Submitted by Yardbroom

Matthew  18: 15-17

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.  If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.  But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.  If he refuses to listen even to them, tell it to the church.  And if he refuses to listen even to  the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

The urge in the male to reproduce is strong in humans, some animals and even insects; often the male of the species will sacrifice his life and even take that of others in efforts to produce his progeny.  A male lion taking over a pride, will kill all the young cubs in that pride, this not only allows the females to come into heat but it ensures any patter of tiny paws he hears will be as a result of “his” copulation.  “Lions obviously don’t care about the perpetuation of the species, only about the perpetuation of their own personal genes”.

“Sexual intercourse is the ultimate bond between male and female, but for some hapless males it is also their demise.  In the encounter between a male and female black widow spider, the female resorts to cannibalistic behaviour by eating the male during or after sexual intercourse.”  It would be crass of me to mention and mean this but here it goes, a matter of having your cake and eating it.

With regard to lions I am not suggesting that human beings should follow animal behaviour, as there is no need for such drastic action, we have scientific tools to prevent such carnage.

When a man after much thought asserts: ” that child is not mine” or states ” I have doubts I am the father of that child”.  Is it not right an reasonable, if he is not being malicious to take note of what could be legitimate concerns.  The investment both financial and emotional in parenting is huge, this investment cannot be taken lightly.  Is it reasonable to ask a man to take on such a commitment even if the doubt exist only in his head.

The woman of course has to be considered, is it reasonable in a supposed stable relationship, for a woman who considers herself faithful – and only she can really know that – to have her virtue challenged.  However, if there is doubt would it not be best and dare I say it “reasonable” to have any doubt removed by a DNA test.

The woman’s feelings must be considered but they are not paramount. Focus and concern should also be for the child, certainly he/she should feel and know both parents are who they say and believe they are.  It is germane because the medical history of parents is important and their progeny should be armed with the answers to confront any inherited genetic problems.

Many men have raised children only to discover later they were not their fathers.  They loved them no doubt, even after confirmation they were not a biological parent but often – not always – resentment in later years turns to the woman.

This article is not about the ability of men to love and care for another man’s child or children; and a beautiful thing that is.  It is so obvious it is not worthy of any serious debate.  This article is about some men often in complex situations wanting to know the truth.  I believe where it is possible for that truth to be ascertained there is no fundamental reason why it should not be known.  It can be done without casting aspersions on the  character of a faithful woman, as the doubt is in the head of the man, one could wish it were not so, but there it is.

In England if there is a dispute about whether the father of the child is the child’s natural father this can be resolved by the court.

A child can apply to the Court under the Family Law Act 1986 for a “Declaration” that a particular person is your parent and that you are a legitimate child of your parents.  A father who is asked to pay child support, but does not believe the child is his; can apply under the Child Support Act 1991 for a declaration that either you are or you are not the father. The Court therefore acknowledges there can be doubt and reasons it important for that doubt to be removed.  “To decide on parentage the court can order that both parents and the child must take blood tests.”

Also in the UK, under the Child Maintenance Scheme if a named father continues to dispute he is the father he will be offered a DNA Test.  If he refuses to take it.  The CMS ( Child Maintenance Scheme ) will treat him as the father.  The financial implications are serious because CMS may also ask the parent who was getting maintenance to pay back any money that you’ve paid since the date you denied you were the father.  Of course this is decided on a case by case basis.

Everything is not in favour of the father who disputes.  If the DNA test proves he is the father, he will have to pay:

(1) Any maintenance arrears.

(2) Court costs

(3) The cost of the DNA Test.

He may also put at risk any application for contact with the child or children.

In America; Sarah McGinnis in the Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, stated:” A recent report noted that the number of DNA test ordered to determine paternity had more than quadrupled during the past twenty years.  As relationships between mothers and fathers become less permanent, questions of paternity occur more frequently, increasing the need for legal adjudication of the issue”.

Paternity fraud has become such an issue that one commentator was so exercised, he wrote: “The most common source of paternity fraud is the legal presumption that any child born in a marriage is that of the husband and wife.”  I will temper my remarks as the above can be addressed by the courts.  However, I contend it is not reasonable or just for one party in a dispute to say “it is so, because “I” say it is so and expects that to be the end of the matter, and feels aggrieved if it is not.

A State judge in Virginia (USA) was recently confronted with a problem.  “Dwayne Parsons and Jenitha Saunders had a child 13 years ago.  As so often happens Saunders either told Parsons he was the father or allowed him to believe it.  Parsons signed the birth certificate.

At some point a child support order was issued against Parsons.  He paid some support but not all of it so a debt accrued – about $23,000.  Parsons found out through DNA tests he was not the child’s father, so Parsons asked the court to be relieved of any further child support obligations and his debt to Saunders.

The judge ruled that Parsons was no longer required to pay child support payments.  But when it came to past indebtedness, the Judge was hamstrung by the Bradley Amendment.  That’s the federal law that prohibits state judges from retroactively modifying child support orders, once in place those orders can only be altered prospectively.  So Parsons still owes $23,000 and the judge had no choice but to order him to keep paying.  And that is what Parsons will do for 1,917 years.

That’s right, the judge ordered Parsons to repay what he owes at the rate of $1 per month, with no interest added on.” The world is indeed a large place, dare I ask how many men who walk complacently about are a Mr. Parsons?