[HaveHadEnough]

...the case’s key fact: photographer Larry Birkhead, Smith’s ex-boyfriend, has a legitimate claim to paternity.

Why is it "legitimate"? Because he makes the claim that he is the father? Is that all it takes? Anyone can make a claim to be a child's father and the allegation is deemed to be legitimate?

The way to combat these machinations is for family courts to order mandatory DNA testing of all babies within 30 days of a putative father’s filing for paternity.

So, all it takes is someone's allegation that he is the father of a child, and the government gets to obtain a sample of a baby's DNA? Shouldn't the taking of such a sample require, at the very minimum, probable cause, like it does in most criminal cases? Why should the privacy interests of a baby be less valued than the privacy interests of a criminal defendant?

[Howlin]

There's plenty of probable cause in this case, namely that she told him he's the father and took him to all the baby doctor visits.

Why should the privacy interests of a baby be less valued than the privacy interests of a criminal defendant?

You'll have to ask Howard Stern that; he's the one leading this particular circus.

[El Gran Salseron]

The fact that Stern refuses to take a DNA/paternity test leads me to believe that Birkhead is the biological father.

In addition, if that turns out to be true then it could backfire on Birkhead.

If tests prove that Birkhead is the father then it could turn out that Birkhead will wind up having to pay Stern child support because Stern is listed on the birth certificate.

I believe that would drive Birkhead insane.