In many states, Lord Mansfield's Rule still stands as the standard for presumption of paternity in a marital relationship. Many have called this presumption into question because of the availability of DNA testing.
Currently Lord Manfield's Rule protects the family unit, allowing for no outside interference in matters of paternity of a child born within an intact marriage. (In fact, further investigation into presumptions of paternity include the wife having an outside relationship, with her husbands blessing, to have a child that he would be the father to. In researching this issue several years ago I found references to the husband giving his blessing for a wife to sleep with another for the purpose of having a child with the husband.)
There have been a lot of posts lately regarding a 'third party' threatening to sue for DNA testing of a child born within a marriage. I'm one that feels very strongly that this should not be allowed to happen, and that a married couple should be able to move forward as a family unit without this outside influence. I also feel that the ability to sue for DNA testing of a child within a marriage would create the atmosphere for a lot of frivolous suits being brought for all the wrong reasons. In my opinion, if you sleep with a married woman, you accept the consequences of same.... including the possibility of creating a child that will be raised by another. In this day and age of artificial insemination, in vitro and even surrogates, where the married couples are the legal parents of the child, DNA availability doesn't seem a very good reason to overturn the rights of a married couple.
What do you think? Should a third party be able to interfere in an intact marriage by requesting DNA to prove paternity? Should certain safeguards be in place to protect a marriage and a family unit from the stress and trust issues that would arise from the mere filing of such an action?