U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-13-2012, 05:36 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 60,532,892 times
Reputation: 22277

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizita View Post
My whole point is that it should be the behavior and actions that should determine if a father should be in the superior or inferior group, not the marital status. My brother has two kids, 5 and 2. He's been in a relationship with the mother for 17 years and they've lived together for about 15 of those. They own a home together and they share the financial responsibility for the kids as well as the physical care taking. I think my brother is a good dad doing everything he should for his kids. But he's not married. He and his girlfriend don't see any reason to get married. To them all it really is is a ceremony and it wouldn't change their lives in any way. Because of this simple fact, that they haven't been through a ceremony, Mark believes that my brother is still in the inferior category even though he's a caring and responsible father. I don't see how that's fair. He's a heck of a better and more responsible dad than many married men I know of and to argue that he's not because he isn't married is frankly ridiculous. He's shown that he's a responsible parent. Shouldn't that be enough? Marriage really has nothing to do with it. Behavior and actions should be the determining factor regarding a father's worthiness, not marital status.
That's different -- but not all bio-fathers want to offer any kind of committment to the bio-mothers.

It's what happens when the woman informs him of the pregnancy -- if he immediately says she can count on him for his support and he will be there, married or living together - she will almost not deny him fatherhood.

If he says for her to just get an abortion or he's got another girlfriend, and wants nothing to do with the mother herself, then what rights should he have?

Your brother is with the mother of the child. He's helping to support and raise the children -- but that isn't how it always is. Nor is it always the guy who wants to have a child to stay home with and raise, it can be his mother or even a girlfriend who wants the child of the woman he plans to ditch. Or if the mother has realized that her boyfriend is an idiot, a drunk, a womanizer -- should she be reduced to only two decisions? Turn her baby over to him or else raise it alone on her own?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2012, 06:02 PM
 
16,572 posts, read 14,029,521 times
Reputation: 20525
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
That's different -- but not all bio-fathers want to offer any kind of committment to the bio-mothers.
Then if they are all individuals than they should be treated as individuals in the eyes of the law. Which means laws that treat all fathers who are not married, as having no say is a fundamentally unfair law.

Quote:
It's what happens when the woman informs him of the pregnancy -- if he immediately says she can count on him for his support and he will be there, married or living together - she will almost not deny him fatherhood.

If he says for her to just get an abortion or he's got another girlfriend, and wants nothing to do with the mother herself, then what rights should he have?
Uhm, NO. No person, men or woman, should lose their parental rights just because things did not work out with the other parent. It does not work that way for married parents and it shouldn't for unmarrried. If a woman, gets a divorce, it is from the husband, not the husband from his children. And vice versa. Parental relationships are separate and should not be dependent upon romantic ones.

So again, no. No parent is forced to stay in a romantic relationship just to have access to their child.

Quote:
Your brother is with the mother of the child. He's helping to support and raise the children -- but that isn't how it always is.
And if they broke up, he would no longer be allowed to parent his children? That makes no sense.

Quote:
Nor is it always the guy who wants to have a child to stay home with and raise, it can be his mother or even a girlfriend who wants the child of the woman he plans to ditch. Or if the mother has realized that her boyfriend is an idiot, a drunk, a womanizer -- should she be reduced to only two decisions? Turn her baby over to him or else raise it alone on her own?
Parents, all over the country and world, co-parent children without being romantically linked anymore. So the woman could choose to parent her child with her ex. But ultimately, it shouldn't be just her decision, or that of the father, if they cannot agree on a decision on how to parent, than a court appointed advocate for the child should step in to mediate. It happens all the time in the case of divorce, why shouldn't it happen in all of your anecdotes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2012, 06:17 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 60,532,892 times
Reputation: 22277
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Then if they are all individuals than they should be treated as individuals in the eyes of the law. Which means laws that treat all fathers who are not married, as having no say is a fundamentally unfair law.



Uhm, NO. No person, men or woman, should lose their parental rights just because things did not work out with the other parent. It does not work that way for married parents and it shouldn't for unmarrried. If a woman, gets a divorce, it is from the husband, not the husband from his children. And vice versa. Parental relationships are separate and should not be dependent upon romantic ones.

So again, no. No parent is forced to stay in a romantic relationship just to have access to their child.



And if they broke up, he would no longer be allowed to parent his children? That makes no sense.



