In most countries, including France, you are on the hook for child support if you named yourself as a parent. In France you may contest it by applying to court during the first five years, after that only a prosecutor can take the steps to revoke that status. Between the unfairness of making an adult pay for a child who isn't theirs, and that of throwing an innocent child into financial distress, protecting the child takes priority everywhere I know of.
>Between the unfairness of making an adult pay for a child who isn't theirs, and that of throwing an innocent child into financial distress
As others have stated above, this isn't really about protecting "family harmony" / "saving the child", it’s about cost.
If paternity tests were easily accessible, many men would easily contest child support and if successful, they would opt out. The state benefits from keeping paternity disputes out of court because it ensures that private individuals, rather than government welfare programs, remain responsible for child support.
If too many men successfully challenged paternity, the state would be forced to provide financial aid for more children, increasing costs. Restricting paternity tests shifts the burden away from taxpayers and onto unwitting fathers, all while claiming it’s about social stability.
>Between the unfairness to make an adult pay for a child who isn't theirs and the unfairness to throw an innocent child into financial distress, protecting the child takes priority everywhere I know of.
I wonder how would you react if you received a notification that half your paycheck will be henceforth withheld to support some random kid.
this comparison is not entirely fair, because in this scenario, the kid's mother did not deliver a grievous, unforgivable insult to you - which is the case with those poor souls who got scammed into paying child support for some whore's bastard whelp.
the state doesn't give a flying fuck about the child's 'financial distress'. the state simply doesn't want to support it.
That's where French law actually makes sense: after 5 years, it's your kid, even if not biologically, not a random kid. I don't think I would be chuffed, but I understand it's not the kid's fault, too, and I'm not so narcissistic as to think that them having my genes is so important. My anger at the mother should not reflect on the kid.
This 'random kid' stuff is absurd. The child is five or older. For all these years you have been calling it 'my son' or 'my daughter', and it has been calling you 'papa' or 'dad'. You've changed its diapers, sang it to sleep, fed it, clothed it, played with it, taught it words, hugged it after a bad dream. You are its world.
If after all that time it turns out to be not genetically yours I'm sure that hurts. Probably hurts a lot, if it's a betrayal by your partner.
But to pretend that it is in any way the same thing as the government assigning you 'a completely random child' is an absurd hyperbole. Five+ years is a decently long time to be (or think to be) someones father, but for the child that is literally its whole life.
So tell me, if it turns out after 5 years your child isn't biologically yours, you would just abandon it? It's been a nice few years but now it's over, leave to buy cigaretes and never return? And you think remaining its father is the un-manly thing to do? That sounds completely insane to me.
>my brother in Christ, people abandon their biological children all the time without anyone clutching their pearls about it
I'm pretty sure a father abndoning a child like that is one of the most taboo social nonos a human can commit I'm almost any culture? Where I am from in rural america physical vigilante violence is reserved for such types. So yes very pearl clutching
