Despite DNA, Dad's Paternity Denied

Despite DNA, Dad's Paternity Denied

news.yahoo.com

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....

...The decision has left Rhoades devastated. "What I wanted was not just to see my son but to participate in his life," Rhoades told TIME. "He is my son and I love him."...

(visit the link for the full news article)

DNA evidence is fairly black and white, with a grey area of less than 1% (margin of error). It is used in cases where a person's life hangs in the balance, yet is being denied in this case of paternity.

You hear so many stories of fathers skipping out on their kids, denying that they fathered the child altogether. When this happens, courts will call for a DNA-paternity test. How can they use DNA evidence one way, but not in the other. Technically, marriage in and of itself has nothing to do with paternity, and I'm very confused as to how this case.

The "Courts have forever held that allegations of fatherhood by third parties can only disrupt the family, confuse or embarrass the child, and unsettle the social order." I agree with this statement, but this is more than just an "allegation of fatherhood". This man is, without a doubt, the father, and has a right to his child.

I think this MUST be brought to the Supreme Court. DNA evidence has the power to convict and exonerate and there needs to be a distinct line in when/where/how it can be used in a court of law.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)