comment: >
  
  The existence of divorce laws renders prenups useless and a waste of money for the vast majority of first marriages where neither party has a pot to piss in. 
  Why the hell should everybody get a prenup when most people do not have assets until long after they are married?
context: /u/sqeeky_wheelz (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  Legally, they're two different things.
  A prenup is designed to protect past assets i.e. pre-matrimonial assets.
  A paternity test is just whether you pay child maintenance or not. Bear in mind I'm English law based so if you can show the kid isn't yours you don't have to pay. It doesn't determine anything else. 
  When it comes to validity of prenups, if there's no mention/provision for the kid (or child of the family, if not bio kid) then the pre nup may come up for challenge. >
  
  My post isn’t that they are the same. My point is that 1) everyone should have a prenup 2) every child should have factually proven paternity. 
  If the assumed father is not the biological father 2 things should happen 1) the biological father should have a right to their child’s life. 2) the assumed father should not be held liable for child support (unless they so choose to support/care for the child)