid.

I don't think this kid is going to split into two.

[Secular Agent Man]

59. oops. I'll read the "full" article next time. LOL!

[karlrschneider]

41. She must be a real hottie if she thought either of that pair was worth a romp.

:eyes:
:sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

45. Oh boy. I'll predict this is the thread's turning point, from bad to worse.

[AlCzervik]

47. lol!

[karlrschneider]

60. We can always hope so.

:D

[Vektor]

44. Interesting double standard at work here...

Heh heh..."double standard..."

Anyway:

There's a lot of snickering going on (as well as outright bashing) over the fact that a woman had sex with two men in the same day.

Yet, if some "lucky dude" nailed two "hot identical twin women" he'd be a big hero, and most would be inclined to give him a pat on the back. Every man's fantasy right?

Yeesh. :eyes:

Who cares that the woman had sex with a couple of guys? Men do stuff like that all the time. What's appalling is that both of these men are trying to pawn off the responsibility of the poor child onto each other. Neither one cares to do the right thing for the baby. No matter how questionable the woman's judgment might have been to some (regarding her sexual behaviors) it's far more despicable to treat the resulting infant like an unwanted leper. One of those men is her father and the other is her uncle - she's family. At least the Mom is trying to care for her child and take responsibility for her, which is more than anyone can say for Dumb and Dumber.

[LisaL]

53. He'd be a big hero to whom? Speak for yourself, please.

[Vektor]

136. For starters, I don't agree with the statement. I was pointing out the absurdity of it.

I'm hardly speaking for myself, you, or EVERYBODY.

However, it doesn't take a mental giant to figure out that there are a hell of a lot of misogynists and morons who do subscribe to that school of thought.

[newportdadde]

167. Correction on the hero and fantasy rules here.

From the misogynist handbook:

"Twins at two seperate times during the day although impressive isn't worthy of hero status in of itself, although it is more impressive then two unrelated women its more along the lines of 'epic' rather then 'hero' in your circle of male friends.

However twins at the same time is indeed worthy of 'hero' status and if it occurs on multiple encounters then it becomes worthy of 'godlike' status."

:silly:

Now to be serious, both men should split the responsibility equally.

[liberalhistorian]

188. Best. summary. ever.!

And I get real tired of the "men are studs, women are sluts" double standard, that is still very much alive and well, unfortunately. There isn't even a word, really, for men who screw around, but there are plenty for women. Slut, whore, tramp, and on and on.

[Catherine Vincent]

189. Very good post!

:thumbsup:

[BoneDaddy]

236. Puh-lease

the biggest judgers of promiscuous women are not men...they are other women, so if you want the double standard to change, then it rests with you. Once again trying to blame men for something that is totally within your control.

As for the double standard comment...how bout game playing and betrayal. The article talks about how neither man knew the other was with the woman. She knew exactly what she was doing. Give me a break.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

54. K&R Fast moving thread here.

[BlooInBloo]

82. In the immortal words of Ron Burgundy: "That sure escalated quickly".

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

106. over 100 posts and only 2 recs.

Not yet getting to the greatest page. This belongs on greatest.

[BlooInBloo]

111. Nah - it's not particularly important in the big scheme of things....

... I like to follow the replies/views ratio in any case.

[Cobalt-60]

79. They could split the cost- or flip for it

Even DNA testing can't sort out parternity between two human clones - identical twins.
They both did the dance knowing what the outcome might be, so either one should be ready to pay the diaper service.
Or maybe they could do a little underground polyandry...

[JI7]

83. did she know she was having sex with brothers or did she think it was the same guy ?

[BlooInBloo]

92. That's not known, I don't think, but it's ultimately not relevant.

[LisaL]

130. What do you mean it's not known?

According to the article, she had sex with one of them then went and had sex with the other.
There is no claim made she was confused as that she thought she only had sex with one.

[knitter4democracy]

180. I wondered that myself. nt.

[treestar]

87. They have to use other evidence to figure out who is the father

Identical twins can still be identified - their mother can tell them apart, just for starters.

[LisaL]

90. And what does that have to do with this case?

I am sure the mother of these men can tell them apart.
How do you tell which one is the father of the child?

[BlooInBloo]

94. Easy tiger - lol! - I think the poster just meant that as a "for example".

[LisaL]

99. It doesn't seem to be a very good example.

[BlooInBloo]

101. Possibly not, lizzy, possibly not.

[treestar]

112. You're in that zone where you believe DNA is the be all and end all

Before DNA what happened? Evidence of opportunity and inclination was used.

