Somebody sent me a very helpful link a couple of days back, so I will use that to help clarify things.
(P.S. While reading this keep in mind that it pertains to the establishment of paternity for a child born to an abstinence spokesperson who told young girls to "pause before you play," for money.)
So the first thing to know is this:
Under Kentucky law, married couples are automatically and legally established as the parents of any babies they have. But unmarried couples don’t enjoy the benefit of that law. Instead, they have to take extra steps to ensure that they and their children are protected. This process begins with “establishing paternity.” Establishing paternity means that the baby’s biological father becomes the father for legal purposes, too.
So IF Palin had been successful in getting that quickie marriage thing out of the way, all of this would be a nonissue. But she didn't.
There are two basic paths that unmarried couples with a baby can take to establish paternity: the parents can sign a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP), or the question of paternity can be adjudicated (decided) by a judge of district court after someone files a paternity lawsuit.
Okay so pay attention here. In other words if BOTH the mother AND the man identified as the biological father sign the VAP then there is no reason to go to court to establish paternity.
However if one of them balks for some reason then there is a need for the courts to step in and establish paternity through a DNA test.
Now right now we do NOT know for an absolute certainty whether it is Dakota or Bristol who is refusing to sign the VAP, but we DO know that it was Dakota who has stated that the child is his, and has petitioned for custody rights.
So at least on the surface it appears that Dakota is not the one doubting that he is the parent. Of course that could also be a tricky move on the part of his attorney to appear completely positive, while also privately refusing to sign the VAP. Like I said we don't know for sure.
Now let's move on to Bristol.
For some reason people suspect that it is the Palin camp leaking this information to the press, and that it will smear Dakota in some way.
However publicly identifying a war hero as the father of your daughter's child, which thanks to Palin has now happened, and then later finding out that such was not the case, does absolutely nothing to Dakota except demonstrate that he was blinded by love.
Which establishes him as the victim.
And if, by some miracle, it turns out that Dakota IS the father, well not only has the suggestion that Bristol, the abstinence spokesperson, might have been sleeping around been established, but now Dakota's reputation as a stand up guy who is taking responsibility for his new daughter is also known to the public.
So WHY would the Palins be leaking this to the press again?
Oh and for those who are worried that the Palins will somehow skew the results and fake a positive paternity test for Dakota, remember that he is giving his sample in Kentucky, while Sailor's DNA is taken here in Alaska. So unless the Palins are going to break into a lab, more than likely located in Kentucky, Mission Impossible style to swap samples there is no way this is not going to be accurate.
More popcorn anyone?