Government Bill - Force DNA Testing Of Children
Read my comments on this post here.
A new bill would allow courts to order compulsory DNA testing of children for paternity checks, regardless of consent.
United Future MP Judy Turner's private member's bill provides for the Family Court to order cheek swabs for DNA testing of children whose paternity is in dispute.
The measures in the Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill also include warrants allowing the possibly forcible taking of the child to get the sample if a parent resists the order.
At present, courts can only recommend parentage tests and parental consent is required for children under the age of 16. The Law Commission recommended court orders for DNA samples in its 2005 report on Legal Parenthood, saying parents should not be able to unreasonably thwart such requests.
Ms Turner said it would cut down on costly, lengthy court challenges for those trying to prove parenthood and stop mothers effectively thwarting such requests by refusing to give consent. Penalties of up to three months' prison or $2500 fines could be handed down for resisting the orders.
Mr Barker another involved in this bill, said Ms Turner's bill involved issues including the use of force, and common law currently did not allow a sample or blood tissue to be taken without consent.
"The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives people common law rights about personal liberty, trespass, and about privacy. Those are rights that children have as well as adults and legislation about paternity testing needs to find the appropriate balance between the interests of mothers, fathers and children."
* International research indicates the wrong biological father is listed on about 10 per cent of children's birth certificates - up to 5000 children in New Zealand every year.
* Under Judy Turner's bill the Family Court would be able to order swabs to test children.
* In cases of lack of compliance, courts could issue a warrant to allow for enforcement, using reasonable force if necessary.
* Penalties for resisting would be up to 3 months' jail or a $2500 fine.
Posts
20 March 2008 at 10:05 am Firstly this strips New Zealander's Common Law Rights re the NZ Bill Of Rights.
Secondly Birth Certificates are not legally required, hence why a person can make a request to obtain one or consent for a midwife to do so. A human being becomes a person on the date of registration with the state, all Acts & Statues pertain legally only to a person or persons; a legal name known as legal entity or corporation is usually identified by the state with captialization of such name.
The other point it says international research, then mentions up to 5000 N.Z children, obviously this is not accurate research based on a research method whether Qualitative or Quantitative as it says up 5000 children, every country differs in such things like population, poverty, GDP etc. So how do we even know N.Z was actually one country researched here. The mainstream media forgot to mention this and the research report name itself.
The Family Court along with any government agent/s would break constitutional boundaries, the bill of rights, which should cover any N.Z'er whether adult or child.
The government using force to do these acts regardless of consent, governance is by uncoherced consent otherwise it's a dictatorship.
In a nutshell summary this only has two benefits; of a parent on a welfare benefit to prove paternity for financial gain or a parent to be allowed access to a child.
Quite frankly this doesn't need to involve the government and is a civil matter between two partners, it would be good in this area in someways if one parent was denied access.
An abuse of power from the government can be easily achieved out of this so called Act of law, very similar to what the evil nazi's did to prove you were german/white in your ancestory; re birth certifictates being provisioned under the Nuremberg Laws.
A written constitution looks never achievable with the government.
21 March 2008 at 12:43 pm I think people should look at additionally - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/16/youthjustice.children