Thanks.
Awhile ago I put up a blog about how often a woman will appear on a talk show saying that she is completely certain that a particular man is the father of their children. She may seem to be utterly stunned when DNA evidence proves her wrong.
Since I’ve done an essay on moms who are certain they’ve got the right bio father and are shocked when proven wrong, I would now like to explore the opposite scenario: the man who is completely certain that the child could not possibly be his and learns from DNA evidence that it is.
I have an all-time favorite Maury show with precisely this scenario. The mother was an African American who was dark-complexioned. Tears streamed down her eyes as she told Maury how her husband had denied paternity since the baby’s birth. He had not been affectionate with the baby because he was so convinced it could not be his. She adamantly claimed that no one else could possibly be the father.
The father appeared on the screen. He was also a dark-skinned African American. “Maury, I am a black man and that is a white child!” he exclaimed. “I am not the father of that child!”
When one saw the baby, it was easy to see why the husband was so sure it had to have been sired by another man. The baby had extremely pale skin and red hair! Quite simply, the child looked nothing like the man said to be the father and nothing like the woman known to be the mother. People looking at the baby would be likely to think it must look like the “real” father who had to be a white man.
Maury asked the wife how she explained why the baby looked so different from her and her husband. “I have two sisters who are very light-skinned and one of them has red hair,” she replied with obvious anguish. “It can happen.”
But it is not at all likely that two dark-skinned people will biologically create a fair-skinned, red-haired baby.
The husband sat beside his wife. Maury said, “Your wife says there is no other possibility.”
“She’s lying,” the man firmly answered. “Anyone can see that.”
Maury read the results of the DNA test: “You ARE the father!”
The man’s jaw dropped as far it would go, his eyebrows shot up, and his eyes widened. His head turned from side to side in utter confusion. As is usual in cases where paternity is confirmed, the baby was brought out to him and handed to him. He held what he now knew to be his child but without even looking at it as his shocked face continued moving from side to side in his stunned bewilderment.
I might add that his case is the only one that I can recall of a HUSBAND who did not appear overjoyed to discover that he was in fact the man who had sired the baby his wife had birthed.
However, this case is only an extreme example of a very common reason why men are certain a baby cannot be theirs. That reason is that they see no physical resemblance between themselves and the youngster. What we see of others’ appearance is to a large degree subjective and one person can see resemblances while another does not. Additionally, genetics is something of a crapshoot so features of a parent may be evident or they may not be.
Another reason men are convinced they cannot have sired a particular baby reflects a kind of magical thinking. They do not like the mother. They do not respect the mother. The sexual relationship was only that. As one man said, “I used you!” Another one exclaimed, “She was just a booty call.” Still another: “I just wanted a piece of your a–.”
The biological fact is that a conception does not depend on the feelings of the people who engage in intercourse. Raped women conceive. Men who feel nothing but an impersonal lust may impregnate.
Why do men believe a “booty call” could not have their babies? I think that most men naturally care about their sons and daughters. They know that the psychological make-up of a mother has a tremendous influence on how a child turns out. The mother must teach, discipline with patience, guide, and nourish both physically and mentally. Men don’t WANT to think about their children being raised, and possibly mal-raised, by women they dislike and distrust. Wishful thinking leads them to deny the possibility – but nature has made it a reality for many.
A final reason men are convinced they could not have sired children that they have in fact sired has to do with timing. Very rarely do men deny having had sexual intercourse with the women who say they are fathers. Rather, they are frequently convinced that they did not have sex with her within the time frame within which she became pregnant. Why are they often wrong? Because men, like women, do not keep careful records of the dates on which they have sex. Human memory is notoriously fallible and the period between conception and birth is long enough to allow for a considerable amount of mis-estimation.
Ultimately, there may be a single, biologically based reason why men doubt paternity. Fatherhood, unlike motherhood, is not physically evident. The old sayings, “Mama’s baby, Daddy’s maybe” and “A wise child knows who his father is,” reflect this truth.
For the first time in history, technology has given us the ability to make paternity almost as certain as maternity. DNA testing at birth should be routine. Men should no longer have to guess but, like women, should be able to KNOW who their babies are.
Stumble It!Rate this post:
(5 votes, average: 3.8 out of 5)
Loading ...
amfortas said,
However I take issue with you on some aspects of your presentation. Important aspects.
You say: “However, this case is only an extreme example of a very common reason why men are certain a baby cannot be theirs. That reason is that they see no physical resemblance between themselves and the youngster.”
Where on earth did you get this from? A ‘common reason’? I think you would be hard pressed to put any numbers to that ‘common’, let alone a sufficiently high one to say it is ‘common’, and I am willing to be astonished if you want to point me to any reputable study.
