Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has been some well publicized cases lately of babies put up for adoption against the will of the father. Some state laws purposely make it easier for this to happen. In Utah, for example, the birth father only have a short time (I believe a week or so) to assert his parental rights in court and if he doesn't the baby can be adopted. Of course to be able to do so the man has to know the law, know the system, know that the baby has been born and know that an adoption is being planned. This law covers all adoptions finalized in Utah even when the birth father lives in a different state and has no reasonable way to know the strict Utah law.
There was a case a couple of years ago where a baby was born in Florida. The father was under the impression that he and the mother was going to raise the child together and had no idea that the mother had different plans. Right after birth the birth mother took the baby to Utah to place her for adoption without notifying the father that the baby was born, that she planned to place the baby for adoption or that she was going to Utah to do it. Because the father knew none of these things he never asserted his parental rights in a Utah court within the allotted time and as a result he lost his child forever.
Then there is the case of Baby Veronica. The father opposed the adoption but lost in state court because state law requires that a father have financially supported the mother during the pregnancy in order to have parental rights and this man hadn't. He eventually got the girl back because of the Indian Child Welfare Act but had the child not been part Native American he would have been SOL.
Birth mothers have very different rights under the law though. They do not have to go to court to assert their parental rights after the birth of the child. They are not required to take any action before the birth in order to have parental rights. Their rights are a given and can be kept or given up at will.
Is that fair? Should fathers have the same rights as mothers when it comes to adoption? Or is it better for a child to be raised in a verified stable and capable adoptive family than by a single father and that's what should determine the father's rights? What do you think?
Fathers rights have a horrific history in the US - until the early 70's if they were not wed to the mother they had no rights at all - not even to notice.
It's not even a week in Utah and in addition to signing the putative father's registry forms (and hoping they actually get entered the date received) the father must also file a pleading in court that includes an in-depth parenting plan (forget the correct term). It does not matter where the mother and/or father reside, what state the conception took place, or which state they hold legal residence in. It is a disgrace. The President of the Utah Adoption Council resigned over the practices - so you know it is bad when a pro-adoption attorney resigns.
Yes, fathers should have rights, and not rights that are impossible to navigate without a law degree and to be intimately familar with adoption law in that state.
They did try back in the 90's (?) to create a national putative father's registry but the adoption lobbyists didn't like that concept...
Frankly, I'm not sure how the examples you posted were not considered kidnapping. Fathers should have equal rights for sure. The Utah laws are particularly unethical & it's scary how many people believe it is better for those children to be raised by strangers than by their biological family (who were both fit & never unwilling to parent).
Adoptive parents who would fight to keep a baby they know was literally stolen from one or both parents does not care about the best interests of the child & should not be considered psychologically "stable" imo.
Last edited by thethreefoldme; 10-27-2012 at 02:52 PM..
I was placed for adoption against the will of my father and paternal grandparents. My natural parents were Catholic high school sweethearts who conceived me during their freshman year of college. At the time of my conception, they were both legal adults. They decided to get married. My paternal grandparents supported them. My maternal grandparents did not. And my maternal grandparents would not tolerate having an unwed, pregnant 19-year-old daughter. My natural mother literally disappeared. They shipped her off to a Catholic maternity home and made adoption arrangements with Catholic Charities. My father had no idea where she had gone and could not get in contact with her.
Next thing my natural dad and paternal grandparents knew, they were being contacted by Catholic Charities and informed that they were expected to pay for the half of the maternity home and adoption fees. My paternal grandfather said hell no, we want the the baby. Didn't matter. Fathers had no legal right at all to raise their own child at that time. My maternal grandparents and Catholic Charities were allowed to place me with strangers despite the fact that my own father and paternal family was ready, willing and able to raise me. Because of losing me in this way, my father decided he could not bring any more children into the world. He spent YEARS trying to find me, starting when I was 18-years-old. It wasn't until I decided to search at age 28 that we were finally united as father and daughter. I'm his only child by birth and we are extremely close. He is everything a father and parent should be and more.
