Talk:Paternity fraud

message: (Note : Internal and External references for this section are hypertext linked, feel free to expand on them)
As in all forms of domestic violence, violence against men can take a physical form, or can
take the form of psychological, economic or social domestic violence.  Many people ignore
or minimize the importance of non-physical violence, even though (1)it may be far more common, 
(2)it may induce more severe suffering, and (3) it can have longer lasting effects on the victims'
lives and well being.
Self-reinforcing sexist stereotypes and role expectations of men being strong, aggressive and in control,
and women being passive and defenseless victims perpetrates the cycle of domestic violence against
men, induces under-reporting and stigma, and minimizes proper law and enforcement in this area.
===Physical violence against men===
Physical violence against men is the term known for physical violence that is committed against men by the man's intimate partner.
Very little is known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by their partners. Few incidents are reported to police, and data is limited. "Intimate Partner Violence: Fact Sheet", Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 22 September, 2006. Dr. Richard J. Gelles contends that while "men's rights groups and some scholars" believe that "battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention" and that "there are as many male victims of violence as female", he states that such beliefs are "a significant distortion of well-grounded research data." http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html In addition, researchers Tjaden and Thoennes found that "men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners
(although this may represent differences in willingness to report being victimized, or differences in attitudes and awareness
about resources available to male victims of physical domestic violence between these two cohorts). Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant." http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/181867.txt
The available data indicate that: 
:
*3.2 million men experience abuse (such as "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting") per year.
*In the United States, approximately 800,000 men per year (3.2%) are raped or physically assaulted by their partner.
*At least 371,000 men are stalked annually.
*3% of nonfatal violence against men stems from domestic violence.
*In 2002, men comprised 24% of domestic violence homicide victims.
*Over 20 years, the instances of homicide from domestic violence against men decreased by approximately 67%.
*Approximately 22% of men have experienced physical, sexual, or psychological intimate partner violence during their life.
There are many reasons why there isn't more information about domestic abuse and physical violence against men.  A major reason is the reluctance of men to report incidents to the police, unless there are substantial injuries.  This is partially
due to stigma, and sexual stereotypes, and may also be due to unsupportive gender-biased attitudes by professionals and
researchers in the area of domestic violence.   Data indicate that although mutual violent behavior is quite common in intimate relationships, men are seriously harmed less frequently than women.
===Psychological, Economic and Social violence against men===
Psychological, economic and social violence against men is very common,
can be severe and relentless, and is often minimized or ignored.  Unfortunately,
it is often even more overtly minimized or dismissed by professionals
who work in the area of preventing and treating domestic violence.*
Rather than see themselves as advocates of victims - whoever they may be -
many professionals in this area see themselves as gender advocates, fighting for women, who as an entire class, are oppressed.
Critics of this view of domestic violence push for professionals who are gender-neutral and avoid sexist stereotypes can
they be a constructive force in helping men recover from victimization, as opposed
to implicitly blaming the victim - thinking that they must have done something
to deserve it, or unjustly advocating for abusers simply because they are female.
====Paternity Fraud as Violations of Parental Rights====   
    
Men suffer considerable emotional, psychological, economic and social harm from   
paternity fraud. Paternity fraud is considered to be quite common (from 10   
to 15 % of children - based on studies from blood banks and other genetic data).   
Over the past decade a substantial movement has arisen that titles itself "The Men's Rights
Movement", MRM.  This movement claims to challenge the traditional "Duluth Model" of
Domestic Violence.  They claim that domestic violence, and general familial dysfunction, 
is a product of individual pathologies as opposed to the "Male oppresses Female" paradigm 
of the Duluth Model.  One of their main criticisms is that the foundational concepts of the
Duluth Model are not empirically criticizable, but must be either accepted, or rejected,
wholesale, remeniscent of Karl Popper's claims about the unfalsifiability of Marx's Labor
Theory of Value.
Unfortunately, in many countries, the law offers no protection to the male victim
of paternity fraud.  MRM activists claim this rewards and encourages the victimizers leaving
men largely defenseless.  The coercive power of the state is used to continually perpetrate
the ongoing victimization of the male spouse - even after the relationship has ended.
Further, with the beginnings of same-sex marriage on the horizon it appears as if the birth-
mothers of cohabiting lesbian couples are utilizing some of the same tactics that
heterosexual women use against men.
In most jurisdictions the law assumes that the male spouse is automatically
responsible for any children that are born during the marriage.
MRM's claim this is an outmoded throwback to earlier traditions embedded in law 
in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law, 
when adultery was a seriously punishable crime, and before the invention of safe 
and effective paternity testing.
====Forced paternity as domestic violence against men====
    
