Wait…Maybe I’m Not Your Father After All

There’s a recent Maryland case that illustrates some of the problems that might arise if you use genetics as the sole marker of parenthood.   I light of the substantial discussion over the last couple of weeks about sperm donors, embryo mix-ups and parenthood, I thought it was worthy of comment here.  

Darren Gerard Kamp and Vicki Jo Duckworth  married in 1983.   While they were married Duckworth gave birth to four children, the youngest of whom was Julie Kamp. 

Julie Kamp was conceived in early 1992.    At the time, Kamp was working out-of-state and only visited his wife occassionally.  Perhaps even more importantly, he’d had a vasectomy in 1987.   For these reasons, even before Julie Kamp was born, both Duckworth and Kamp knew it was quite likely if not certain that Kamp was not genetically related to her.  

Duckworth was confident that James Stanton, with whom she had an affair, was genetically related to Julie.  Apparently she conveyed this information to Kamp.

Be that as it may, Kamp did not deny paternity when Julie was born.    Kamp’s legal parentage was presumed by the fact that he was married to Duckworth at the time Julie was born.   No blood tests were conducted to rebut the presumption.  Kamp and Duckworth decided to raise Julie as their own child. They did so until the separated in 1997 and divorced in 1998.     

Even at the time of divorce, Kamp did not seek to renounce paternity.  The couple agreed that four children had been born into the marriage and provisions for custody and support of all four children were included.  

In 2001 Julie learned that she was not genetically related to Kamp, but was instead related to Stanton.   Still, when Kamp and Duckworth returned to court in 2002-03 with a dispute about custody and child support, Kamp did not challenge his status as a parent of Julie.  Indeed, he made various demands premised on this status.  

Finally, 2005, when Julie was 12 or 13 years old and Duckworth sought increased child support, Kamp asserted for the first time that he was not Julie’s father.   He sought to have blood tests done to establish this fact.   The trial court ordered testing and, on the basis of results that showed no genetic relationship between Julie and Kamp, terminated Kamp’s obligation to pay child support. 

This month the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) determined that it was error to permit the blood tests requested by Kamp in 2005.  Without the test results, the presumption that Kamp is the father of the child born to his wife during their marriage remains, as does his obligation of child support.

The court considered the best interests of the child to be its primary concern.  Thus, a blood test should be ordered in this case only if that would be in the best interests of the child.   

The lower court reasoned that since Julie already knew that she was not genetically related to Stanton, it would do no harm to do the testing.   Julie could collect child support from Stanton instead of Kamp and the truth would be honored.  

The Court of Appeals rejected this reasoning.   It noted that for 13 years there had been a father/daughter relationship between Kamp and Julie.   Kamp’s late effort to deny the relationship could be deeply harmful to Julie.   (While ultimately the case is returned to the trial court to consider whether it was in Julie’s interest to order the blood tests, it’s difficult to see the basis on which that court could resolve the question in Kamp’s favor.)

Ultimately, it seems to me that the Maryland court is suggesting that trial judges consider the reality of the lives of the children who may come before them.   While Julie may have learned that Kamp was not genetically connected to her, she and Kamp continued to relate to each other as parent and child.   What Kamp seeks to do now is erase this relationship.   It’s hard to see how that can be in Julie’s best interests.

It’s easy to imagine many possible variations on this story that might lead to different concerns.   Suppose, for example, Kamp had no reason to suspect the lack of genetic connection until some later point in time?   While that wouldn’t change consideration of the case from Julie’s perspective, it might well change it from Kamp’s.  But where, as was the case here, he knowingly undertook the role of father to this child, is there any basis for allowing him to renounce the role 13 years later?


6 responses to “Wait…Maybe I’m Not Your Father After All

  1. 1. I don’t know the law on the adoption- can they renounce their adopted child? probably not. it seems to me that Kamp should legally fall in the same category as an adoptive parent.

    2. Your intent in using this case was to “illustrates some of the problems that might arise if you use genetics as the sole marker of parenthood. ” In fact, you could just as easily (more easily, in my opinion) have used it to illustrate some of the problems that arise when social parenting is considered the sole marker of parenthood.

    Perhaps “SOLE” is the operative word. Parenting is a genetic connection as well as a social connection. When we sever one role from the other how can we not expect complications?

    • Kamp cannot be considered an adoptive parent because he never completed an adoption. You could consider that what he did amounts to de facto adoption. That’s a variation on the de facto parent doctrine that I’ve discussed a lot on the blog in the past. And I think he clearly was, in fact, a parent of the child.

      Your point about the problem of “sole” is a good one. But in this case, I am not inclined to give legal rights of parentage to the man who apparently has played apparently no role in the child’s life. I think it might be good that she knows who he is, etc. But why would I want to give him legal rights to control her future, etc? And that’s why I think it illustrates my point. If genetics are all it takes, he’s a father and Kamp is not. I think that’s a bad result here.

  2. “Finally, 2005, when Julie was 12 or 13 years old and Duckworth sought increased child support, Kamp asserted for the first time that he was not Julie’s father. ”
    That is the most important thing here!!!
    Eh,Kamp…The way you were played into the child support system was you had a rebuttable presumption of paternity that you failed to rebut prior to entry of the divorce judgment. You didn’t know. Now that the order was entered, you are stuck. An appellate court will have a field day sanctioning you and humiliating you for filing such an appeal. The only out is if your former wife comes to court under a child support petition and tells the court she is waiving arrears and discontinuing her claim for child support.

  3. In my view it is a disgrace and a scandal that any man should be lumped with paying for another man’s child. It is particularly unfair for the court to demand that a man who has already paid so much to rear another man’s daughter should be required to continue to bear that cost. Because he has been kind and charitable so far should not foist any obligation on him. In my view there is a stark difference to a situation where a husband asks or pays another man to give him sperm so that his wife can be impregnated, because in effect that husband has commissioned the manufacturer of the child. In my view even in that case the genetic father should not be relieved of his obligation to support the child, it should merely make both men jointly and severally responsible. But I can see no justice whatsoever in a situation where a man is required to pick up the tab for a child that was anyway going to come into existence even without his agreement or consent, because his wife had an affair. All men should be responsible for their own genetic offspring – with no exceptions, and the person who should be responsible for Julie should be her real father – her genetic father – not her social father.

  4. Vicki Jo Duckwoth

    George, Kamp knew he was not Julie’s biological father. He had a vasectomy many years before her birth. He willingly made the decision to raise Julie as his own. It’s that simple. The court also would not take into consideration Kamp had at that point adopted a daughter with his new wife. It was never a blood issue. It was Only about the child support which Had never been determined by Maryland State law, but by an agreement between Kamp and Duckworth.

    • There is an idea in law (and perhaps in life) that if you willingly accept a state of affairs for a sufficient period of time, you’re bound to continue to accept it. The idea is that everyone else around you constructs their lives on that state of affairs–essentially relying on it. That principle seems appropriate to invoke here. Perhaps if he had objected at the first opportunity it would be different, but at some point, he made a choice to accept things as they were and I think it is reasonable to say he has to live with the choice he made as all those around him have embedded that assumption into their own lives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s