Based on the cases mentioned here and others, it seems that not much as changed in over 40 years.
Needless to say, I fully support any father who wishes to raise his own child. If one parent does not consent and intends on raising his or her own child, then that child is not available for adoption. And I question the emotional stability and morals of any adoptive parent who willingly keeps a child not born of them knowing that the child was not really available for adoption.
Wow gcm, that is both a beautiful (that you found each other) and tragic (that your father wasn't given the opportunity to raise you) at the same time.
Things like this make me agree, that yes, absolutely, men should have the same rights to their children.
I don't think so. To many biological fathers disappear, and then turn up after the biological mother has made an adoption plan for the child, and has been adopted.
It is unfair to the child to have a stranger take them away after 2 or 5 years of living with the adoptive parents and get a court order to have the child returned. It seems selfish to me.
As a man I have to say that motherhood and fatherhood are really different things. A man can have sex with a woman for one night and then go back to his life. A woman can't do the same. She knows she is pregnant and has the physical responsibility of carrying the pregnancy.
I think the decisions relating to the fate of the child is in the hand of the mother.
I suspect the interest of the biological father. Until recently, the fatherhood was always in question. With DNA testing, there is now an out break of fathers wanting their children back.
There is also, on a better note, deadbeat dads who are nailed for child support. That part is good.
So, no - to me I think that the mom has more rights and responsibilities.
There has been some well publicized cases lately of babies put up for adoption against the will of the father. Some state laws purposely make it easier for this to happen. In Utah, for example, the birth father only have a short time (I believe a week or so) to assert his parental rights in court and if he doesn't the baby can be adopted. Of course to be able to do so the man has to know the law, know the system, know that the baby has been born and know that an adoption is being planned. This law covers all adoptions finalized in Utah even when the birth father lives in a different state and has no reasonable way to know the strict Utah law.
There was a case a couple of years ago where a baby was born in Florida. The father was under the impression that he and the mother was going to raise the child together and had no idea that the mother had different plans. Right after birth the birth mother took the baby to Utah to place her for adoption without notifying the father that the baby was born, that she planned to place the baby for adoption or that she was going to Utah to do it. Because the father knew none of these things he never asserted his parental rights in a Utah court within the allotted time and as a result he lost his child forever.
Then there is the case of Baby Veronica. The father opposed the adoption but lost in state court because state law requires that a father have financially supported the mother during the pregnancy in order to have parental rights and this man hadn't. He eventually got the girl back because of the Indian Child Welfare Act but had the child not been part Native American he would have been SOL.
Birth mothers have very different rights under the law though. They do not have to go to court to assert their parental rights after the birth of the child. They are not required to take any action before the birth in order to have parental rights. Their rights are a given and can be kept or given up at will.
Is that fair? Should fathers have the same rights as mothers when it comes to adoption? Or is it better for a child to be raised in a verified stable and capable adoptive family than by a single father and that's what should determine the father's rights? What do you think?
I think they should have the same rights. If a mother wants to put the baby up for adoption, meaning, she doesn't wish to raise the child, I think the father should be notified of this, if he can be found, and given the option to adopt, if he can offer a stable environment, of course.
Here's another question: What about grandparents? Should they have rights? My grandparents wanted to raise me, instead of having me adopted out to strangers. They had no rights, they didn't get their wish. Should family members, if they can provide a stable environment for the child, have any rights?
I don't think so. To many biological fathers disappear, and then turn up after the biological mother has made an adoption plan for the child, and has been adopted.
It is unfair to the child to have a stranger take them away after 2 or 5 years of living with the adoptive parents and get a court order to have the child returned. It seems selfish to me.
As a man I have to say that motherhood and fatherhood are really different things. A man can have sex with a woman for one night and then go back to his life. A woman can't do the same. She knows she is pregnant and has the physical responsibility of carrying the pregnancy.
