• mwguy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    There was no genetic testing for paternity back then. If you weren’t married you could contest paternity.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      ‘Cuz nobody back then ever cheated…

      Further the reality of parentage doesn’t change with a divorce. This is arbitrary bullshit.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        People cheated for sure, but if you were married you were simply on the hook for the offspring even if it wasn’t yours.

        I’m not saying the law is good, I’m saying it made sense for the time it was passed in. Now that we have genetic testing to confirm paternity or should be repealed.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Or they could have just created the law that said “the child was conceived under wedlock, the husband is on the hook.”

          But details. There’s no reason to use birth, as the critical time. Because if they knew she was pregnant to hold the divorce…. Then they could just make the guy cough up support. (Including while pregnant.)

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Or they could have just created the law that said “the child was conceived under wedlock, the husband is on the hook.”

            To make someone the father they have to inform them of it. There’s nothing stopping the father from flying the coop once divorced. While the proceedings are in progress, the judge has the right to keep the father to be present. And this was more of a concern when you could disappear and start a new life by moving across town.