- Pakistan to US: Respect our decision to sentence CIA informant
- Good Reads: Why nations fail, and how we overlook some successes
- Russia claims new missile can overcome missile defenses
- New Romney ad outlines Day 1 of his presidency. Realistic? (+video)
- SpaceX's Dragon craft is a star performer, so far
Once a father, not always a father
New state laws allow DNA tests to exempt fathers from court-ordered child-support payments.
(Page 2 of 2)
"Once you get into litigation over these matters, you realize the answers are not as simple and clear as the participants believe it is," says Ms. Roberts.
Among the complicating issues are how to deal with the financial future of such children and the liability of the state to return past payments. Also, the new laws could alter the res judicata doctrine, a foundation of the US legal system that holds once a judgment is obtained, complainants have either no recourse to change it, or a limited time to challenge it.
Under the California provision, men would have three years from the time they find out they are not the father to get a DNA test and take it to court. The stipulation is being fought by parent, family, and youth groups because of the emotional, psychological, and financial devastation it could cause a child who has an established bond with the father.
Fathers in California now have two years from the date of a child's birth to challenge paternity. The new law would allow challenges of fatherhood well after children are raised and have established relationships.
This creates "significant uncertainty in the lives of many children," says Valerie Ackerman, of the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, Calif. "It subverts the system by giving an incentive for men to delay in investigating and presenting the relevant facts early in the process."
One particular concern about the new laws is what could happen emotionally to a child whose father decides to have a DNA test and is still found to be the biological father. Another concern is for men themselves: Mothers can deny parental rights to men who are not the biological father. Also of concern is the sudden financial liability assumed by states that allow men to end child support payments. Children cut off "could end up costing millions in welfare support from the state ... not to mention the legal liabilities when such men sue to recover hundreds of thousands in past payments," says Roberts.
Whatever the moral, legal, and ethical consequences the new laws offer a chance of fairness, says Carnell Smith, founder of the national group Citizens Against Paternity Fraud. "Truth is something that ought to be permissible in court cases where men have been lied to."
But men's motives are often not as simple as wanting to sever financial responsibility. For Connors it is more. "I also have the concern that Kaitlin learn the truth about her real biological father," he says, because blood relatives could possibly help her with organ donations or bone-marrow transplants.
"I don't mind helping this child," Connors says, "but I have no choice. And that, because someone lied to me and defrauded me many years ago, is not fair."
Page:
1 | 2