Consent to have sex with someone does not constitute consent to have a child with her   
or him. Forcing someone to have a child against her or his will, or without her or   
his consent constitutes domestic violence. Forced paternity is one of the more common   
forms of domestic violence against men.
Unfortunately, in many countries, the law assumes that consent to have sex equals
consent to reproduce - at least if you are male.  This represents one of the common
sexist traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were
powerless under the law, and before the invention of safe and effective contraception,
and emergency contraception.
====Fraudulent claims of domestic violence as a form of domestic violence====   
    
Fraudulently claiming that a partner has engaged in domestic violence is - in itself -   
a form of domestic violence. It is a particularly cruel form of domestic violence   
because the coercive power of the state is coopted to continue the abuse and prevent   
escape.    
    
A person fraudulently accused of domestic violence suffers strong psychological   
and emotional trauma. Often her or his career is destroyed. He or she is widely   
stigmatized and rejected by friends, acquaintances, employers, colleagues, neighbours,   
and even strangers. Often this stigma can occur even with the mere unproven accusation   
of domestic violence. It can destroy a victim psychologically,economically, socially,   
and physically.   
Furthermore, fraudulent accusations of domestic violence can be used to remove
custody of children.  Since many people would rather suffer severe physical injury
or even lose a limb rather than lose their children, it is clear that this form
of non-physical domestic violence can cause more suffering than many if not
most cases of physical violence.  
It is difficult to assess the frequency of fraudulent claims of domestic violence.   
Hopefully, it is a fairly rare - albeit severe - form of domestic violence, however,   
data is not readily available. Some consider the idea that a woman could lie about
such a subject to be inconceivable, but there are many well documented historical
and recent examples of other false accusations including rape.  (See :  and   ).  
To assume that only men lie or abuse is an unrealistic sexist position. 
Probably, both men and women  are victims of this form of domestic violence. However, 
given that men are statistically much more likely  to be accused of domestic violence 
than women, it is also likely that men are more commonly victims of fraudulent claims 
of domestic violence. Motivations for this form of domestic violence are the same as f
or any other (See sections below), although legal transfer of child custody may provide 
added incentive.
:Good work fishing that stuff out... so why is the neutrality of that section disputed? It seems pretty clear to me that it's neutral, but it does use terms traditionally associated with women's rights, so I'm wondering if this is a false positive based on an understandably emotional reaction to seeing those terms (such as "domestic violence" and "sexist") used to apply to actions taken by or advantaging women? Could use some comments here. --54x (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Violence against men

message: Psychological, economic and social violence against men is very common,
can be severe and relentless, and is often minimized or ignored.  Unfortunately,
it is often even more overtly minimized or dismissed by professionals
who work in the area of preventing and treating domestic violence.*
Rather than see themselves as advocates of victims - whoever they may be -
many professionals in this area see themselves as gender advocates, fighting for women, who as an entire class, are oppressed.
Critics of this view of domestic violence push for professionals who are gender-neutral and avoid sexist stereotypes can
they be a constructive force in helping men recover from victimization, as opposed
to implicitly blaming the victim - thinking that they must have done something
to deserve it, or unjustly advocating for abusers simply because they are female.
====Paternity Fraud as Violations of Parental Rights====   
    