That's all they are left with here.

It's not necessary to give up entirely, just because their DNA is identical.

[ContraBass Black]

125. She had unprotected sex with both on the same day, eliminating

evidence of timing.

[treestar]

109. Well, they'll have to go to other evidence

Evidence of opportunity and inclination, I believe it is, and someone may be able to tell the twins apart and testify who was with the mother at the time.

[atre]

141. you're ignoring the fact that they both had the opportunity...

they both had sex with her.

[BlackVelvet04]

102. Poor child......

idiots for a mother, father and uncle.

[BlooInBloo]

105. 3 Idiots And A Baby.

[ismnotwasm]

107. Poor little girl

What a bunch of assholes. At the very least the brothers know they are kin. The whole child support thing, it would be nice to live in a world were the brothers said, well, we might be the father, we don't know, but we'll do the right thing and make sure the little girl has support. The child will have enough to deal with since neither one wants to claim her apparently or be a paternal figure in her life.

I can dream I suppose.

[murloc]

117. Likely both are off the hook.

You can't even get a preponderance of the evidence of in favor of one, since the exact same evidence also exonerates each twin by the same amount that it implicates them.

Not fair, but the laws are not likely written to cover this sort of circumstance and they can run and a pass law to just cover this issue retroactively.

[LisaL]

143. Not according to the article. The woman named one of them

as the father, and that is the one who is supposed to pay child support.
Seems the decision that one of them is responsible for child support is based on the woman naming him the father, even though she had sex with both.

[murloc]

145. Interesting

I suppose one way of looking at it, is by her naming one, its esssentially one tiny sliver evidence that tips the scales.

I suppose her guess is as good as any judges could be.

[geek_sabre]

120. Very similar case in Montreal

Only in this case, one guy actually wanted custody:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361255,00.html

[Karenina]

168. Did you ever see any follow-up

on the ruling in that case? I haven't been able to find anything.

[Nikia]

194. That case was different in that one man wanted to be the father

And the other man didn't want to be the father. In that case, it would make sense for the man who believed that he was the father and acted like the father to be named the father if the DNA evidence was incoclusive.
In this case, neither man wants to be named the father, although the mother named one of them (the man who she has sex with first) as the father. I think that in the past, the man that the mother names as the father was considered the father if he could not prove otherwise and no other man could prove that he was.

[gravity]

122. Did she knew that they were twins or did she think they were the same person

is the real question

:shrug:

[LisaL]

127. Actually, it would be completely irrelevant to determine

which one should pay child support, but according to the article, it's the men who appear to claim they did not know the woman was having sex with them both.

[IdaBriggs]

137. Call me Solomon -- instead of splitting the child, snip the men!

If they are both incapable of parenting this undoubtedly marvelous child, then they shouldn't be reproducing. Or, on the other hand, hopefully she will become rich and famous, and can choose really rotten nursing homes for them both someday. "Nope, neither of them are my dad! They explained it to a judge repeatedly!"

Give her to me -- my husband would be happy to be her daddy! Grrr...

[JVS]

147. what makes you so sure the kid is "undoubtedly marvelous"?

I have plenty of doubt. They say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and these are some shitty trees.

[IdaBriggs]

171. I've yet to meet a 3 year old who wasn't. A few poorly mannered ones, true.

But at 3, every child I've met has been pretty much amazing. Its a fun age.

Now, if she was 13, I might find your point somewhat credible -- teenagers can be ... uh, challenging. :)

But 3? I'd take her myself in a heartbeat, and could probably find a hundred other couples in less than 24 hours who would, too.

Those two men are idiots. The mother doesn't seem like the brightest bulb in the box either, but a 3 year old child is ... marvelous.

Sperm doesn't make a father. These men are just plain worthless specimens. Apparently their orchard looks at a child as an expense only, and doesn't see an amazing individual who will bless their lives forever.

(Disclaimer: My husband and I have been through eight years of infertility hell, and I'm staring at my beautiful twelve-and-a-half week old twins, who have kept me up all night, as I type this. These men don't know how good they could have had it, and instead are missing out on getting to know a child who could be their daughter. The sperm doesn't matter -- its the intent to parent that does. My husband and I both considered adoption during our battle, and even though that isn't what we ended up doing, I know damn good and well that any child we brought into our home would have been OURS. The two should be fighting like crazy for the privilege of claiming that little girl; the fact they are fighting to DISCLAIM HER says more about their character than anything else. Sad, sad, sad little scumbags -- snip 'em both, because we don't need them reproducing!)

