Here we go again with the bs. I was on Facebook yesterday and my homie D asked his “Question of the day”: Should a woman be charged with fraud for misleading a man that he is the father of a child that is not his? Obviously this question got quite a few responses, especially from the fellas. One dude even suggested the woman should be burned at the stake. Now, I don’t condone that type of violence…but I understand that type of response. My personal opinion is a woman should be charged with fraud and if convicted, not only should she get jail time, but she should also have to repay all monies given to her to the care and well being of said child. Let’s be clear, it’s never going to happen…but, things are changing. Quite a few states have new laws on the books that give a father a certain amount of time to request a DNA test and if he’s not the father, he’s released of all obligations to that child.
Fatherhood isn’t based on the amount of money you pay for the child. There are quite a few factors that play into a man’s ability to be a good father. For years, court systems have gone by the “best interest of the child” decree. And without question the best interest of the child should be of paramount concern. The problem is, in my opinion, the courts don’t look at how the best interest of one child can negatively impact the best interest of another child. If I’m paying 17% for a child that isn’t mine, that’s less money that I have to pay for a child or children that I actually fathered. With the advances of DNA testing allowing for testing pretty much anywhere, more and more fathers are testing their children to alleviate any anxieties they may have over the birth of this child. Whether it comes from a belief that he was cheated on or, even worse, she just comes out and says the child could possibly be someone elses, DNA is the only way to conclusively know for a fact the child is or isn’t yours. I don’t care about your momma saying that baby looks just like you or doesn’t look anything like you. I don’t care if that baby comes out with a big nose and your nose is small. I don’t care about hair texture, eye color, or any other old school, wives tail method to determine paternity. The only thing that I trust without question is DNA.
I was locked up when my son was born in 1997. I believed my future bm had cheated on me in the past. Knowing that I would have no parental rights as long as my name wasn’t on the birth certificate but I’d also be on the hook for child support for years if the baby wasn’t mine, I had her take me to child support. I took my DNA test at the hospital in March, 5 months after my son was born. It took her 3 more months to actually get the test done. When the results came back in the mail, I was a nervous wreck because it had taken her so long to get the test done. Bottom line, my son is mine. The DNA came back 99.98%. All is right with the world and I didn’t have to commit a homicide. But what about the guys who find out through DNA that the child they have been raising, the child they have loved and cared for and nurtured for 2, 3, 4, 5 or more years isn’t theirs? How do they handle the situation? Is the child still theirs because of the bonds that have been formed? Are they wrong for cutting the child off because it isn’t his?
In certain states like Pennsylvania, the last scenario is the only way to get out of child support. Not only does a man have to have DNA proof that shows isn’t the father but he also has to completely and totally remove himself from the life of the child. In other states there is nothing you can do even with DNA evidence. Case in point: Kirk Kerkorian. Kirk Kerkorian is one of the original owners of the MGM Grand Hotels and Casinos. Needless to say he’s very wealthy. Kirk likes the ladies, he likes the younger ladies. In 1999 he married 34 year old tennis pro Lisa Bonder. Their marriage lasted a grand total of 28 days. Ms. Bonder has a daughter name Kira that she initially claimed was Mr. Kerkorians. Not only was Kira not his child, at the time he was paying $320,000 a month in child support to her. There were two DNA tests taken for little Kira. The first time, Ms. Bonder got DNA from Kirk’s oldest daughter and used that DNA instead of DNA from Kira. Kirk still felt like something wasn’t right. His lawyer hired a private investigator who found dental floss of a former lover of Lisa. Once that DNA test was done, it came out that Kira wasn’t Kirk’s child. You would figure he would be in the clear with that $320,000 a month in child support right? Wrong! Not only is he still considered by the California courts to be that child’s father, he also ended up paying $10 million in back support and $100,000 a month in child support payments. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/kirk-kerkorian-to-pay-102_n_772768.html
California and other states go under a term called “presumption of paternity”. It is a law that was adopted during Roman times, the English continued it and we live by it to this day. What this means is a married man is the father of any child his wife has. A man has to be able to prove he is sterile, impotent or away from home, presumably to war, in order to even start the process of saying the child isn’t his. Alaska is the only state in the Union that has a law in place that says all children born out of wedlock must be tested to establish paternity. That way no single male in Alaska is paying child support for a baby that isn’t his. http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0416b.html
I understand the reasoning behind child support. There are a lot of bum ass dudes out there who wouldn’t pay a dime if they weren’t made to by the child support enforcement unit. Child support doesn’t begin to cover all the costs and needs associated with raising a child. A child needs to have that time and connection with the father that child support doesn’t cover. That being said, the system can be abused by women. One man paying for a child that isn’t his is one time too many. Some states are making laws that allow for DNA tests to be presented to the court after a child is born but more needs to be done to protect men from a dishonest woman. A child is a long term commitment; at minimum it’s 18 years. Could you imagine paying $100,000 a month in child support for a child that isn’t yours. The way I look at it, if DNA is good enough to get people off of death row, it should be good enough to get me out of child support payments. For the last 10 years or soI have told every woman that I have been serious with that if she ever get pregnant by me, I want a DNA. Most get angry, threaten to leave me if I asked such a thing. I don’t care. I’d rather lose a woman that doesn’t understand the realities of the situation than gain a child that isn’t mine. That’s just me.