Men suffer considerable emotional, psychological, economic and social harm from   
paternity fraud. Paternity fraud is considered to be quite common (from 10   
to 15 % of children - based on studies from blood banks and other genetic data).   
Over the past decade a substantial movement has arisen that titles itself "The Men's Rights
Movement", MRM.  This movement claims to challenge the traditional "Duluth Model" of
Domestic Violence.  They claim that domestic violence, and general familial dysfunction, 
is a product of individual pathologies as opposed to the "Male oppresses Female" paradigm 
of the Duluth Model.  One of their main criticisms is that the foundational concepts of the
Duluth Model are not empirically criticizable, but must be either accepted, or rejected,
wholesale, remeniscent of Karl Popper's claims about the unfalsifiability of Marx's Labor
Theory of Value.
Unfortunately, in many countries, the law offers no protection to the male victim
of paternity fraud.  MRM activists claim this rewards and encourages the victimizers leaving
men largely defenseless.  The coercive power of the state is used to continually perpetrate
the ongoing victimization of the male spouse - even after the relationship has ended.
Further, with the beginnings of same-sex marriage on the horizon it appears as if the birth-
mothers of cohabiting lesbian couples are utilizing some of the same tactics that
heterosexual women use against men.
In most jurisdictions the law assumes that the male spouse is automatically
responsible for any children that are born during the marriage.
MRM's claim this is an outmoded throwback to earlier traditions embedded in law 
in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law, 
when adultery was a seriously punishable crime, and before the invention of safe 
and effective paternity testing.
====Forced paternity as domestic violence against men====
    
Consent to have sex with someone does not constitute consent to have a child with her   
or him. Forcing someone to have a child against her or his will, or without her or   
his consent constitutes domestic violence. Forced paternity is one of the more common   
forms of domestic violence against men.
Unfortunately, in many countries, the law assumes that consent to have sex equals
consent to reproduce - at least if you are male.  This represents one of the common
sexist traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were
powerless under the law, and before the invention of safe and effective contraception,
and emergency contraception.
====Fraudulent claims of domestic violence as a form of domestic violence====   
    
Fraudulently claiming that a partner has engaged in domestic violence is - in itself -   
a form of domestic violence. It is a particularly cruel form of domestic violence   
because the coercive power of the state is coopted to continue the abuse and prevent   
escape.    
    
A person fraudulently accused of domestic violence suffers strong psychological   
and emotional trauma. Often her or his career is destroyed. He or she is widely   
stigmatized and rejected by friends, acquaintances, employers, colleagues, neighbours,   
and even strangers. Often this stigma can occur even with the mere unproven accusation   
of domestic violence. It can destroy a victim psychologically,economically, socially,   
and physically.   
Furthermore, fraudulent accusations of domestic violence can be used to remove
custody of children.  Since many people would rather suffer severe physical injury
or even lose a limb rather than lose their children, it is clear that this form
of non-physical domestic violence can cause more suffering than many if not
most cases of physical violence.  
It is difficult to assess the frequency of fraudulent claims of domestic violence.   
Hopefully, it is a fairly rare - albeit severe - form of domestic violence, however,   
data is not readily available. Some consider the idea that a woman could lie about
such a subject to be inconceivable, but there are many well documented historical
and recent examples of other false accusations including rape.  (See :  and   ).  
To assume that only men lie or abuse is an unrealistic sexist position. 
Probably, both men and women  are victims of this form of domestic violence. However, 
given that men are statistically much more likely  to be accused of domestic violence 
than women, it is also likely that men are more commonly victims of fraudulent claims 
of domestic violence. Motivations for this form of domestic violence are the same as f
or any other (See sections below), although legal transfer of child custody may provide 
added incentive.
:Good work fishing that stuff out... so why is the neutrality of that section disputed? It seems pretty clear to me that it's neutral, but it does use terms traditionally associated with women's rights, so I'm wondering if this is a false positive based on an understandably emotional reaction to seeing those terms (such as "domestic violence" and "sexist") used to apply to actions taken by or advantaging women? Could use some comments here. --54x (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychological, Economic and Social violence against men

message: Fraudulently claiming that a partner has engaged in domestic violence is - in itself -   
a form of domestic violence. It is a particularly cruel form of domestic violence   
because the coercive power of the state is coopted to continue the abuse and prevent   
escape.    
    
