Maybe I am the only one that will find this disturbing, but a recent Time article really threw me for a loop.

Background: A man in Tallahassee went to court to fight for rights to see his son. He had DNA tests to prove that he was biologically the father and had pictures of himself and his son together. The child was the result of an affair the man had while the husband of the child's mother was stationed at a nearby naval base.

The case sounds pretty straightforward. The man can prove paternity and there is no mention in the article of any sort of criminal background or other problem that would prevent him from having his rights as the father.

He lost. Not only was he denied any sort of custody, he was denied any interaction with his son.

Why? Because the woman is still married to her husband, and according to Kentucky law (where they now live) "no stranger to a marriage can ever attack the legitimacy of a child's birth."

The court went on to say that "allegations of fatherhood by third parties can only disrupt the family,
confuse or embarrass the child, and unsettle the social order"

And apparently this ruling isn't againest the norm. Although some states have changed their rules, a 1989 Supreme Court ruling upheld California's law barring such paternity claims.

Come on, sure the nuclear family may still be an ideal strived for by many Americans, but can laws seriously tell us that marital bonds (no matter how fractured) can truimph over solid DNA evidence?

Who really wins in a situation like this? The father who is denied the chance to know his son? or how about the son who will someday have his entire world uprooted when he realizes his mother went to court to keep him away from his father?

You can read the full article here:

Despite DNA, Dad's Paternity Denied

Much Love

Beverly