Perhaps the fact that I manage money well and enjoy women are the reasons for my strong reaction to cases in which men have to continue paying child support for a child after it's determined that they didn't father the child.

Maybe because I continue to evolve into a more compassionate adult and a diehard advocate for men's rights, I've also developed an equally evolving notion of financial fairness, the absolute truth and parental rights.

Could it be that I've become so cynical and skeptical when it comes to relationships and marriages that, when it comes to kids, I doubt and disbelieve much of what comes out of a woman's mouth?

My gumbo of emotions notwithstanding, who among us hasn't formed some opinions about an issue that is taking a more prominent role in how families are maintained or dissolved; how marriages are sustained or broken; and how children view themselves and the roles of adults in their lives - not to mention the primary issue of a child's best interests.

Here's the issue: If a man believes or is lead to believe by the woman that he has sired a child by her, but it's later proved by DNA testing that the man is not the father, should he legally or morally continue paying child support?

On one side are people who support these men - known in some circles as "duped dads" _ and believe that at the end of the day the men are fraud victims. Think of buying an expensive stereo only to find out that inside are cheap, poorly made components.

While that's a terrible comparison that likens human life to consumer products, you get the point.

According to a recent illuminating article in Time magazine, "the law's marital presumption of fatherhood has ended up enslaving a divorced dad, like the Michigan man who proved he had not sired his son but was still ordered to send child-support payments directly to the boy's biological father, who was granted custody after the mom moved out of his place and left the kid there."

Then there's the case of 36-year-old Dylan Davis, a software engineer in Denver, who questioned the paternity of his 6-year-old twins. A negative DNA test proved he wasn't the father. His ex-wife moved and while he no longer has contact with the kids, "under Colorado law he is still required to pay $663 a month in child support."

Davis isn't taking the lie and law lying down; he's working to change the state's statute so he and other men in his predicament don't have to shell out money for kids who aren't their own _ at least biologically.

The emotional connection between dad and kids, however, is another story. And it's a story that cannot be overlooked or downplayed, particularly in the black community where single-parent homes are common.

Furthermore, consider the case of Georgia engineer Carnell Smith, "who found out soon after he broke up with his girlfriend that she was pregnant and spent the next 11 years believing he was the girl's father. Then, in 2000, after his visitation time had been cut back around the same time that a court order nearly doubled his monthly child-support payments, he took a test that showed he was not the biological parent."

If that's not life-changing news for all involved, what is?

After spending three years and six figures in fees, Smith ("a broke but free man") no longer is financially responsible for the child but is responsible for the new DNA testing company he founded as a result of his experience.

How deep must be the wide-ranging emotions that surface when a man finds out that a child isn't his? What a challenge for both parents to now redefine their relationship with each other, and how _ if at all _ to tell the child the truth.

The way I see it, if a man has serious doubts about the paternity of his child _ and not just misgivings about the quality and future of the relationship with the child's mother _ then he should pursue the truth.

If a mother secretly knows she has her own questions and doubts about her child's paternity, she would be unwise, to put it mildly, to display shock that the man is seeking the truth.

Ladies, be prepared to face the facts, the truth and the consequences. Gentlemen, don't ask a question that may deliver an answer you're ill-prepared to hear.

Children's advocates sitting on the other side of the argument contend that what remains most paramount, however, is the child's best interests. For a child, learning that a man he called "Dad" for years really is not his father can be as convoluted as the circumstances that led to the child's birth.

Learning of such likely will prompt a child to question both parents' honesty, and depending on the quality and duration of the relationship to the father, plant seeds of doubt about men as a whole.

Nevertheless, show me a man who doesn't want to know if a child is really his and I'll show you a man who isn't one.