MAY 6, 2008

What’s DNA Got To Do With It? Apparently, Not Much (Says The Kentucky Supreme Court).

At TMG, we track the impact that faith and values have on our society.  For example, consider that more than 40% of U.S. adults have changed their faith since childhood.  What does this mean to us as a society?  Or how about gay marriage?  Or the creation versus evolution discussion?  Faith and values play a very important role in shaping our positions on these very controversial issues. 

For a moment, let’s talk about paternity. 

Paternity is an interesting topic in our society.  Normally, it only makes the news when: (1) a male celebrity is involved in a jerky-guy-doesn’t-take-responsibility-for-his-child-way (e.g., actor Eddie Murphy denying paternity  of then-girlfriend (and Spice Girl) Melanie Brown’s claim that she was pregnant with his child) ; (2) a new stat about child support is particularly astonishing (for example, in 2005, $23 billion was collected by agencies working with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Office of Child Support Enforcement); or (3) or paternity fraud becomes public (New Hampshire reported that as many as 30 percent (!!) of those paying child support were not the biological fathers of the children being supported).  

But think about this: in Kentucky, a man who wants to establish paternity because he has fathered a child with a married woman has no legal rights to go forward with his claim, no matter what DNA evidence he presents, because the biological mother “was, and remains, a married woman.”  Last week, a 4-3 decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court divided the court as justices debated the intersection of law, science, and society.  Even the majority was split, with one side holding that no “stranger to the marriage” can ever attack the legitimacy of a child’s birth and the other side holding the biological dad may have stood a chance if it was proven that the “‘marital relationship had ceased at least 10 months’ prior to the child’s birth.”  Concurring opinions added strong statements like “[a]s long as marriage is on the books, it must mean something” and “bold declaration[s]” were needed to be made about “the marriage circle[.]”

Let’s go over Paternity Law 101: a child born during a marriage is presumed to be the husband’s child, establishing complete duties and obligations to the child.  Moreover, “[a]n unmarried father has the right to request genetic testing to prove that he is the father and he can establish the legal right to a relationship with his child.”  The U.S. government even promotes responsible fatherhood as a “national priority[.]”  So if, as in the Kentucky case, we have a father who wants to be responsible but the law disagrees, what is the national priority?

What do you do when, as Time’sMichael Lindenberger notes, “nature’s law isn’t the law of the land[?]”  Is this legal presumption of paternity still appropriate in today’s day and age?  How can law and science be reconciled in today’s society?