Marriage Trumps DNA: Kentucky Man Denied Paternity

A court case recently unfolded in Kentucky that left James Rhoades, a university librarian, fighting via a paternity suit for rights to see the son whom he fathered through an adulterous relationship with a married woman.

Late last month, a divided Supreme Court in the Bluegrass State ruled 4-3 that Rhoades cannot press his paternity claim, even though he has procured positive DNA evidence that validates his claim as the biological father of the child. Rhoades fathered the child with a woman who was—and remains—married to another man. Kentucky laws do not allow a third party to claim parenthood to a child birthed by a married woman. As TIME magazine termed it, "When it comes to defining fatherhood in the Bluegrass State...the marital ‘I do' means a lot more than DNA...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."

The decision left Rhoades shaken, "What I wanted was not just to see my son but to participate in his life," he told TIME. "He is my son and I love him."  TIME points out that the rise of forensic science has begun to weaken third-party challenges to paternity. By 2000, at least 33 states had adopted rules that allowed challenges by fathers with genetic proof of their paternity, mostly restricting the efforts to the first two years of a child's life.

In issuing its written opinion, the Kentucky court seemed hard-pressed to come to grips with a united reason as to why Rhoades should be denied paternal rights; the seven judges issued five separate opinions. The words of Justice Bill Cunningham brought the most clarity to the case by asserting the timeless truth of the sanctity of marriage:

As long as marriage is on the books, it must mean something. We are in need of a bold declaration that the marriage circle, even one with an errant partner, will be invaded at one's own legal risk. While the legal status of marriage in this early 21^st century appears to be on life support, it is not dead.

This case demonstrates several important truths, not the least of which is the devastating effects of sin. We have here a sad example of the way in which "the mischief of sin," as the Puritans often called it, is often visited upon the children of those committing it.

The ruling also spotlights the value of marriage—which the law has upheld for centuries—regardless of the changes of science; the young boy who is the product of this sinful relationship will be best served in the context of a home—one that includes a mother and a father—should God, in his mercy, preserve the couple's marriage intact in spite of its obvious brokenness. While I can sympathize with Rhoades desires to spend time with the boy, perhaps better yet it will please God to redeem his mother's home for His own glory. We pray that it will be so.