Talk:Misattributed paternity

Merger

I was very surprised to discover that we have three articles on essentially the same subject. I propose that Paternity fraud and Non-paternity event be merged into Misattributed paternity. There is significant overlap in content and citations between the three articles: compare Non-paternity event#Rates of non-paternity, Misattributed paternity#Incidence and Paternity fraud#Occurrence. Paternity fraud and non-paternity event both have sections on testing, misattributed paternity has a very undue section on genetic counseling and approaches [to genetic counseling]. There might be some unintentional POV forking going on. The term "paternity fraud" frequently comes with quotation marks [1][2][3]. "Misattributed paternity" [4] appears to be slightly more common than "paternity fraud" [5] and significantly more common than "non-paternity event" [6]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Suggest merging Misattributed paternity into Non-paternity event -- sufficient overlap. However, a non-paternity event can occur without deception or fraud, so I suggest keeping Paternity fraud as a separate article. Paternity fraud "...occurs when the presumption of, or establishment of, paternity is used to facilitate a fraudulent act or willful deception." Memills (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Merge - given a reliable source saying misattributed paternity and paternity fraud are the same thing, they should be merged. Non-paternity event could be the article name, with the other two as subsections. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article cited ("Paternity fraud and compensation for misattributed paternity") can I find a claim that "misattributed paternity" is the same as "paternity fraud." The title of the article itself suggests they can be differentiated, otherwise the title would be redundant.

Misattributed paternity is a necessary, but insufficient, prerequisite for paternity fraud. Misattributed paternity is not necessairly based on deception or fraud -- while paternity fraud is. Memills (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Misattributed paternity is sometimes referred to as paternity fraud" – first paragraph. The author uses the terms interchangeably throughout. "Paternity fraud" may or may not be a subtype of misattributed paternity or a non-paternity event but it is clearly related to both. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see the case for merging Non-paternity event and Misattributed paternity. Both are medicaly used terms describing when a child and parent do not share a genetic match.

Paternity fraud however is a cause of action for Tort procedures under family, civil or common law jurisdictions addressing Fraud.

Completely different. --West Horizon (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation please? Slp1 (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

One recent example - Iowa 2012 further reading could include, Day v. Heller, 653 N.W.2d 475 (Neb. 2002); Miller v. Miller, 956 P.2d 887 (Okla. 1998, G.A.W., III v. D.M.W., 596 N.W.2d 284, 290 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999), there are hundreds of examples if you want a mile long list of precedent rulings.

Jurisdictions that do not allow this type of tort still define it as a cause of action, one that is not allowed. You can't legislate against something that doesn't exist. If paternity fraud was not defined as a cause of action then there would be no need for laws allowing / disallowing it, which there are. West Horizon (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't want a list of US law cases (or a blog posting by a law summer student, which is what you linked to). I would like a reliable secondary source that says that "Paternity fraud however is a cause of action for Tort procedures under family, civil or common law jurisdictions addressing Fraud" and now for "Jurisdictions that do not allow this type of tort still define it as a cause of action". My review of sources suggest this is actually untrue. [7][8][9]--Slp1 (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You are asking for citations and references from a point of view so far below what should be considered common knowledge of basic judicial procedure that you aren't going for find them. Maybe I can find an introduction to law type site to stear readers to. Posting up that a Cause of action has nothing to do with Tort proceedings involving Fraud is a rather large piece of original research.

That paternity fraud is an area of law and not the same thing as misattributed paternity or a non-paternity event should be obvious. Can anyone post up one single example of a paternity fraud case that was held at a doctors convention and not a court of law? And then entered into the books as a precedent by a medical ethics committee and not a judge or supreme court? If these three things are the same thing were are the precedent rulings for non-paternity event? Where are the Supreme Court decisions for misattributed paternity cases? --West Horizon (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to find an introduction to law. What you need to do is cite a reliable source that directly and unambiguously supports the assertions that (a) "Paternity fraud however is a cause of action for Tort procedures under family, civil or common law jurisdictions addressing Fraud" and (b) "Jurisdictions that do not allow this type of tort still define it as a cause of action". A source shouldn't be so hard to find if this is "common knowledge". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually this merge proposal not to mention some of the comments agrue very strongly for a basic introduction to law or at least a summary of fraud included on the paternity fraud page. I posted up Tort examples already above. You cannot have a tort case example of paternity fraud without a Cause of action to file the case with or under in the first place. If paternity fraud was not a cause of action then there would be no tort cases for it and we wouldn't be reading about these precedent court cases in the first place. A basic understanding of judicial procedure makes what you are asking for obvious and self evident. And that case examples have already been listed the citations you are asking for are already posted. If you like I can list more case examples. There are hundreds in the U.S.A. alone. The following is a news source since you don't think official government documents are reliable. Iowa Example If you take the time to actually read the court published opinion it uses the specific wording you are asking for.