I think the decisions relating to the fate of the child is in the hand of the mother.
I suspect the interest of the biological father. Until recently, the fatherhood was always in question. With DNA testing, there is now an out break of fathers wanting their children back.
There is also, on a better note, deadbeat dads who are nailed for child support. That part is good.
So, no - to me I think that the mom has more rights and responsibilities.
It is unfair to the child. That is why it is selfish of adoptive parents (or rather their solicitors) to deliberately and wilfully drag on a case so they can use the "it is unfair to remove the child from us now" when the child is older, despite the fact that in almost every single case, the biological father applied for custody at the time of the child's birth and certainly well within the time limit allowed. It is a common tactic and often successful.
You might like to read the Baby Emma/John Wyatt case (I can't link things at the moment as my toolbar is playing up) where the father did everything he believed to be right (because the child was born in Virginia) but because of the laws in Utah where the child was spirited after birth, he missed out on getting it signed in time under Utah law. The Virginia courts found in his favour. The baby's bmom is also on his side now. However, none of that was enough. of course, the Utah lawyers have dragged in on so long that they are now using the "it is not in the best interest of the child to remove her from us after she has been with us for so long" tactic.
In the case of other bfathers in other states, if the mother of the child tells them that they are going on a holiday to Utah while pregnant, that is enough for the countdown to start so that if the bfather doesn't sign on the putative father registry in Utah in time, even though he may have no idea that the child's mother is even considering adoption, then it is "too bad". So any man who has a girlfriend who is pregnant and says she is in Utah on holidays should sign onto the Utah registry even if adoption has never beendiscussed.
Fathers should have the same rights as mothers, but it's not possible to ensure those rights in the same way because of biology. Women have babies, men don't. Simple as.
Also, though fathers should have equal rights to their children, their rights do not supersede the child's right to a loving, stable family life. If a child was adopted by a loving family and the father comes roaring into the picture 4-5 years later, I think there should be no question whatsoever that that father has lost his child because of the trauma involved for the child in separating him/her from the only family they have ever known. It is selfish and unnecessary.
Also, men need to realize that it takes two people to have a baby and while there will always be exceptions on the margins, they might not run into this problem if they weren't out having casual sex with women they didn't know very well, then losing touch with them, then finding out months or years later that they had contributed DNA to another human being. Casual sex has consequences for men too, and this is one of them.
Fathers should have the same rights as mothers, but it's not possible to ensure those rights in the same way because of biology. Women have babies, men don't. Simple as.
Also, though fathers should have equal rights to their children, their rights do not supersede the child's right to a loving, stable family life. If a child was adopted by a loving family and the father comes roaring into the picture 4-5 years later,I think there should be no question whatsoever that that father has lost his child because of the trauma involved for the child in separating him/her from the only family they have ever known. It is selfish and unnecessary.
Also, men need to realize that it takes two people to have a baby and while there will always be exceptions on the margins, they might not run into this problem if they weren't out having casual sex with women they didn't know very well, then losing touch with them, then finding out months or years later that they had contributed DNA to another human being. Casual sex has consequences for men too, and this is one of them.
Of course if the bfather comes into the picture 4-5 years later, he has lost any right to raising the child and no-one argues with that. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
However, you will probably find that in the majority of cases where you see a father challenging the adoptive parents and it is 4-5 years down the track, you will almost always find that the father registered his interest right at the start and that the case has been going on for 4-5 years. The lawyers deliberately drag on the case so that they can use the "separating the child from the only family they've known" argument. Utah is notorious for making it difficult for a father to make claim to his biological child, the child doesn't even have to have been born in Utah (see the post before yours). The father in that case had been in a relationship with the mother and was fully expecting to be raising the child along with her.
As for the wishes of the mother, quite often the mother in these situations has also undergone quite heavy counselling beforehand as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
