I am requesting that you consider the following information in your deliberations, which will address why HB 28 is a BAD bill. I am hoping that current paternity statutes remain as they are, fair, but not perfect. Please do not support HB 28.

Current Kentucky law and the US Supreme Court recognize marriage as an unbreakable bond. A bond so secure that even in criminal action neither party can be compelled to testify against the other. Basically, the parties within this legal union are protected from outside interference because current law recognizes the legal contract of marriage. Do we really want to dismantle the long standing protections afforded to the legal institution of marriage? Can we morally justify adding more instability into an already deteriorating institution? Do we want to sever the basic protections afforded by current Kentucky and Federal law by allowing interference from third party adulterers? The answer is and should remain NO.

KRS 406 is dealing with marriages and any paternity issue within the marriage can easily be legally addressed by either of the marriage parties without court intervention. This may seem severe, but I would like to start with calling this issue what it is, ADULTERY plain and simple. For example, in a 2008 Kentucky case, a married couple objected to the third party adulterer demanding paternal rights because they wanted to remain married, raise the child and be left alone to heal after the adultery. If a child is conceived through adultery and both parties of the marriage choose not to disclose any facts of the matter to third parties, their privacy and rights are currently protected within the bonds of the marriage contract. Should the statutes be changed into a law that demands they testify against themselves? Should outside parties, such as an adulterer or government agents, have absolute authority to demand access to anything within this legal union without consent of one, if not both, of the marriage parties? Why should the desire of the adulterer have legal standing above a legal marriage? Did adultery annul the marriage contract? These questions should be fully considered before adopting any statute changes that will interfere with the current legal standing of marriage.

Kentucky’s current paternity laws, within a marriage, are based on “presumptive legitimacy”, which assumes that the married husband is the father of any child born within the marriage. Should our laws be changed to be a “rebuttable presumption” whereby an adulterer can demand a hearing and DNA Testing? In the above 2008 case, the third party adulterer did not have the legal standing to demand DNA Testing. Of course, DNA testing would have proven conclusively whether or not the third party adulterer was in fact the father, but paternity and parental rights are not the only important issue in these cases, the rights of the marriage contract parties are. The law has reasonably determined that the marriage contract rights should be protected, presumptive legitimacy with its flaws should be upheld, and that DNA Testing should not be demanded or required of legally married partners by third parties.

Limited third party paternity rights have already been reserved within Kentucky law. Paternity dispute challenges may be filed within or against legal marriages by one of the following means: 1) If the marriage parties have been separated for at least ten months, 2) If a marriage is legally dissolved through divorce or annulment, 3) If any party has provided substantial support of the child, and 4) If a three way notarized affidavit from the third party and the married couple agreeing to the paternity is filed. These substantial, effective, and current paternity rights afforded to a third party are reasonable and do not interfere or conflict with the legally bound parties of the marriage. Also of note, it appears that with current law no government agency, unless they have provided substantial support, may challenge paternity. Current statutes continue to protect the rights and privacy of the marriage parties but also reasonably afford to all other involved parties the rights that they deserve. Fairness, another reason that the current statutes should remain as the protection they are intended to be.

The above information covers current Kentucky paternity law rights within a marriage. There are also paternity rights reserved in Kentucky law for unmarried parties who conceive children. Basically, if substantial financial support has been provided to the child by any party they too have a legal standing to then demand parental rights. On this one issue, the County Attorney upon receipt of claim will file charges against the other party to enforce parental rights. It is reasonable to assume that unmarried parties do need further paternity laws to protect their parental rights, but their needs should not be at the expense of the current protective marriage laws which are in place to protect the marriage parties and also the family structure.

At this point, I would like to address the family structure, which is another God given mandate that is constantly being attacked. Family court is designed to protect the child, as it should be. There would be all sorts of conflict in demanding that paternity actions must take place in family court. Children must be protected, but their “rights” should not supersede the rights of their law abiding parents. The parents, hopefully good ones (but that would be a different issue, most likely for family court), will most often do what is best for all concerned. This is a paternity issue, not a child abuse issue. BTW, the United Nations, International Laws provide that there should be no parental rights and that minor children can make their own medical and religious decisions themselves (abortion, birth control, not going to church). We do not want to take in Kentucky in this direction!!! Additionally, along that line, demanding DNA, because what else would it be, could also lead to mandatory testing at birth. Of course they would have to also take every parents DNA to make sure that the child was theirs and what if they did not match? More problems equal more solutions, right? Let’s just stop this right here because these solutions are just going to shut us down.

