November 16, 2006 01:50pm
Article from: AAPFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
PRIME Minister John Howard said today he would consider law changes to give men paying child support the right to paternity tests.

Mr Howard's comments follow a push by Liberal MPs Alby Schultz and Sophie Mirabella to ensure men are not forced to pay to support children that are not their biological offspring.

Last week the High Court ruled that Melbourne man Liam Neil Magill was not entitled to $70,000 awarded by a lower court for damages he sought from his ex-wife for the pain he suffered when DNA tests revealed two of her three children were not his.

Mr Magill paid child support for all three children for eight years after the marriage broke down.

Mr Schultz and Ms Mirabella called for law changes to deal with paternity fraud.

"I just cannot believe that we have allowed a system to evolve over the years ... that affects paternity to the point where, even in an environment where a father proves the children are not his, he's deemed to be the father and is forced to pay for them because it might upset the mother who has deceived him by having an affair with another male and bearing the other male's child," Mr Schultz said on ABC radio today.

Mr Howard said men should be entitled to "all the available medical science" to prove paternity and he was willing to examine the need for law changes.

"Well, I think it's an issue that should be examined (but) I'm not going to give a tick," he said.

"I think people are obviously, when they believe ... their position is in doubt, I think they're entitled to all the available medical science to establish their position.

"Whether that means that you need changes is not something I'm properly advised on.

"I'm quite happy to look at it because people are entitled, if there is doubt on these matters, to have the situation clarified," Mr Howard said.

Mr Howard's response to the question of DNA testing sounds like the proverbial mirror to me. I don't have a position so I will look into it.

# of the judges in the Magil case are reported as saying that the privacy of marriage is sacrosant and the the law as it stands offers no remedy.

I seem to recall that act of committing to marriage is a public act. In that there are witnesses required to be present at the marriage ceremony, and that witness are require to sign the paperwork, ie marriage certificate.

I don't believe there are many people who have a problem with the concept of "no fault" divorce. But I do believe that most people believe that trust is sacrosant in marriage, and to empower mothers to tranfer the finacial responsibily of children to whom ever they please is a deceit of the worst sort.

We jail conmen and fraudsters for ripping of companies and people. I see no difference here. A woman hiding the fact that her husband is not the fatehr of her child is no different than a person hiding the books from the auditors.

There should be equal punishment handed down to these women as if they had committed company fraud.