A person fraudulently accused of domestic violence suffers strong psychological   
and emotional trauma. Often her or his career is destroyed. He or she is widely   
stigmatized and rejected by friends, acquaintances, employers, colleagues, neighbours,   
and even strangers. Often this stigma can occur even with the mere unproven accusation   
of domestic violence. It can destroy a victim psychologically,economically, socially,   
and physically.   
Furthermore, fraudulent accusations of domestic violence can be used to remove
custody of children.  Since many people would rather suffer severe physical injury
or even lose a limb rather than lose their children, it is clear that this form
of non-physical domestic violence can cause more suffering than many if not
most cases of physical violence.  
It is difficult to assess the frequency of fraudulent claims of domestic violence.   
Hopefully, it is a fairly rare - albeit severe - form of domestic violence, however,   
data is not readily available. Some consider the idea that a woman could lie about
such a subject to be inconceivable, but there are many well documented historical
and recent examples of other false accusations including rape.  (See :  and   ).  
To assume that only men lie or abuse is an unrealistic sexist position. 
Probably, both men and women  are victims of this form of domestic violence. However, 
given that men are statistically much more likely  to be accused of domestic violence 
than women, it is also likely that men are more commonly victims of fraudulent claims 
of domestic violence. Motivations for this form of domestic violence are the same as f
or any other (See sections below), although legal transfer of child custody may provide 
added incentive.
:Good work fishing that stuff out... so why is the neutrality of that section disputed? It seems pretty clear to me that it's neutral, but it does use terms traditionally associated with women's rights, so I'm wondering if this is a false positive based on an understandably emotional reaction to seeing those terms (such as "domestic violence" and "sexist") used to apply to actions taken by or advantaging women? Could use some comments here. --54x (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraudulent claims of domestic violence as a form of domestic violence

message: I have added the  template to the section mentioned above, as I believe it does not present a neutral point of view: it is not universally accepted that paternity fraud should be considered a form of domestic violence against men. Some would say that domestic violence only refers to physical or emotional abuse aimed directly at the victim, not falsely claiming paternity; and this is how Wikipedia's page currently presents it. At the very least, if this section is to be kept, it should have 'some argue...' (or something similar) put before most of the sentences to make it clear that this view of domestic violence is not agreed on by everybody.
As the section currently lacks sources, it also appears to violate Wikipedia's policy of no original research - perhaps some of the links provided above should be added into the article as references. Terraxos (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits by the contributor in question were a POV hammer and should be removed ASAP. Scanning their contributions and reading their edit summaries will show that they were disrupting WP to prove a point on more than one article, including this one. • Freechild'sup? 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the POV tag, because this section no longer refers to PF as a form of domestic violence, the original complaint.  However, it does not cite references, so I have tagged it as an unreferenced section. --InsufficientData (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest renewal of the Violence Against Women Act in the United States lists reproductive coercion as domestic violence, linked to in the "see also" section as Birth control sabotage. Reading it as any rational person would, Paternity Fraud falls comfortably within it's bounds. Why it doesn't is kinda hard to answer. Summed up courts just avoid the topic and fall back on support laws that say fraud of this type is legal. Here's one example Wallis v. Smith, 22 P. 3d 682 - NM: Court of Appeals 2001 Note the date 2001, it only talks about birth control sabotage NOT domestic violence at that time. I've read a couple law school papers speaking of possibly re-defining reproductive coercion specifically as ONLY being a man on woman crime to avoid the conflict. Nothing to ref past classroom chat yet, hopefully in my opinion I don't find any. --West Horizon (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'POV' template 

