Why DNA testing can resolve one question and create many more
The use of DNA testing for paternity determines whether a man is or is not the biological father of a child. It is the most accurate – at 99.99 per cent.
What you need to know:
- DNA testing offers scientific certainty, but discovering the truth can carry profound consequences for families and children.
- Paternity disputes reveal a difficult balance between the search for biological truth and the consequences of knowing it.
A social media joke has it that a man who wants to establish the paternity of his children should insult the friends of his wife. He will benefit from an accurate diagnosis delivered orally and in real time at no financial cost.
Another talks of a hefty financial award for men with 10 children. A man who had nine with his wife quickly confessed to her that he had sired a child out of wedlock whom he wished to add to the nine to qualify. He ran off to fetch the child. On return, the nine children were nowhere. The wife told him that their fathers had come for them to compete for the same award!
These scenarios focus on the vexed issue of paternity, actually the doubts hanging around it. They intimate that only the biological mother knows the father of her children, although statistics show that 1–2 per cent actually do not. In other words, many men are raising children sired by collaborators. In which case, to establish the truth, they must resort to Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing.
But DNA tests vary. One is the western chemical one. The other relies on “African chemistry”, conducted by villagers, especially womenfolk who visit the mother soon after delivery. This group is reportedly so astute at the exercise that it can detect resemblance between the eye lashes of the newborn and the father. Common knowledge has it that loudness about the resemblance is a good indicator of the opposite, the purpose being to psychologically flatter the “father” when the women actually know the truth.
African chemistry apart, DNA testing is becoming quite necessary in the modern world. For instance, the Daily Nation reported on August 6 that Justice Richard Nyakundi of the High Court in Eldoret urged Parliament to enact a law regulating DNA testing given that courts are increasingly relying on the same on cases of inheritance, child custody, matrimonial property and other family disputes. He noted that the technology assures evidential reliability beyond oral testimonies, but that it should also balance justice and the constitutional rights of litigants to personal privacy “because it requires close relatives to provide biological samples”.
Data from DNA Hub Africa website shows that globally, 10 per cent of men question paternity in their life time, 30 per cent of tested cases confirm asymmetry between actual and presumed paternity, majority (60 per cent) of clients seeking the tests are men compared to 30 per cent women and 10 per cent other family members and that 70 per cent of men in sub-Saharan Arica are hesitant about the tests because of social factors.
Men seek DNA tests for legal, financial and personal reasons. One, those with fidelity doubts about their wives want peace of mind and to decide on the next course of action. Results from the tests could, for example, be used in divorce cases because infidelity is often a ground for the same. Two, establishing paternity enables them to determine the right to inheritance of property or to ward off claims by wives for child support. On the other hand, women seek the tests when engaged in multiple relationships, to obligate child support and inheritance rights, and to strengthen claims for child custody in divorce proceedings.
That some parents do not want to know about the actual identity of their children aligns with many African communities where a child was considered a communal asset. In one such Kenyan community, there was recognition that a man could be infertile. On marriage, therefore, an allowance was given for the bride to conjugate with his cousins to ensure conception from within the extended family. Eunuchs were assisted to get children through clandestine arrangements where a cousin copulated with the wife. In many cases, women who have detected a weakness in their husbands also initiate such relationships quietly.
The decision not to take DNA is probably informed by the embedded risks. One is breakdown in the marital relationship should the tests confirm non-existence of paternal relationships. In fact, the results could even lead to violence. Two is the effect on the children. The “father” is likely to display a negative attitude towards, even neglect or disown, them.
The children will themselves be confused about their parentage, leading to psychosocial disequilibrium, lower trust in the mother and emotional and even physical distance from the father. Three is embarrassment to and stigmatisation of the woman as a person of loose morals. Four is loss of face for the man because of perception as a sexual incompetent.
The legal framework proposed by Justice Nyakundi will certainly not eliminate such social consequences but will be an act of balancing priorities – the quest for truth against social stability, with gains and losses in the equation.
The writer is a lecturer in Gender and Development Studies at South Eastern Kenya ([email protected]).
