Paternity fraud: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
** Table 3 suggests it is actually alarmingly common |
** Table 3 suggests it is actually alarmingly common |
||
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/who-s-your-daddy/305969/ |
* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/who-s-your-daddy/305969/ |
||
* https://familylawexpress.com.au/family-law-decisions/appeal/magill-v-magill-2006-hca-51-2006-231-alr-277-2006-81-aljr-254/ |
* https://familylawexpress.com.au/family-law-decisions/appeal/magill-v-magill-2006-hca-51-2006-231-alr-277-2006-81-aljr-254/ - no recourse under Australian law. |
||
Revision as of 12:23, 9 May 2021
- https://jezebel.com/5349395/are-paternity-tests-anti-feminist
- https://isogg.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event
- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry
- Table 3 suggests it is actually alarmingly common
- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/07/who-s-your-daddy/305969/
- https://familylawexpress.com.au/family-law-decisions/appeal/magill-v-magill-2006-hca-51-2006-231-alr-277-2006-81-aljr-254/ - no recourse under Australian law.