message: I have removed today as original research a whole section about types and causes; none of the citations mention anything about the items listed being "types and causes" of paternity fraud; many of the citations did not mention paternity fraud or any of its synonyms and one seemed to be about a completely different issue.  T whole section appears to be an editor's original research about the matter, but some of the references, listed here, may be useful for the article.  [url=http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/01/news/adna-paternity1 
I have also removed this sentence; 
In 2012 the Iowa Supreme Court in ruling to allow a paternity fraud tort to proceed opined that allowing such litigation would help deter these types of cases and fit comfortably within the traditional boundaries of fraud law. 
''
once again the reference may be useful, but a state level decision simply allowing an appeal to allow the case to proceed, is not really notable in the general scheme of things. I'll also note that in this case, as in others, there appears to be some cherry picking of material.  The reference cited mentions that at least one other states have actually refused to allow these claims as being too harmful the children.  --Slp1 (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits today 

message: "A 2008 study in the United Kingdom found that fathers were wrongly identified in 0.2% of the cases processed by the Child Support Agency. Of those resolved with DNA testing between 2004 and 2008 between 10 and 19% of mothers had named the wrong father; none of the women were prosecuted.[3]"
The phrasing here is a little unclear, at least to me. At first glance it looks like the two are referring to distinct figures with confusingly similar descriptions.. But the source, if I understand correctly, says that both figures refer to the same set of cases, that the wrongly identified 0.2% of total cases processed also makes up 10-19% of those cases resolved by DNA evidence.
At this point I don't even care what the Wikipedia article says-- I just want to know if my attempts at comprehending the source actually succeeded or not. (It's like 5 a.m. and I can't even remember how I got here...) 174.55.184.14 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are 0.2% and 10-19% both referring to the same number of cases in different contexts? 

message: I read about the concept just now, came here to read about it and am left with the feeling that the whole concept is fabricated nonsense, manufactured to create the illusion of victimization in order to further the agenda of the "men's rights" movement.  The whole question ought to be able to be settled by a paternity test.  Given that, what's the problem?  And since the concept seems completely invalid then the article's verbosity seems entirely fabricated as well, as if it is being used to advance the agenda mentioned earlier.  If I'm wrong can someone please explain otherwise why does this article exist in it's present form instead of some kind of retrospective describing how things used to be prior to the advent of the paternity test.Jonny Quick (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't Paternity Testing Invalidate All of This? 

message: I miss a section on possible motives:
1. Maintain relationship with husband/long term partner and avoid penalty for infidelity
2. Gather more child support money
3. Secure citizenship of the alleged father for the child, when it is awarded by ius sanguinis
4. Make it possible for alleged father to apply for a visa/residence permit based on the child
5. ???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.51.21.83 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motives 

message: As so often some editors like to debate for the joy of debating. 
Before my edit article said: " Lyn Turner says that the concept of paternity fraud is about the "demonization of mothers"
</br>Whereas the source says: "It [the sourced article] also locates cohabitating paternity in a broader discursive context that has seen an unparalleled demonization of mothers as potential perpetrators of ‘paternity fraud’"
Here you do find a term in the text, yes,  but not the claimed connection. --J. Sketter (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suggest you do not remove cited content based only on reading the abstract. If you do not have access to the article, try asking at WP:REX or just ask on the article talk page for clarification before removing the content. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Anyway the most relevant part in the cited article seem to be:  To some extent also  and  And frankly too much to quote. Our summary of what the article says seems fair enough to me. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critisism 

message: The Consequences section is laughably biased in that it mainly addresses the consequences for children and mothers, and not for fathers, the actual direct victims:
Paternity fraud can have far-reaching consequences for families. According to Niccol D. Kording:
:“Marriages, relationships and families end. Children are abandoned by the only fathers they ever knew. Fathers are bitter and fight to disown the nonbiological child. Children lose their sense of identity. And the damage cannot be undone“.
Bad things for the actual victim and everyone else:
* "Marriages, relationships and families end."
* "And the damage cannot be undone"
Bad thing (singular!) for the actual victim:
* "Fathers are bitter"
Bad things for everyone else:
* "Children are abandoned by the only fathers they ever knew."
* "Fathers are bitter and fight to disown the nonbiological child."
* "Children lose their sense of identity."
This is a callous disregard for the interests of fathers (and men), and the experience such fathers have. It ignores the mental health injuries and risks such a betrayal can have, and doesn't acknowledge how it disadvantages such fathers reproductively. It's made worse by the following Criticism section, which questions the validity of how those fathers react to being injured so, and again talks about what happens to the children. This reads like a misandrist, man-hating, man-eating woman wrote it.
Talking about what happens to people other than actual victims (fathers) in the case of paternity fraud is like talking about what happens to people other than actual victims (women) in the case of rape. It's fine to acknowledge secondary consequences as a minor point, but not a major point, and certainly not as the entire point.
The characterization of fathers' reaction to being cuckolded as being "bitter" is grotesque and psychotic. The implication that being bitter is what's bad for fathers, not what they're bitter about, is deplorable.
Hotpine (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  honestly I think that section should be removed altogether until it's replaced with "consequences" and merely someone's opinion. Python Drink (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

