One particular tip from my Flair anniversary article - "legal tips for men" - attracted greater interest than others; namely, "If you had been maintaining a child and later discover that he or she is not your biological child, you may make an application for all sums spent on that child to be repaid to you."

This has driven me to review the concept of parental responsibility, because there are at least some persons who may be inclined to latch unto that tip and erroneously conclude that they may entirely escape the obligation to maintain a child who is not their biological offspring. That idea is incorrect from both a moral and a legal perspective, especially if the child is in need.

Under the old Maintenance Act, a married woman was not obligated to maintain her child unless her husband was unable to do so, but unmarried women always had that primary responsibility. Since the 2005 Maintenance Act came into effect, every parent has an obligation, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so, to maintain the parent's unmarried child, who is a minor, or is in need of such maintenance by reason of physical or mental infirmity, or disability.

The definition of a 'parent' is, therefore, very important, because you will note that legal paternity is not equivalent to biological paternity. According to Section 8 of the act, a person is the parent of a child if the person:

(a) has their name entered as a parent of the child in the general register of births pursuant to the Registration (Births and Deaths) Act, or in a register of births or parentage information kept under the law of any overseas jurisdiction;

(b) the person is or was a party to a marriage (including a void marriage) or cohabitation and the child is a child of the marriage or cohabitation;

(c) the person is a party to a marriage or cohabitation and accepts as one of the family a child of the other party to the marriage or cohabitation.

(d) the person adopts the child;

(e) the person has admitted paternity or a court has made a declaration of paternity under section 10 of the Status of Children Act against the person in respect of the child;

(f) the person is the child's natural mother;

(g) the person has at any time in any proceedings before a court, or in writing signed by the person, acknowledged that the person is a parent of the child, and a court has not made a finding of paternity of the child that is contrary to that acknowledgement, or;

(h) the person is in loco parentis to the child, including a person who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a person as a child of the person's family, except under an arrangement where the child is placed for valuable consideration in a home by a person having lawful custody.

As a result of this definition, it is clear that, even if a man finds out that he is not the biological father of a child, a court may find that he is the 'parent' of that child, because his relationship to the child matches one of the definitions set out in section 8. Moreover, because the obligation to maintain a child is limited to "the extent that the parent is capable of doing so", a man whose misfortune it is to 'wear a jacket' may continue to bear the financial burden for the child.

These issues become even more complex in this age of in vitro fertilisation and sperm donation, the implications of which our legislators have not yet begun to grapple.

Sherry-Ann McGregor is a partner and mediator with the firm Nunes, Scholefield, Deleon & Co. Send feedback and questions to lawsofeve@yahoo.com or Lifestyle@gleanerjm.com.