DNA testing a must in paternity disputes
June 07 11:42 AM
AUTHOR:
I had an article in the opinion pages of the Dominion Post today. It read as follows:
There are many reasons why relationships fail and parents separate. Those reasons are complex and invariably unique to each couple and relationships in the end are not and should not be the business of government.
The ongoing welfare of the children from those relationships, on the other hand, is and should be the concern of government.
The reality is that nearly one in three New Zealand children are growing up in a house without both of their biological parents.
Many children have never lived with both their parents, and it is often their father who the children do without, while many, sadly, do not even know who their dad is.
There are mothers who do not want the father on the scene for any number of reasons, some good, some not so good. And there are fathers who do not want the responsibilities of fatherhood, in the middle, there are children who have the right to be supported and loved by both their parents.
In the case of all children, but boys in particular, the absence of a father can be extremely detrimental. Research has shown time and again how important a strong male role-model is to a boy’s social development.
While the Government has no control over the causes of broken relationships, I believe it can do a much better job in helping both parents to stay fully engaged with their children.
This is one of the foremost reasons why I have reviewed the child support system.
I have always said that entering the child support system should be a last resort for parents; it is always better that people come to their own co-operative, reasonable arrangements for the sake of their children. Child support is there for those who cannot do this.
Being in the child support system requires both parents to have at least some engagement in their child’s life. The unfortunate reality is that there are many parents out there who cannot even get that far.
They cannot either prove that they are a parent and be accepted as such in a child’s life, or they are able to avoid that responsibility.
Compulsory DNA paternity testing is a good place to start.
Compulsory DNA paternity testing would allow a man who has reasonable grounds to believe he either is or is not the father of a child to make an application for a paternity order.
Equally, a woman would be able to bring to account a man in denial about being the father of a child, and make him face up to his responsibilities.
These orders would empower the Family Court to make it compulsory for a buccal sample – in layman’s terms, a swab – be taken from the child and those persons whose parentage is in dispute.
Under the current law, unless both potential parents agree, a DNA paternity test cannot be carried out. Difficulty arises where a parent with guardianship rights and responsibilities withholds consent to the child being tested. This usually involves a mother withholding consent, but not always.
Up until the 1980s, parentage testing was done with blood tests. At best, this could dismiss the possibility or assess the degree of probability that a person was a parent. Modern DNA testing where all parties (father, mother, and child) submit a sample is almost 100 percent accurate in identifying the father.
So, why are DNA paternity tests not already compulsory given that one of the most basic rights of a child is to know who its parents are?
The last Labour Government tried to justify a lack of action by arguing that they were protecting children’s ‘common law rights’ not to undergo a DNA test and hence a cheek swab.
In my opinion this was a total cop-out.
All parties have a right to know who a child’s biological parent is.
It really is a matter of applying some commonsense, and recognising that there is a greater good at play that far outweighs rather academic civil liberty concerns over a cheek swab.
My former UnitedFuture colleague and MP Judy Turner drew up a Member’s Bill that would make compulsory DNA paternity testing law. Unfortunately, while the Bill was introduced, it did not manage to get to the First Reading stage before the last election.
As a Minister, I am not able to sponsor a Member’s Bill, so I was delighted to see National MP Nicky Wagner recognise the need to do something and subsequently take the Bill on.
I am thrilled that the Bill has a sponsor, and I hope that it is drawn from the ballot and makes it back to the House.
In the meantime I urge the Government to stop sitting on its hands, take the Bill up as Government legislation and get it passed as soon as possible.
The future children of New Zealand will thank us for it. They deserve to know who their dads are.