text: @Hotpine I think we need to add more references and information on the general effects of paternity fraud, both for the men and others. And as Python said, not exclusive to one writer's non-neutral opinion. Panamitsu (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: No NPOV in Consequences section

message: What exactly is the scope of this article? It seems to deal with a concept mostly present in the discourse of men's rights  activists, but largely absent from law.
The lede reads: 
::Paternity fraud, also known as misattributed paternity[1] or paternal discrepancy,[2] occurs when a man is incorrectly identified as the biological father of a child. The underlying assumption of "paternity fraud" is that the mother deliberately misidentified the biological father, while "misattributed paternity" may be accidental.[3] Paternity fraud is related to the historical understanding of adultery.
The concept of 'paternity fraud' as a deliberate fraudulent misrepresentation of the biological father by the mother has little translation into law, because in virtually all countries there is a legal presumption that if a child is born into marriage, the husband is the father. This can be later contested in court (laws vary significantly by country), but the fact that the contesting is successful  and the original paternity is annulled, is not, in and of itself, a case of "fraud" (from a legal point of view), because there was no legal choice in the original registration of the child other than list the husband as a father. As for fraud, there is obviously no fraud if the mother told the husband from the beginning that he is not or might not be the father. The article also seems to confuse two different legal actions: one of determination/contesting of paternity which deals only with the child and their legal status and rights (such as relation to the father, entitlement to child support, inheritance, etc); and an action of fraud, where the man who was considered as father sues the mother under the claim that he was the victim of fraud. With regard to unmarried paternity, listing false information on the birth certificate is illegal, just like listing false information in any public document is, but this is not necessary a case of a woman victimizing a man the way this article implies. A man who puts himself on a birth certificate when he knows that he is not the father or might not be the father is equally responsible legally. The article seems to focus only on the mothers' behavior, for instance in the section on Finland it reads: "If a mother deliberately gives false information to the authorities, which contributes to the erroneous establishment of paternity, she may be fined." This is true, but the same is true for a father who gives false information to the authorities. Section 57 of the 2015 Paternity Act of Finland reads: – Perjury in a paternity case "(2) What is provided in subsection 1 applies correspondingly to a man who, in connection with the investigation of paternity, in his acknowledgement of paternity or in his acceptance of acknowledgement deliberately gives false information to the authorities, which contributes to the erroneous establishment of paternity." The section on Finland should not even be in the article, because it does not deal with "paternity fraud". The law, the 2015 Paternity Act, deals with how paternity is established (inside and outside of marriage; the former is established by rebuttable presumption), and how it can be annulled (by joint request of the parents that the child supervisor investigate paternity, or by court application by mother, legal father, or potential biological father). It does not deal with "fraud". Same with the section on Switzerland, it is about a case of a man who initiated an action to contest paternity but was rejected by the court because the statute of limitations had expired. The whole article  seems to have developed as a POV fork from paternity related articles. It really needs to be rewritten, if not merged. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C652 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this article 

message: This section does not appear to be neutral.
I say this because rather than criticism of the concept, statistics, etc, the concept is demonized.
I'm especially referencing this sentence:
Lyn Turney says that the concept of paternity fraud is about the "demonization of mothers". Panamitsu (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No NPOV of the criticism section