A common sense decision in a case, where a man had a child with another man's wife. In affirmance, Fourth District holds that petition of man who sought to assert paternity of twins born during their mother’s marriage to another man, fails under Dawn D.because he had no personal relationship with the twins and could not rebut the husband’s paternity presumption under Fam C §7611(a) and (d). See the case at CFLR. The comments to that case state: "The concurring justices in Dawn D . concluded that a man who fathers a child by a married woman “takes the risk that the child will be raised within that marriage and that he will be excluded from participation in the child’s life.” The answer to that, they advised, is for such men to find someone to marry and to father children within that marriage. “The due process clause,” they said, “is not an instrument for disrupting the marital family in order to satisfy the biological" father’s unilateral desire . . . to turn his genetic connection into a personal relationship.” This “get-your-own-wife” way of looking at situations like the one in Dawn D. and the one in this case may seem harsh to some, but seems to us like commonsense advice. We’re amazed at the willingness of Neil’s wife and family to help in raising the children he believes he fathered with another man’s wife. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again, we can’t help but wonder what kind of relationship would actually occur among the participants if Neil had been permitted to assert his relationship. We can’t help but think that the kind of forced congeniality that would have been likely to ensue wouldn’t benefit anybody, least of all the twins, who would have felt the tension and wondered whether they were the cause of it.