The other issue that I find questionable is the incidence of men being presented with the evidence of their actual fatherhood at all. I would have thought that it is small. You rightly point to the advances in DNA testing - and I have often written that such tests should be mandatory for all three parties’ benefit - can make the determination beyond dipute, but very few men ever get the opportunity to get such a test done, even when they have fought tooth and nail to get one done, Indded the Law prevents their automatic ‘right’ to know, giving a veto to the mother.
Women in general seem to grasp this ‘Father’s maybe’ aspect with an iron grip. It gives them a power which is easily abused. That, to my mind, is a far more ‘common’ phenomenon.
July 4, 2008 at 2:03 am
NOWMEN.NET said,
July 4, 2008 at 11:15 am
shatteredmen said,
This alone would end almost all of the paternity fraud but I do not think our government really wants to stop it. It is one of the few crimes for which the real victim is penalized for a couple of decades while the criminal is rewarded.
Often the notice of paternity is given well after the time is up to contest it because the wrong address was willfully given to make sure it would not be in time.
Another reason for many men not accepting that they are a father is because many men and women do not realize that conception can happen with one night stands even with “protection”
I also remember seeing one of these shows where Maury was testing potential father number 14 or 15 and he was really putting this man down for not stepping up to the plate to admit he was the father when the envelop was open and Maury declared, “You are NOT the father” Even then, he only had good words for the woman who now would have to be testing potential father #15, 16, 17 or 18 even though by that time I think a word Imus got in trouble for would be appropriate.
I do contend that it is always best to be faithful to one’s own husband or wife and as long as our spouse is faithful to us…that is always the only “safe sex”
There is always a high cost to being unfaithful
http://www.shatterdmen.com/HIDDEN%20COST.htm
July 4, 2008 at 11:53 am
Joi said,
All the more reason for a federal law for mandatory DNA testing at birth.
Can’t have this because women will claim it will impugn the integrity of women. LOL, although tons of stuff impugn the integrity of men and no one says anything. i.e. sex offender registration websites, dateline nbc to catch a preditor, etc etc.
July 4, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Denise Noe said,
This is an important issue you raise, Denise, and one which needs the views of both men and women. It can be a shock, of course, and that is recognised.
However I take issue with you on some aspects of your presentation. Important aspects.
You say: “However, this case is only an extreme example of a very common reason why men are certain a baby cannot be theirs. That reason is that they see no physical resemblance between themselves and the youngster.”
Where on earth did you get this from? A ‘common reason’? I think you would be hard pressed to put any numbers to that ‘common’, let alone a sufficiently high one to say it is ‘common’, and I am willing to be astonished if you want to point me to any reputable study.
(Denise) I’ve watched many, many TV shows about this and one of the most common reasons given by the men who believe they could not have fathered a particular child is that the child doesn’t look like them.
July 5, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Robert Stevens said,
Pass, then enforce and yes, it will have to be enforced, equal parenting rights for fathers/men.
Once the man can say no and not have a unplanned and unwanted child, a lot of things will change for the better. Once the man has equal rights as a parent, that makes things better still. Once the woman is held accountable for socially, legally and morally irresponsible behavior,it will stop. problem solved!
We will have to get rid of the corrupt and out of control family law system and replace it with a fair system based on common law. A common law system has built in checks and balance, in effect it penalizes bad behavior, women are prone to exhibit and rewards good behavior , men are prone to exhibit. Once it is understood that this is the way it is, and no matter how much kicking, screaming and crying the women and the government thugs who back their selfish behavior do, it is still the law and they will obey it.
July 6, 2008 at 11:16 pm
jackal1994 said,
Within a few short years of the pill for men becoming widely available (and recent successful lawsuits breaking down the anonymous barrier of sperm donors) women may actually have to start being nice to men again in order to have children.
In Ghosbusters, when Sigourney Weaver’s character and the acountant nerd get possessed (if you remember) they were referred to as the “Gatekeeper” and the “Keymaster” which is an apt term about child conception.
After the pill for men, it will be men who will become the gatekeeper, and it will be a silent revolution that will shake all women to their very cores.
July 7, 2008 at 10:23 am
PolishKnight said,
One of the difficult challenges in “deprogramming” people and addressing false beliefs on their part is the admitting they’re wrong factor. Many people would rather go to their grave rather than admit they’re wrong and it’s rather difficult especially for someone to come to grips with it on national TV. So this may explain why the man was heartbroken despite it being really good news. He had done a lot of damage, unwittingly, to the relationship between himself and his wife and son and this was quite a blow.
