Depends on How You Define "Passing" a DNA Test

Putting aside all the really abominable things that can happen to a dad and his kids, the cover story in this week's New York Times Magazine would make the top three of dad-nightmares.

Basically, Dad A was married to Mom B and they had a daughter. It turned out, thanks to the ever-more-accessible DNA test, that the child was not actually Dad A's. (Mom A admitted to an affair, and the test was done shortly before the daughter's birthday.)

Dad A and Mom B eventually divorced, but Dad A gladly paid child support because he helped raise the child and had a bond with her as any dad would have. (And because, according to Dad A, the biological dad wouldn't pay support.)

But then, Mom B got remarried. To Dad B, who is the biological father of the daughter. Dad A was still going to have to pay child support, but, understandably, he was a little pissed off:

"I pay child support to a biologically intact family.... A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?"

Ridiculous enough that Dad A went to court to renounce his fatherhood. He still loves his daughter (step-daughter?), even if he thought it was crazy to have to continue to pay child support now. (You'll have to read toward the end of the article to see how this all turns out. Do not expect a happy ending.)

In addition to a few more tales like this — they're all pretty heartbreaking and emotionally confusing — we learn of an organization called U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, which takes up the case for "duped dads."

My kids are only 5 and 3, and I couldn't imagine the emotions I'd be dealing with if I found out either wasn't my child — let alone what I'd think if I found out five or 10 years later.

The whole thing makes me take less pleasure in those Maury paternity shows, despite this:


Read more...