The story is online here. Some quotes: Last week, in a decision that underscores the tense relationship between science and law, a divided Kentucky Supreme Court told Rhoades that he could not press his paternity claim, no matter what evidence of fatherhood he might have, because J.N.R. was, and remains, a married woman. When it comes to defining fatherhood in the Bluegrass State, where Ricketts and her husband now live, the marital "I do" mean a lot more than DNA.
The report continues, But unlike the past, such allegations these days are often backed by science, introducing certainty where none before existed. As of a result, the prohibition on third-party challenges to paternity has begun to weaken. By 2000, at least 33 states had adopted rules that allowed challenges by fathers with genetic proof of their paternity, usually restricting such efforts to the first two years of a child's life. The advent of DNA testing has tread a similarly disruptive course in other areas of law, including criminal cases where exonerations once thought impossible are becoming routine. A few states have even begun allowing ex-husbands to present DNA evidence that they were duped by cheating spouses to avoid child support obligations.
What's next? Rhoades said he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. But he faces long odds there, given that the high court has already ruled once, in 1989, on the same issue, upholding California's explicit bar against paternity challenges like his. That decision too was divided and contentious. The biological father in that case did not get to see his daughter till she had turned 21. "Well, obviously I am not going to give up and say, 'Oh well I lost,'" Rhoades says. "I believe I have a fundamental right to be in my son's life." The trouble is: nature's law isn't the law of the land.
“She wrote that if men had parental rights in such cases, it would discourage women from straying outside of marriage.”
This is a twisted rationalization used by Justice Lizabeth Hughes Abramson to justify her attack on marriage, the family, fathers and children. Would mothers still be provided with financial incentives through additional child support to have children with more than one father? Justice Lizabeth Hughes Abramson is a family law feminist.
Marriage provides fathers with parental rights. In my opinion, the KY Supreme Court decided correctly.
For those who support parental rights and responsibilities for Mr. Rhoades, should he be eligible for a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting? Should he be able to prevent the two-parent family from relocating?
“One way to look at gender-related law is to ask yourself, “How would this decision look if the sexes were reversed?” From that angle, imagine that a married man had an affair with a single woman, who bore a child as a result. Can you possibly imagine that the Court would order the child to be taken from the hospital, given to the married father, and that the single mother would be given no parental rights to the child? Somehow, I just don’t think so.”
Children need two parents! We must have a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting for the parents of a marriage and for two unmarried parents. We also must have limits on no-fault/unilateral divorce when children are involved.
A pertinent question for the question posed above is this: are men more inclined than women to adopt a strategy of quantity (have more children with more partners) over quality (have fewer children and help raise them in a two-parent family)?
If the law wanted to encourage marriage and two-parent families, then the father in the scenario above would have inferior parental rights to the mother.
The purpose of child support must be publically debated. Currently, the law provides women with financial incentives to have children with more than one man. This could be changed.
Posted by: gv70 | May 25, 2008 at 01:26 AM