It's hard to feel sorry for a billionaire whose ex-wife asks
for $320,000 a month in child support, even when DNA evidence
proves he is not a father.
After all, what is $320,000 to the 46th richest man in the
world? Certainly sympathy would be easier to come by if the
dollar amount might even put a dent in Kirk Kerkorian's budget.
To do so would undoubtedly take far more than thousands of
dollars a week for "play dates" and upkeep of a 4-year-old girl
whose silver spoon most certainly came encrusted with pave
diamonds.
But the real injustice facing the MGM mogul remains that no
matter how much evidence he offers refuting paternity -- DNA
tests, proof of his sterility -- California's legal system
offers little hope that the truth will prevail. For Kerkorian and
men of much lesser means, the most credible evidence to refute
paternity would be a DNA test, offering a 99.9 percent certainty
of whether a man fathered a child. Even though DNA evidence has
been used to free falsely convicted murderers, and individuals
unfairly convicted of rape and other crimes, courts are slow to
accept it as proof that a man should not have to pay child
support.
Although this logic defies conventional wisdom, the
"presumption of paternity" is a long-standing legal principle.
This tenet of common law states that unless a man can prove that
he is sterile, impotent, or away from home at the time of
conception, he is the legal father of any child born to his wife
during their marriage. The Romans first adopted this rule, and
later, the English incorporated it.
Instead of acknowledging near-perfect proof of a child's
paternity, courts in most of the 50 states rely on 500-year-old
English common law, promulgating an epidemic of paternity fraud.
Because none of the 50 states require a mother who files a claim
for child support advise the court and child support agencies of
uncertain paternity when another man could potentially be the
father, thousands of men are paying child support for children
that may not be their children.
Many states have opted to look the other way when it comes to
adopting legislation against paternity fraud. Only two states
have instituted legislation that allows men unlimited time to
challenge paternity using DNA testing: Maryland, which passed
legislation in 1995, and Ohio, which passed its bill in 2000. The
Georgia State Legislature recently passed a paternity fraud bill
that now awaits the Governor's signature.
Other states have addressed this problem by limiting
paternity challenges: Iowa allows a maximum of three years for
such challenges, Colorado allows 5 years, and Louisiana 10
years. None of these states require mothers make full and
accurate disclosure of potential paternity disputes within the
time limits set by states.
Alaska requires that unwed parents establish paternity
through genetic testing. In doing so, child support orders are
only issued to biological fathers. Even so, Alaska remains the
only state with such legislation.
In contrast, Los Angeles County fails flagrantly in its
success rate in assuring only men who fathered children pay
child support. In 2000 alone, more than 79 percent of L.A.
County paternity judgments were assigned by default, meaning
that the suspected father never had his day in court. Worse,
once a judgment is established, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to remove.
In his best-selling book "Bias," Bernard Goldberg chronicles
the inner workings of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
and its efforts at obtaining paternity collections. According to
Goldberg, then-District Attorney Gil Garcetti obtained default
judgments of paternity after failing to notify "fathers" of court
hearings. Once the court established paternity, Garcetti refused
to rescind judgments against men who later proved through DNA
evidence that they were not the fathers of their alleged
children.
The case of MGM mogul Kirk Kerkorian and his ex-wife, Lisa,
illustrates at the extreme the absurdities of paternity findings:
If DNA proof cannot clear a man's name, what will?
Should any man, rich or poor, be legally and financially
responsible for a child that is not biologically his?
Do children have the right to know the identity of their
biological fathers?
Must courts hold mothers accountable when they make false
statements regarding paternity?
The emotional nature of the issue clouds the patent reality
that paternity fraud is a crime and must be treated as such.
In 1999 alone, almost 30 percent of 280,000 paternity cases
evaluated by the American Association of Blood Banks excluded
the tested individual as the biological father. Today,
California has before its legislature a bill that would correct
this injustice. The California Paternity Justice Act of 2002
(Assembly Bill 2240) would require DNA testing in cases of
disputed paternity.
Sadly, the nearly 84,000 children who in 1999 learned their
alleged fathers were not related are not alone. While bills such
as AB 2240 do little to bring peace to these children and their
families, they bring them closer to two goals that are equally
noble: truth and justice.
Dianna Thompson is a nationally recognized expert
on families and divorce-related issues. She serves as executive
director of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children and
may be reached by e-mail at
dthompson2232@aol.com.
