In April 2000, Smith said, he was excluded as the father by a DNA test. But the
judge ordered him to pay anyway. It was then that he took to the Internet,
reasoning that there must be other men in his situation. He found Caron and
obtained a copy of Ohio's legislation, which he carried to the home of his
assemblyman in Decatur.
Georgia's law passed both houses of the Legislature earlier this year, and the
two bodies are working to reconcile technical issues. Smith, meanwhile, has
started an online group to spread what he calls "anti-paternity fraud" statutes
across the country.
"I've declared war on this issue," said Smith, estimating that he has spoken to
nearly 1,000 people. "I want to make sure my son doesn't face this same system."
Both Smith and Caron had acted as the children's fathers before discovering that
they had no biological connection and refusing to pay child support. That
troubles many critics of the new statutes. They argue that being a father is
more about acting as one than producing a genetic match.
"You cannot have guys who functioned as some kid's father for 12 years going in
and saying, because of some test, all right, I'm off the hook," said attorney
Jenny Skoble, director of the child-support project at the Harriet Buhai Center
for Family Law in Los Angeles.
"Yes, for the guy who's acted as the father of a child for 12 years who finds
out that he's not the dad, it's a drag to have to pay the child support. But
it's more of a drag for the child to lose the only father he or she has ever
known," she said.
Smith said child-support advocates like Skoble miss the point.
"Once the problem has already happened, it's like throwing a cluster bomb in the
room—everybody's going to be hurt," he said.
"But two people are walking away with no responsibility at all—the biological
mother and the biological father. They had their fun, now they walk away."
In the summer of 2000, the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, a
nonprofit group that proposes legislation to be adopted by states, wrestled with
the question of whether men who are not biological fathers should pay child
support.
Roberts, of the Center for Law and Social Policy, said the group agonized over
the issue. It ultimately concluded that after a child's second birthday, the
harm of losing a father would outweigh the harm of a man paying to support a
child who was not his own.
"We concluded there was always going to be a set of cases where, no matter how
you came down, you were going to feel badly," Roberts said. "But if your focus
was on the child, at the end of the day you decided the adults in this
relationship are just going to have to suck it up."
-- continued --