From Shakespeare’s tragedy Othello to the comic tales of Boccaccio’s Decameron, adultery has been a prominent theme in Western literature. Now however the topic has gone from the bookshelf to the courtroom. A man in Quebec is seeking to take his name off the birth certificate of a girl he believed he had fathered but who, it turns out, was conceived during an affair between his former common-law wife and a third party.
The news comes hot on the heels of the Pasqualino Cornelio case in Ontario. Cornelio – I have to laugh because the name “Cornelio” sounds uncannily like the Italian word “cornuto,” which is now a general term of insult but which originally meant “cuckold” – had asked to be excused from paying child support for his ex-wife’s twin sons after a DNA test revealed they were not his biologically. A (female) judge denied his request. The situation of Mr. Cornelio and that of the so-far unnamed Quebec Monsieur nonetheless differ in a substantial way. While the former had apparently long held suspicions about his “sons’” true parentage but sought joint custody of them anyway, the latter seems to have had no clue about his ex’s extramarital dalliances.
Both stories have generated a storm of commentary. Our own Cynapse stated bluntly that “your father is the man who raised you.” In other words, biology is not destiny. This concept of the family, he adds, is better suited to a “society where transnational adoptions, blended families and same-sex marriages are becoming commonplace.” In a similar vein, Raphael Alexander, owner of the website Unambiguously Ambidextrous and the father of two children, says while he disagrees with the judge’s decision in the Cornelio case, in such a situation he himself would “already love my children so much that… I would continue to pay child support and ensure they were taken care of and loved.” Others, such as the above-mentioned judge, believe that children’s economic and emotional needs should trump the desire of the wronged spouse to get back at his former partner
These arguments have merit – and some caveats. The notion that children should not be punished for the misdeeds of their parents – in this instance the mother – is a powerful one. By this reasoning, the girl in Quebec should not be forced to undergo the trauma of changing her name because her mother betrayed the man she had always known as her father. There is only so much however that innocent parties can be morally required to sacrifice for the good of other innocent parties. To use an analogy, I once worked for a supervisor who was verbally abusive towards me and other employees of that company. When I mentioned to a friend that I was thinking of trying to get this man removed from his position, she told me she hoped he [the supervisor] didn’t have a family. But should my co-workers and I have had to put up with his abuse for the sake of his family, if he had one? Should Clifford Olson be released from jail on the grounds he has a son who might be suffering from the lack of a father in his life?
It is true that fatherhood (or motherhood, for that matter) is not solely a matter of biology, as we see with adoption, step-parenting, and reproductive technologies like artificial insemination by donor. A crucial difference, though, is that in such cases both spouses agree to introduce a baby not genetically related to one or both parties into their family, whereas in the Quebec case the man had no idea he was doing so. His “consent” to take on this child was non-existent. One great weakness in Cornelio’s claim that he should not be responsible for his putative sons’ upkeep, for example, is that he basically accepted them as his children when he lobbied for joint custody despite doubts about their heritage. The other question to consider is what to do when a man shown not to be the biological father of his ex-wife’s children still wants contact with them on the grounds that love is thicker than blood, so to speak. In this instance it seems unnecessarily hurtful to deny him his wish, especially if he has committed himself emotionally to the role of father.
All this might come across as very paradoxical. On one hand a man can get out of paying child support if he is proven not to be the biological father of the children in question; on the other he can demand access to them, even against his former wife’s desires, if he wants to continue the relationship with them. It is a sticky matter with no easy answers. An imperfect but perhaps workable solution is that if a man finds out he did not father a child or children born to his female partner (or former partner), he may decide on one of two options, which should be ratified on paper and notarized. If he chooses not to recognize the children (which he may very well refuse to do if he feels embittered towards their mother), he should be relieved of any financial duties towards them. However, he would not be entitled to any form of custody of or visitation with them without the mother’s consent. If he elects to recognize them as his children, he will continue to act as their legal father with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of that role.
Fortunately situations like the Cornelios or the family in Quebec are relatively uncommon. The much-cited figure of 10% of “fathers” being genetically unrelated to their supposed children appears to be a so-called urban legend: serious studies put the proportion of men unknowingly raising other males’ children at 4% at most and in all likelihood at around 1%. Nevertheless, the fact they do occur means they should be dealt with in a way that best serves the needs of the man, woman, and child or children involved.
Sphere: Related Content
0 Responses to “Fatherhood Rescinded”
Leave a Reply