Verydarkman Questions Labs Selected for Mohbad’s Son’s DNA Test: Why Liam’s Best Interests Matter
Verydarkman has raised new questions regarding the court-ordered DNA paternity test of Liam, son of late Nigerian singer Mohbad, wondering if the laboratories chosen for the test can perform the necessary test.
The online activist in a recent video said that two of the three laboratories reportedly selected for the DNA process might not be capable of performing tissue-based testing of an embalmed body.
Verydarkman said the body of Mohbad had been embalmed for over two years, so that normal blood or fluid samples wouldn’t be appropriate. The court thus ordered a DNA examination of the tissue, which could include bone, teeth or skin.
His account says that three laboratories were found: DNA Diagnostics Center in Fairfield, Ohio, was submitted by Mohbad’s father’s family; Alpha BioLab in Warrington, United Kingdom, was submitted by Mohbad’s widow, Wunmi; and Advanced IS Pathology Laboratory Limited in London was submitted by the court’s welfare officer.
Verydarkman claimed that the two laboratories not nominated by Mohbad’s father had been contacted to check if they could perform the procedure.
He said Alpha BioLab responded that it could not help, and Advanced IS Pathology Laboratory said it didn’t do that.
These allegations have not independently established that the laboratories are unsuitable. But they do pose an important question about child protection: Is the process being carried out in a way that is in Liam’s best interests?
The centre is the focus of a highly publicised family dispute, involving Liam, a child. Although he has no control over the circumstances surrounding the controversy, his biological identity has become a topic of intense public discussion.
A credible DNA test may help to clarify, but should not cause unnecessary emotional or social harm to the child. The child’s privacy should also be safeguarded, especially since genetic information is very sensitive and can be kept online forever after disclosure.
Responsible reporting should, therefore, not include unnecessary details regarding Liam’s genetic information, personal life, school or other identifying information.
There is also a legitimate public interest in whether the court-mandated process is scientifically valid. But transparency should not be at the cost of the child’s privacy.
Any doubt regarding the appropriateness of a laboratory should be addressed in the proper legal and scientific manner, and qualified laboratories should be prequalified prior to sampling.
But for Liam, it’s a bigger problem than the adult claims. The aim should be to establish the truth in a reliable and confidential way and in a way which maintains his dignity.
Regardless of the final DNA outcome, Liam shouldn’t have to live with the burden of a public controversy about his identity.
All decisions should be made with his best interests, privacy and emotional wellbeing at the heart of the decision.
