Here's One For Solomon

Who should get baby Manji? That's the question facing India's Supreme Court as it tries to decide the fate of a baby girl born to a Japanese father and an Indian surrogate mother. This case reveals not only problems with practice of surrogacy but also what happens when law trumps common sense. For those of you who don't know, here's baby Manji's story.

In November of last year Ikuyumi Yamada and his then wife Yuki went to India and contracted with a surrogate mother to carry a baby for them. The baby was conceived using Mr. Yamada's sperm and the surrogate's egg. Shortly before the baby's birth Mr. Yamada and his wife divorced and Yuki Yamada decided she no longer wanted the child. Well then, baby Manji should just go home to Japan with her father, right? Wrong.

India has no laws governing the practice of surrogacy, so baby Manji was born as an Indian citizen. In order to take his daughter home Ikuyumi Yamada would have to adopt her. But there's a catch. Indian adoption law forbids the adoption of a girl by a single man. But what a minute, you say. Ikuyumi Yamada isn't just any old single man, he's Manji's FATHER! Exactly, and you'd think that would be enough for India to allow Manji to go home with him. And you'd be dead wrong. The letter of the law has common sense by the throat in this case. And things are getting more complicated.

An Indian child welfare group has now stepped forward asking the Supreme Court for custody of Manji. What this group wants with Manji is unclear. If it were truly committed to her welfare, though, it would demand that India let her father take her home. If nothing else India should give custody of Manji to her paternal grandmother, who's in India looking after her, and let the baby leave the country. Once in Japan it would not be India's business who Manji lived with, and she could then be placed with her father where she belongs.

This case should give pause to anyone considering the use of a surrogate mother, especially one from India. I can understand how obsessed some childless couples can get to have a child biologically related to at least one of them. But there are hundreds of thousands of orphans in this world desperately in need of parents. If all someone wants to do is raise a child it shouldn't matter much, if at all, if that child is or isn't "my own". When I see people going to the extreme of surrogacy or in vitro fertilization I suspect that there's more going on with them than a simple desire to be a parent.

Ikuyumi Yamada and his now ex-wife did chose surrogacy, however, and this man deserves to have the child that resulted from it. Yes, Mr. Yamada is now a single man, but he's also Manji's father. It is a violation of justice and common sense to keep Mr. Yamada, who has never been proven in any way unfit, from his baby. India ought to be ecstatic that Manji, unlike so many female children in that country, has a parent who desperately wants her. India, it's time to do the right thing. Let Manji go home.

Paternity Wars

Men should not have to pay child support for children who are not theirs. That sounds simple and fair enough, but it's not. All over America men are being forced to pay for kids they were deceived into believing were theirs. And that's not fair.

This issue first caught my attention several years ago when a rash of stories about non-fathers being forced to pay child support hit the media. One story that got a lot of air time centered on a man who didn't discover that one of his three sons wasn't his until after his divorce, yet he was ordered to pay support for that child along with the others. And then there was the man who not only wasn't the father of the girl he was ordered to pay for, but he didn't even know the mother. He just had the misfortune of having the same name as her ex-boyfriend. I was instantly struck by the injustice done to those men. Why should they or any men be forced by law to pay for children they didn't sire?

Supporters of this treacherous practice say the best interest of the child should overrule any concern about fairness to adults. They say that kids need support no matter what and they also point out that men do have a time period in which they can contest a claim of paternity. This is true but the time period is only 30 days long and when it's over there's little chance of a successful appeal. A man is stuck even if he never got the initial claim in the time frame allowed. That's what happened to a Florida man just last year.

Francisco Rodriguez was targeted for $10,000 in back child support, plus $305 in monthly payments, for a girl DNA testing proved wasn't his. The girl's mother, a former girlfriend of Rodriguez, testified that he didn't father her daughter and even requested that the child support payments be stopped. However, the state of Florida persisted in charging Rodriguez because he missed the deadline for contesting paternity. I don't know the final outcome for Francisco Rodriguez and his family but I pray it was just. If it wasn't Rodriguez is stuck paying money to another man's child while his own children go without. That is NOT fair!

How can we stop this insanity? Simple. First, women who commit paternity fraud must be prosecuted and made to pay back any money they received from their victims. Second, we must require all children to be given a paternity test at birth. This will let men know their true relationship to a child up front. Men who choose to assume responsibility for a child knowing they are not the father shouldn't be allowed to back out later. So post-natal paternity tests will protect both men and children. This isn't a perfect solution, though. Some women might opt for a clandestine abortion rather than risk their infidelity being exposed. As a prolife person that possibility weighs heavily on me but, in our imperfect world, I feel this trade off is necessary to achieve overall justice.

Feminist types will no doubt oppose my solutions. Their problem is with men, not with men who don't pay child support. They have a very vengeful mindset and believe that women defrauding or harming men is just payback for the injustices of male chauvinism. They won't say that in polite company, of course. No, their desire for revenge will be cloaked with a bogus concern for "the best interest of the child".

Well, the best interest of the child is to be loved and supported by its REAL father, or a man who freely assumes the role of father while knowing his non-paternal status. Surely the child's best interest aren't served when a fraud that's been perpetrated for years is exposed, causing upheaval in the lives of all involved. So we as a society must take paternity fraud for the serious crime that it is, punish it like we mean it, and prevent it when we can. That is in the best interest of everyone.