[renate]

193. Congratulations!

:loveya:

That's wonderful!

Three is a nice age, and so is 12 weeks... as exhausted as caring for two of them must make you, I hope you're having a lot of fun (although you're probably so sleep deprived you can't remember).

:hug:

[fishwax]

139. Apparently, Misourri law requires 98% certainty on paternity tests to be liable for child support

and since both have results above 99%, then it seems that either can be legally responsible for it based on the law. It looks like Raymon is going to be on the hook, since the courts have held him the father. I'm curious if the judge(s) used anything other than the mother's feeling about when conception took place to determine paternity.

[Horse with no Name]

142. This is easy

They should just ask the woman which one took longer to climax and then since he spent more time occupying her nether regions...he should be made to pay...or...since it was more pleasurable, make the other one pay...decisions decisions..:hide:

[dddem]

148. what a jerk

"I want to go to the Supreme Court," Raymon told ABC News. "If they can't prove it's me then they should throw it out of court." And as for the child support, he said, "The state should eat it."

This poor child seems to have an idiot for a mother and a father. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this guy is the first to complain about welfare and paying taxes.
grrr.

[BlueIris]

155. "This poor child seems to have an idiot for a mother and a father."

Well, at least you've embraced equal-oppoortunity demonization, here, unlike so many people sharing their hate in this thread.

Blech. And what a horrible situation for the child.

[MrSlayer]

149. Pick a figure for the support and make each guy pay half.

Seems fair.

[mondo joe]

172. Why? Why not have every guy she's had sex with pay a portion?

There's nothing about being twins or having sex within hours of each other than makes the non-father more legally responsible than any other man.

[MrSlayer]

182. Because it was one of them and you don't know which.

It's impossible to know so they should split the difference. Even if she had sex with a hundred other dudes, none of them were implicated by the DNA, these guys were.

[mondo joe]

205. So you're willing to penalize someone who's NOT responsible?

Nice.

[Catherine Vincent]

208. Yes.

If you lay, you gotta pay.

:)

[MrSlayer]

213. So you're willing to hold no one responsible?

Nice.

[mondo joe]

214. Where did you get THAT? Someone will be held responsible, as should be done.

But KNOWINGLY penalizing someone who is not responsible is reprehensible.

[w4rma]

150. My brain hurts trying to think of a solution to this. (nt)

[Matsubara]

152. I can see why she found them both irresistable...

Twice the hotness!

SSSSexy!

:rofl:

[LWolf]

156. The real issue here

is that the little girl is part of their family and they both have rejected her.

They'd rather fight over whose donation penetrated the egg than accept their daughter/niece into the family.

They should both step forward to be the daddy; or, if they can't peacefully accomplish that, they can draw straws to see who gets to be "daddy" and who gets to be uncle. The child's needs should take priority over the sibling rivalry for the position of biggest ass.

[gollygee]

158. This reminds me of a movie with Olivia de Haviland

where she played identical twins, and the court knew *one* of the twins had committed a murder but had no way of proving which one.

If they were both having sex with her and either could potentially be the father, I think they should both pay something.

[bleedingheart]

163. Like our president...no one wants to take responsibility ...

the child is here...it needs support and the three individuals involved should support this child.

[guitar man]

170. call it, in the air

heads or tails. I can't figure out a better or simpler way to solve this one :shrug:

[geek_sabre]

175. There has to be a reason why she initially chose one over the other

For paternity, so the court will probably eventually defer to that

[KamaAina]

177. She is not screwed, she is SCREWN!

This is HUGH!!!111!!111 I'm SERIES!!111!!1

[phylny]

186. What are the chances that an inability to wear a condom is genetic? n/t

[Fleshdancer]

191. That is the perfect soap opera plot line

I can't believe this is a true story! Wow...and all this time I assumed it was just guys who fantasized about twins.

DNA issues aside, when having two lovers the way this woman did, doesn't the second lover statistically have the greater chance of impregnating the woman due to the actions of the defensive sperm (assuming there were no problems with low sperm count)?

[Nikia]

196. Unless the first man's sperm got there first

Not sure how long on average it takes for the sperm to get to the egg, but it at least got a head start.

