I follow with interest Colorado Senate Bill 56. Dubbed the "duped dad bill", SB56, by Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, would free men of financial responsibility for children they are able to prove through DNA testing are not biologically theirs, offspring for whom they might have already paid child support, and even offspring born during their marriages.

Already in Colorado men have the right to contest paternity through DNA testing for a period of eight months after being legally declared parent.

My understanding is all states deem children born within a marriage legally the children of the man in the marriage, automatically bestowing upon him parental rights and responsibilities. Note the word "rights". A man legally a father is entitled to share, in most circumstances, the lives of children deemed legally his. He is entitled to love them, bond with them, experience the joys and to fulfill what I view as the most important role a person can play.

Since the beginning of the institution of marriage, chances have existed that married women will become pregnant by someone other than their husbands. How many children over time have been raised by men who fulfilled parental roles in fact, if not biology?

Should SB56 become Colorado law, men could demand proof of paternity at any point in the lives of minor children deemed theirs. Though the issue of child support already paid if a man discovers he is not biologically connected to children does not appear to be addressed by the bill, what would happen to that money? In other words, could a man who has supported children for a decade discover he has no biological ties, stop support and sue the mother of his fake children for return of financial support? Words such as fraud, deceit, and trickery are bantered about in discussion of this bill, as if misidentified parentage is always the result of intentional deception.

Women get pregnant sometimes and do not know who impregnated them. I am not suggesting women never lie to gain support for children. Maybe it happens commonly. However, I am saying mistakes are made and sometime for the sake of an impending child a man is assumed to be the father and is treated as such by everyone involved--the woman, the law, the children; which brings me to my point.

SB56 might seem fair and logical at first blush. But, has anyone looked past the anger of a "duped dad" into the eyes and hearts of the children involved? I am annoyed a man would suggest after having enjoyed parental rights and discovering no biological connection to his children--yes, HIS children-- that the entire relationship is undone.

As a person most strongly connected to people with whom I share not a speck of DNA, including my two sons, I can vouch for the insignificance of blood ties. People who are closest to those with whom they share blood might believe blood itself make bonds. But, biology alone counts for little in the most precious of human ties. Time, love, nurturing, family structure, the ups and downs of daily living and the openness of one's heart are the glue.

I don't know how it feels to be a man faced with the discovery children for whom he has been Dad are not his biologically. I don't doubt feelings of betrayal would come into play. However, in my opinion, only a fool would believe such a discovery changes anything in the eyes of children. And, only a fool would let such a discovery rob him of something as precious and important as his relationships them.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water has never made sense, and that is exactly what SB 56 would allow.