So if all three of these pages are the same thing then how does non-paternity event describe when a child and parent ARE related? Where a DNA test shows there IS a genetic match? first example

How exactly does Misattributed Paternity describe when a child and parent DO share a genetic match if all of these are the same? second example

Paternity fraud is an area of fraud law, not a medical term, so it does deal with fraud when a child and parent do share a genetic match. Where exactly do the other two pages also claim such? third example

How does non-paternity event or misattributed paternity describe as an occurence of a parent bleaching her child's skin a lighter color to extort money from some sucker? Zimbabwe Case

Face it, there is no such thing as a misattributed paternity fraud event and merging the paternity fraud page with these other two should be Opposed. --West Horizon (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• We can ignore law and medical ethics and simply stick with basic English comprehension.

Non-Paternity and Paternity are two different things. There should be no need for citations to say that. A dictionary along with a 3rd grade education should allow a reader to reach the same conclussion.

This is from the Non-paternity event page;

A Non-paternity event is a term in genetic genealogy and clinical genetics to describe instances in which the biological father of a child is someone other than who it is presumed to be

So where is the fraud? A non-paternity event is the establishment that a person IS NOT the parent. How do you get a wrongful child support order against someone who is found not to be a child's parent? YOU CANNOT. Which is what non-paternity event is, NON-PATERNITY. Same as misattributed paternity. If it is misattributed, meaing the person has been found to not be a child's parent, then where does the fraud come in?

This is from the Paternity fraud page;

Paternity fraud occurs when the presumption of, or establishment of, paternity is used to facilitate a fraudulent act or willful deception.

The establishment of a person being a child's parent is called PATERNITY. The fraud is when PATERNITY, that a person IS a child's parent, is established wrongfully.

To recap. PATERNITY fraud centers around the establishment of paternity, that a person is a child's parent. NON-PATERNITY centers around the misattribution of paternity, that a person is not a child's parent.

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. --West Horizon (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Merge all three per SonicYouth and WLU. I'd suggest Misattributed paternity as the title. "Paternity fraud" is a particular type of misattributed paternity, where the claim of or actual deliberate misrepresentation by the mother. This should be a subsection of the article. The term "Paternity fraud" is very often placed in quotation marks in reliable sources, clearly suggesting that this is a non-neutral POV term and a likely POV fork at present. Slp1 (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, here is another apparent synonym Paternity uncertainty. Interestingly, this scholarly article [10] (and here is an accessible lay article) by the same author, places the blame for the false claims of high levels of misattributed paternity/paternity fraud on the media, fathers' rights groups, DNA labs, and evolutionary psychologists. I didn't realize the reason for the link in Memills' interest before. --Slp1 (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Paternity uncertainty" is not a synonym for "paternity fraud." The former refers to the possibility of paternity misattribution, the latter refers to when such misattribution is made fraudulently. The former is indeed related to evolutionary biology and psychology; the latter is more related to legal scholarship and case studies related to the concept of fraud. Memills (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose "Fraud" (an intentional act) is a very different thing than inadvertent misattribution. The two subjects are like oil and water. Belchfire-TALK 02:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Compromise I oppose one merging, but approve of another. If you look up a bit, you will see that other users have suggested this exact pairing, and I think it works.

