Last May, the

state of Georgia enacted legislation that would allow a man to stop paying

court-ordered support if DNA tests prove that he is not the father of

the child in question. Although this seems like a genuine no-brainer,

the decision has set off howling in some circles. Most states make it

extremely difficult for men to disestablish paternity once they have acknowledged

it.

It works something

like this: Bill and Becky are married. Later, for whatever reason, Becky

has an affair with Bill's fishing buddy, John, and becomes pregnant with

John's child. Bill has no clue that Becky has been cheating on him and

neither Becky nor John ever spill the beans. The child is born and Bill

believes that little Billy Jr., his son. A year later, Bill and Becky

go through a nasty divorce and Bill gets slapped with a zillion dollars

a month in child support. Bill pays willingly to support his son. A couple

of years later John, in a moment of remorse, confesses to Bill that Billy

Jr., in reality, Johnny, Jr. (Oops!). Bill has a paternity test and-surprise-he

is NOT the dad! Too bad, the court says. He has to pay anyway until Billy,

Jr., (or Johnny, Jr.) turns 18.

The practice

stems from a 500-year-old practice of English common law that presumes

that a man is the legal father of any children born to his wife during

their marriage. The Associated Press reported on the story of Dan Conners,

39, who was forced to pay $1,400 a month to support a girl whohe learned

six years after her birthwas not his daughter. Conners was willing to

pay the support as long as he believed that he was the father but, when

blood tests proved that he was not, he tried to nullify the court ordered

support. Nay, said the court. You shall pay anyway. "It's not American!"

said Conners. Oh, but it is, say most states in the Union, although twelve

states allow disestablishment of paternity in some circumstances and Vermont,

Michigan, Massachusetts, and, now, California, have introduced legislative

measures similar to Georgia's.

Believe it

or not, there are people who oppose these legislative measures. Valerie

Ackerman, a lawyer for the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, is

opposed to California's attempt to rectify a terrible unfair situation.

"If somebody's been supporting a child, you can't just choose to

pull the plug because you find out biology is not an element of that paternal

relationship," said lawyer Ackerman. Oh? Why not? The poor, deceived,

and betrayed husband (assuming there was a marriage) has been supporting

a child for years that wasn't his in the first place. Why does Ackerman

desire to continue the injustice? Here's a thoughtlet the wife who betrayed

her husband go