Because of a monumentally unfair law in North Carolina, if a man doesn't request a DNA test within the first 60 days of a child's birth -- and he knew the mother in a biblical sense -- he's presumed to be the father.

No amount of subsequent evidence -- even indisputable DNA evidence -- will get him off the hook.

On the other hand, if you do ask Sweet Thang for a DNA test within 60 days of her delivering what's presumed to be your bundle of joy, you know you'd better duck. And probably find a new place to live. And a good divorce lawyer.

Several weeks ago, I introduced you to Avon Alston, a Franklin County truck driver who has tried for years to get a judge to view DNA evidence from two tests that prove Alston's not the father of a 16-year-old boy.

Alston described his adventures in child support court as "a nightmare on Elm Street." An Atlanta-based organization, U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, works to help other men living that nightmare fight what its founder, Carnell Smith, calls "games of 'pick one' " in naming a father.

"If the genes don't fit, you must acquit," Smith said.

State Sen. Vernon Malone agrees. He told me that a bill is being drafted that may give relief to men such as Alston.

"I have a strong problem with the guy who had the pleasure not being forced to take responsibility," Malone said. "If DNA evidence gets people off death row, there's something inherently unfair about it not being used" to keep others off dad row.

Steve Monks, a Durham lawyer, represents a man who he said found out he wasn't really the daddy of the little girl who was living with him after he'd gotten custody of her and the wife took the other two children after the divorce. How'd he find out?

When the girl matter-of-factly dropped the you-aren't-my-padre-anyhow bomb on him.

Here's a rule of thumb: If the kid is old enough to tell you you aren't her papa, you're toast. Or daddy.

Why, though, can't a dude go to court at any time after finding out he's been the victim of paternity fraud?

Monks said courts are reluctant to leave that door open indefinitely because "they're afraid it would open up a Pandora's box" and millions of men might start demanding DNA tests. "The court's main interest is in protecting the sanctity of judgments ... and it frowns upon 'bastardizing' children."

Wake County District Court Judge Vince Rozier said the same thing, only more nicely.

"The children are the court's main concern," Rozier said. "You don't want to leave the children uncared for."

Smith, whose organization's Web site is paternityfraud.com, doesn't want to see them uncared for, either. He just wants to see their real daddies care for them. He said a few states have changed their laws so that there is no time limit for doubtful men to challenge paternity.

Malone should drag his fellow lawmakers into the 21st century on this issue -- even if they're kicking and screaming like a -- aw, you know.

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.