KRS 406 legislation was originally about demanding that parents take care of their children and that any other paternity issues outside of marriage would be resolved and settled by District court. District Court has the authority to order a paternity testing on the conditions of KRS 213.046, 9(c) only (substantial support). Kentucky Law through KRS 406 clearly bans third parties from seeking paternity rights within a marriage and has been rightfully upheld by the US Supreme Court. In the 2008 Kentucky case, with a divided 4-3 vote upholding this current legislation, Kentucky justices wrote 47 pages of dissenting opinions. The following are some quotes from their opinions:

· Married couples have greater rights than claims of an interloper (adulterer)

· The married couple has a right to be left alone

· There should be emphatic defense of marriage

· Family Law is designed to protect the child

· “I do” matters more than DNA

· The marriage contract was in place

· Engaging in adultery does not annul the marriage contract

· A third party may challenge if the marriage has ceased (according to definition KRS 406.011)

· Innocent parties are left without legal recourse

· Marriage is on the books, it must mean something

· Spouses cannot be compelled to testify

· If errant partner is invaded and marriage is on life support, it is not dead

· Third parties can only disrupt the family

· Third parties confuse, embarrass, and unsettle the sacred order of marriage

· Sanctity of marriage must be enforced

· Why should the courts have to sort out issues from people who do not have a legal relationship

· A marriage implies presumptive rights

· The marriage party has a right to be protected and object to paternity tests

· We already have “no-fault” divorce

· Eliminated “intentional interference” of the marital relation

· Allowed “alienation of affection”

Although not specific to this bill, I would also like to note the fact that the institution of marriage is being attacked from many fronts because of its limited legal definition and more specifically because of the fact that it is based on God’s ordained mandates which exclude alternative relationships and these excluded parties will not rest until they have destroyed this God given institution. Do we want to allow individuals to force Kentucky to undermine God’s mandates by changing the current law to reflect their desires because they feel that it just is not fair to them? It is not a matter of fair, but of morality, and the current laws, which just so happen to uphold God’s Laws, confirm this. Many states across the nation have redefined their Marriage Laws to include broader groups of individuals, and have most definitely brought on God’s displeasure. Let’s not be part of having the state of Kentucky join them in redefining marriage. In fact, at this time Kentucky legislators should legally define what a marriage is, not just what it is not. Let’s be crystal clear where we stand and avoid God’s judgment and invite His protection to our state.

In conclusion, Kentucky paternity law is not perfect, but the law remains true to providing protection to the parties within the legal marriage contract. Support of HB 28 and the changes it would make to Kentucky Paternity Law rights will dilute the definition of marriage, set in action unsettling legal consequences that will lead to further loss of rights within marriage and therefore HB 28 should be considered a “bad” bill to support. If any amending legislation is supported it should not undermine the integrity of marriage.

Thanks to all of you for your consideration of the above response. Please vote NO on HB 28.

KRS 406 Notes

Amending KRS 406.011 to allow paternity to be a “rebuttable presumption” instead of being based on “presumptive legitimacy” is the wrong direction for Kentucky marriage law to take because it demands unreasonable disclosure from the marriage parties which will further disrupt their marriage and family structure and gives them no legal remedy from false accusers or harassment. This should not be amended.

Amending KRS 406.021 to clarify how paternity will be determined, such as DNA collection, is also unreasonable disclosure because it endangers other DNA info that the parties may not want disclosed and opens the door for future indiscriminate or mandatory collection. Also, allowing only one of the marriage parties to petition for a paternity test deprives the other innocent party of their rights and again the leaves them no legal recourse. This should not be amended.

Concerning amending KRS 406.035, 051, I do not know if these changes are necessary but why do they want to insist on restating the language of “family court and family court judges”? Could it be because family court will ignore the marriage in favor of the child, no matter what? It may be that there would be no recourse if you don’t like the decision of the “family” court. The family court standards are so focused and stringent that once they get involved with a family they may never get out and may start making additional intrusive demands with other children in the family. The already overloaded family court system does provide a valuable service in the most serious and severe cases, so let’s not bother them with paternity cases. Please leave the current language as is and do not amend.

Amending KRS 406.051 to require paternity cases to be resolved within the county where the child resides sounds reasonable.

I hope not, but if you are determined to amend KRS 406 I would like to address two other issues. The first, concerns a time limit being placed on when a paternity action can be brought against a marriage. The sooner the better so that the couple and family can move on, live in peace and not have to fear future action. The second issue concerns the moral character of the person seeking paternity. This person should have no criminal convictions of any type or even serious complaints. Consider, not only sex offenders, but also wife/girlfriend abusers, stalkers, other psychological issues?

Thanks again,

A concerned citizen of LaRue County.