Pro-blood or Pro-law

To the question about distinguishing a true father, the Supreme Court chose legal status of a child rather than biological tie. It sentenced on Thursday that one cannot dismiss relationship between parents and children, even if biological test proved no connection of blood. Concerning the Civil Law that determines a child during parents’ marriage to be their child, the Court recognized child’s legal stability as the most precious. Some may be frustrated with a question: Why isn’t biological father a true father?

The sentence was on the cases of three families, in each of which the mother bore a child of another man. In two of them, parents were divorced and child is now living with mother and biological father, but divorced father required confirmation of legal status as a father. In another case, child is still living with father and mother, but DNA test already proved that the child is biologically another man’s child. The father required dismissing family relationship with the child.

The sentence of the Supreme Court was based on a concept called “assumption of legitimate child,” which recognized a child of a mother as a child of her husband as long as their marriage were legally maintained. The concept was included in the Civil Law in 1898, when old paternal principle still existed in Japanese society, and there was no technology, such as DNA test, for determining biological father. Nevertheless, the Court chose traditional recognition that a child would be happy, if he/she had been able to stay in a family legally recognized.

The sentence produced happy stories and tragedies. One of the two fathers, who was acknowledged as legal father of the child, was delighted, saying “Finally, I was realized as true father.” For him, the sentence vested him a right to meet his child as father. On the other hand, the mother should be frustrated. The child is currently regarded as a stepchild of biological father. The mother, her husband and the child could not fulfill their hope for living as normal families. Making a big contrast, the father who wanted to be separated from another man’s child must be disappointed. He will still suffer from demand for raising the kid with financial support.

It must be preferable for men and women to happily maintain their family and they have to pay a toll of taking a risk of having external relationship that harms family ties. Having said that, law should not eliminate opportunities for them to take better choice. As seen in a provision which prohibits a woman to be married with another man within six months after her divorce, the Civil Law of Japan is too old to let the people fully pursue their happiness. Legal support for those complicated families is definitely needed.