• Oppose I oppose the merging of Misattributed paternity and Paternity fraud. As the user directly above me stated, Paternity Fraud is the case in which a woman intentionally misleads her partner into paying for a child that is not biologically his. Misattribution is a very different case, and putting the information from paternity fraud under "misattribution" is a little misleading. Also, since the woman carries the child in a male/female partnership, there can be no such thing as "Maternity Fraud". "Paternity Fraud" is the most accurate term. Also, Paternity fraud focuses mainly on the legal implications of paternity fraud, whereas the other two have a focus on genetics and medical science.Spirit469 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• MergeHowever, I support the merging of Non-paternity event and Misattributed paternity. These articles are both very short and both cover the same topic. They focus on the genetics of the issue. I support merging these two under Non-paternity event. I would have put it under "Misattributed paternity", but "Non-paternity event" is apparently a technical term used in genetics, so it makes sense instead to have "Misattributed paternity" redirect to there.Spirit469 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Paternity fraud is a unique subject and deserves a separate article. Misattributed paternity has only a tangential relationship to Paternity fraud. This merger proposal has been floating around for a while now and I've yet to see a solid reason given in support of the suggestion. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Compromise The real problem here is that the Misattributed paternity sloppily tries to straddle the line between Non-paternity event and Paternity fraud. The current article apparently claims that Misattributed paternity is a fraudulent practice, a Non-paternity event with scienter, as it were. In other places, it implies the opposite. In contrast, Non-paternity event is a handy and reliable term because it does not imply or exclude any fraud, it only implies unexpectedness. In the ordinary sense of the word "misattribution" can be fraudulent and malicious as well as innocent and accidental or even conscious and benign, such as attribution of parentage to a predeceased father to spare a child the stigma of bastardy. Perhaps "misattributed paternity" is a legal term of art in some contexts, but even then, is it a synonym for Paternity fraud or not? Outside of those contexts, I think it is pretty ambiguous--capable of running the gamut from innocent to neutral to fraudulent, with a subtle connotation of the latter. This makes it the least useful of the bunch, IMO. I think the article Misattributed paternity article should never have been written. For my money, delete it. It could be forcefully merged into Non-paternity event as easily as Paternity fraud, but it doesn't play well with either (though the stats dovetail with NPE). This is because the Misattributed paternity is a bloody mess--it says Misattributed paternity is, literally, paternity fraud but then goes on and on to talk about non-paternity events in general as though misattributed paternity could be accidental and might be synonymous with Non-paternity event. That is why no one can agree on where to put it. Misattributed paternity is the bad guy here. Cut it up, delete it or kill it with a stick. That's my thinking. However, IN NO EVENT should Non-paternity event or Paternity fraud be merged into Misattributed paternity or into each other. That would be a disaster. Criticality (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as fraud is a specific legal concept, a form of theft. Legal issues and medical issues are separate concepts. K7L (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support merging Non-paternity event with Misattributed paternity, which appear to be different names for essentially the same concept. Oppose merging Paternity fraud into the same article, as it has a slightly different focus - on the specifically criminal aspects of the phenomenon. Robofish (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Misattributed paternity is a superset of paternity fraud, but I see paternity fraud as a distinct and recognizable legal subject. Similarly, homicide is a superset of murder (and manslaughter) but they are distinct legal categories. I would support merging misattributed paternity and non-paternity event, however, since those seem synonymous. 24.16.96.146 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Two sections on genetic counseling

The two sections on genetic counseling have weight and sourcing problems. The section titled "Genetic counseling" is unreferenced and undue in an article not primarily concerned with genetic counseling. The other section, titled "Approaches", is based on what appears to be a conference paper – see the 2003 Philosophy Graduate Student Conference where the paper "Autonomy and Equality: The Misattributed Paternity Conflict in Genetic Counseling" was presented). In addition to the poor sourcing, the section duplicates some of the content from the "Genetic counseling" section and seems even more out of place in this article.

I will remove the section "Approaches" for now. I also propose to rewrite and possibly shorten rather than delete the section "Genetic Counseling" as there are a few reliable sources on the subject in connection to misattributed paternity. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger with Non-paternity event

The article Paternity fraud was created since the last merger discussion at this page, making the vast majority of opposition votes no longer relevant. I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and merge them. I transferred all of the reliably sourced content from this article into Non-paternity event, so I didn't see a purpose in copying it to this talkpage. I merged the 2 articles because after I removed dubious, unsourced/poorly sourced material and statements that misrepresented their sources from both articles, they were both stubs with almost identical content and sources, practically verbatim, and there was no meaningful difference between them. It didn't seem to me that they even are 2 distinct topics since the sources use the phrases misattributed paternity and non-paternal interchangeably. PermStrump(talk) 20:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)