I think that it should be standard practice at all hospitals to have a THIRD PARTY technician do a DNA test on all parties in the birth certificate and infant as they leave the maternity ward, collect the data, and then send copies of the results both to the hospital and the parents simultaneously. This would protect the hospital from liability lawsuits for baby mixups as well as reassure the parents that the child is actually theirs.
July 7, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Denise Noe said,
I feel some sympathy for this man (and his child), Denise, in that the poor man had denied this child was his for some time and realized that he had to make it up to him. He had to eat some crow. Was Maury rather cruel to this man? Typically, both Montel and Maury have been total a**holes towards men even when it turned out the men were correct.
(Denise) As I tried to make clear, I also have some sympathy for the father in the case I discussed and easily saw why he believed it simply was impossible for him to be the baby’s father. Maury wasn’t particularly mean to him.
PolishKnight: One of the difficult challenges in “deprogramming” people and addressing false beliefs on their part is the admitting they’re wrong factor. Many people would rather go to their grave rather than admit they’re wrong and it’s rather difficult especially for someone to come to grips with it on national TV. So this may explain why the man was heartbroken despite it being really good news. He had done a lot of damage, unwittingly, to the relationship between himself and his wife and son and this was quite a blow.
(Denise) My guess is that when the shock wore off, the man was — like other HUSBANDS similarly surprised — delighted. Indeed, he may well have been on top of the world. The immediate reaction was because of the degree of shock and yes, probably, the realization that he had unjustly accused his wife as well as failed to bond with what was in fact his ow baby.
PolishKnigh: I think that it should be standard practice at all hospitals to have a THIRD PARTY technician do a DNA test on all parties in the birth certificate and infant as they leave the maternity ward, collect the data, and then send copies of the results both to the hospital and the parents simultaneously. This would protect the hospital from liability lawsuits for baby mixups as well as reassure the parents that the child is actually theirs.
(Denise) That’s a very good idea! It is true that “the mother we know” — except for the odd case of a mix-up. However, this odd cases — or even the suspicion of them — can have disastrous consequences. I am familiar with the case of a woman who went to prison for the manslaughter of her small son. She denied killing the boy but admitted that she had mistreated him. The mistreatment started, in part, because someone close to her noted that the baby’s complexion wasn’t at all like hers and suggested that the hospital could have given her the wrong baby. The mother did not check this out with the hospital but the thought preyed on her mind and apparently fed an antipathy toward the poor child.
July 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm
PolishKnight said,
One of the legal conundrums of the situation is that before the baby is born, the father has few rights and this is understandable. After all, the patients they are treating: The mother and unborn child respectively, are not necessarily linked to him genetically. If a mother wanted to toss him out, this is similar to any situation where a patient doesn’t want a spouse present.
On the other hand, once the child is born it should automatically be considered in the legal custody of BOTH parents especially if they are married (they’d have no reservations about tracking him down to pay the bill!)
I’m thinking about making a personal stand on this when I have children. If the hospital refuses to give me a bracelet, I would have a legal injunction on hand immediately demanding access as a custodial parent and, importantly, get this BEFORE the ink on the birth certificate is dry. Just as the mother may hesitate to sign off on a birth certificate without reasonable assurance that the hospital has engaged in best practices to ensure it’s hers, the man also should be able to exercise this perogative.
July 9, 2008 at 10:54 am
Denise Noe said,
Thanks! I know a woman who just had a child and she was commenting about the almost draconian procedures hospitals go through to (try) to ensure babies are not mixed up. The mother and baby are given matching bracelets and then the nurse on duty is given a bracelet which allows only her, and the mother, access to the child. (Right then and there, it would be useful for MRA’s to argue that the father should also have access since it’s his child.)
One of the legal conundrums of the situation is that before the baby is born, the father has few rights and this is understandable. After all, the patients they are treating: The mother and unborn child respectively, are not necessarily linked to him genetically. If a mother wanted to toss him out, this is similar to any situation where a patient doesn’t want a spouse present.
On the other hand, once the child is born it should automatically be considered in the legal custody of BOTH parents especially if they are married (they’d have no reservations about tracking him down to pay the bill!)
I’m thinking about making a personal stand on this when I have children. If the hospital refuses to give me a bracelet, I would have a legal injunction on hand immediately demanding access as a custodial parent and, importantly, get this BEFORE the ink on the birth certificate is dry. Just as the mother may hesitate to sign off on a birth certificate without reasonable assurance that the hospital has engaged in best practices to ensure it’s hers, the man also should be able to exercise this perogative.
(Denise) What you must make a stand for is SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the baby you bring home from the hospital is yours: a DNA test.
July 9, 2008 at 12:32 pm