[Catherine Vincent]

192. I just watched the video of one of the twin's.

And this guy sounds like a real jerk. He came across looking real bad in this situation. Since the test can't determine which is the father, and the jerk is fighting against paying for the kid claiming the woman chose him for child support because he had the better job, then the judge should have both men split child support. Regardless, they are both related to this child (uncle or father).

[BoneDaddy]

197. How bout

she stops screwing identical twins and starts using birth control...I love the way zero responsibility is placed upon the woman in this scenario and all of the focus is on the men. Sick thinking.

[Catherine Vincent]

203. Or both men should have used protection.

It's not all her fault she got pregnant.

[BoneDaddy]

207. Actually it is

I am ALL for men taking responsibility for birth control, but ultimately it is the woman who become pregnant, not the man. Of course the men should have worn protection, but if they didn't it is her responsibility to protect herself.
See I am asking for equal accountability. The OP and vast majority of posters seemed to put the entire onus on the men. Childish and ridiculous.

[Catherine Vincent]

209. And you're putting it all on the woman. n/t

[BoneDaddy]

211. Did you read my post?

In a perfect world you are correct but if I was a woman, I would make damn sure that I was prepared if my partner wasn't. You are missing the point. If men got pregnant and not the woman I would say the same thing. What I struggle with is the overwhelming amount of anger towards the men, talks of punishment, and the sick projection by people.

[Nikia]

210. If she had other children from identical twins you might have a point

Nothing from the article suggests that she is now having sex with identical twins nor is not using birth control. There is now a child and the child need the fincial and emotional support of a father, regardless of the mistakes of her parents' past mistakes. The mother is not asking either man to take custody of the child, she is asking the man who she believes is the father to fullfill his obligations as a father.

[BoneDaddy]

217. I don't have a problem with that

but the tone of the posters in here go beyond simply pointing out who is responsible, but start the tired old blame game on the man instead of holding the woman to any accountability.

[gollygee]

225. I haven't read anything about her trying to get out of financially supporting the child

I don't see her not being accountable.

[erpowers]

198. DNA

I am not sure about this but doesn't each person, including twins have different sets of DNA. If each man has different DNA than what is the big deal.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

200. Fraternal twins have radically different DNA.

As big a difference as any pair of siblings.

Identical twins have very, very similar DNA, and the difference can be distinguished on standard tests.

[erpowers]

201. So What is the Big Deal

So what is the big deal? I do not see why so many seem to think nothing can be done in this situation. Give them DNA tests and make the father pay child support.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

202. As stated in the OP subject line...

the twins are identical, not fraternal.

[CatWoman]

204. Oh, my!!

tune in next week, for another gripping episode of "As The Stomach Turn-s-s-s-s-s-s"

[greenbriar]

215. and this is so much more adult like conversation about politics than

the view?

just saying

[Poll_Blind]

216. This thread has now humped the shark. Twice. n/t

PB

[NaturalHigh]

218. Don't you just know this will be on Springer someday?

"Three idiots, but only two of them are the parents. Which two? Find out when we get back."

Seriously, though, I feel for this child. She's obviously fishing out of a very shallow gene pool on both sides of the family.

[JerseygirlCT]

222. I don't understand why they don't split it.

For heaven's sake, even if one of them is then paying for someone else's child, the child is his niece. Would it really be so horrible to help support your own niece?

Both of them need to grow up, IMO.

[Blackhatjack]

230. The real issue is what are they 'legally required to do' vs. 'what is morally right'...

There is no established standard for determining the 'morally right choice' here. It can be different given any two people chosen at random.

There is a clear 'legal standard' that must be adhered to, and the use of DNA evidence is only a tool used to implement that standard.

The identical DNA results narrow the pool of possible fathers to two, but the law requires 'identification of the father of the child.' THis cannot be established by use of the DNA examined.

Therefore, unless there is a public policy law on the books, neither can be 'legally required' to pay child support. This has nothing to do with what these men should determine to be the 'morally right thing to do.'

An example of a public policy law that could be on the books in this state would be a law that states there is a rebuttable presumption that the married husband of the mother giving birth is the father of the child. Not every state has this law. But even if it does, the imputed paternity for purposes of establishing child support may be 'rebutted' by relevant evidence.

The 'legal responsibility' and the 'moral choice' are not the same.

[greguganus]

239. Maybe they should flip a coin? n/t