Editorial: What is fatherhood? It's more than biology -- much More

Sacramento Bee, Sacremento, California, U.S.A., June 21, 2002

Assemblyman Rod Wright has identified some real problems with the way California sometimes establishes paternity. Because of poor notification requirements, men have been named fathers by court order without their knowledge. Even men who acknowledge paternity don't always know what the legal obligations of fatherhood entail, nor do they know that they can require genetic testing before accepting those responsibilities.

No one is certain about the extent of these problems, but they seem to be widespread enough to require some remedy. Unfortunately, the remedy Wright proposes in AB 2240 would wreak havoc on families and children across California.

Under California law, once a court declares a man to be the father of a child, he has up to the child's second birthday to challenge that ruling. After two years, even if the man can show through DNA testing that he is not the child's biological father, in most cases paternity and the man's legal obligation to support a child cannot be set aside.

Wright's bill would change that. Under it, a falsely named father could petition a court to set aside paternity at any time during a child's life if the man could show through genetic testing that he was not the biological father.

Even though the bill requires courts to consider the best interest of the child before relieving wrongly named fathers from support obligations, the change would leave many children at risk of losing the support both financial and emotional of the only father they have ever known. For that reason, it should be rejected.

Fatherhood, after all, is more than biology; ask any adoptive parent. There are sound and ethical reasons someone should be obligated to support a child who is not biologically his own: because he failed to contest paternity when the child was born, thus making the child dependent on his support; because he acknowledged the paternal relationship and accepted the privileges and responsibility that go along with it for many years; because he may be the only father the child has ever known; and, most important, because it may be in the best interest of the child.

To allow a father to shed his court-ordered obligations to a child at any time during that child's life, at 3, 10 or 16, as the Wright bill does, would inevitably harm children. Often in such cases, not only a father would be lost but a whole host of family relationships -- grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, even brothers and sisters, are thrown into turmoil.

To allow such an open-ended challenge to fatherhood also would upset the strong public interest in prompt, early establishment of paternity. The earlier paternity is established, the better the chance a mother has to identify the real father and secure the support to which the child is entitled.

California needs to do a better job informing men of their rights and obligations when a child is born. But once a man is notified and knowingly takes on a father's role, the innocent child's interest must prevail above all else.