Parents, all over the country and world, co-parent children without being romantically linked anymore. So the woman could choose to parent her child with her ex. But ultimately, it shouldn't be just her decision, or that of the father, if they cannot agree on a decision on how to parent, than a court appointed advocate for the child should step in to mediate. It happens all the time in the case of divorce, why shouldn't it happen in all of your anecdotes?
I disagree with you --- not with your anecdote of your brother but not every case is the same.

I think in cases of single women, the woman's decision should be the primary one. In your brother's case, the woman obviously chooses for him to remain in the picture without marrying her.

Again, your brother has made some kind of committment even if not marriage to the mother -- that isn't always the case, if the guy just wants the child but wants nothing to do with the mother -- then she should not have to turn her baby over to him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2012, 06:21 PM
 
9,168 posts, read 9,237,463 times
Reputation: 28702
My whole point is that it should be the behavior and actions that should determine if a father should be in the superior or inferior group, not the marital status. My brother has two kids, 5 and 2. He's been in a relationship with the mother for 17 years and they've lived together for about 15 of those. They own a home together and they share the financial responsibility for the kids as well as the physical care taking. I think my brother is a good dad doing everything he should for his kids. But he's not married. He and his girlfriend don't see any reason to get married. To them all it really is is a ceremony and it wouldn't change their lives in any way. Because of this simple fact, that they haven't been through a ceremony, Mark believes that my brother is still in the inferior category even though he's a caring and responsible father. I don't see how that's fair. He's a heck of a better and more responsible dad than many married men I know of and to argue that he's not because he isn't married is frankly ridiculous. He's shown that he's a responsible parent. Shouldn't that be enough? Marriage really has nothing to do with it. Behavior and actions should be the determining factor regarding a father's worthiness, not marital status.

[I emphasized the important part in bold]

Under the Supreme Court's interpretation of Putative Father rights, your brother would be protected. The important facts are that he he lived together in the same household with the mother and shared financial responsibility. Before you accuse me of making moral judgments, I'm ok with that. This is something akin to a marriage and could be demonstrated to be such. Such a father has constitutional protection.

In fact, if this man came to me as a lawyer and said "my significant other is trying to put the child I raised with up for adoption" the first thing I'd try to do to protect his rights is try to get the law to recognize a common law marriage between the two of them.

This is a very different situation than that of the unknown or disappearing birth father. My argument is simply that society shouldn't have to turn up stones to find men like this and advise them of their rights before an adoption takes place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2012, 06:40 PM
 
16,572 posts, read 14,029,521 times
Reputation: 20525
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
I disagree with you --- not with your anecdote of your brother but not every case is the same.

I think in cases of single women, the woman's decision should be the primary one. In your brother's case, the woman obviously chooses for him to remain in the picture without marrying her.

Again, your brother has made some kind of committment even if not marriage to the mother -- that isn't always the case, if the guy just wants the child but wants nothing to do with the mother -- then she should not have to turn her baby over to him.
I have no idea what you are talking about but my brother is not part of this conversation.


If a woman chooses not to parent, that is her right, but she does not arbitrarily get to decide if the father gets to parent or not. Two people make a child, two people should decide what happens to that child and if they cannot agree than the courts need to intervene for the best interest of the child.

Women do not own their offspring. Especially when they are CHOOSING not to parent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2012, 06:51 PM
 
11,151 posts, read 14,126,988 times
Reputation: 18795
malamute, it was Lizita who mentioned her brother:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizita View Post
My whole point is that it should be the behavior and actions that should determine if a father should be in the superior or inferior group, not the marital status. My brother has two kids, 5 and 2. He's been in a relationship with the mother for 17 years and they've lived together for about 15 of those .....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 09:42 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 60,532,892 times
Reputation: 22277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark of the Moon View Post
malamute, it was Lizita who mentioned her brother:
Noted.

I believe it needs to be the choice of the woman who carries the baby for 9 months and gives birth who will raise the baby. She should not be forced to turn over a baby to a man who wants nothing to do with her or who she has realized would be terrible father material.

I have sons, and if one impregnated a girl, I would definitely strongly encourage he marry her, but if he was emphatic that he wanted nothing more to do with her, then I would offer to take the baby and raise the baby, but I could never demand that she lose her choice of finding adoptive parents of her own choosing in such a case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 04:36 PM
 
16,572 posts, read 14,029,521 times
Reputation: 20525
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Noted.

I believe it needs to be the choice of the woman who carries the baby for 9 months and gives birth who will raise the baby. She should not be forced to turn over a baby to a man who wants nothing to do with her or who she has realized would be terrible father material.

I have sons, and if one impregnated a girl, I would definitely strongly encourage he marry her, but if he was emphatic that he wanted nothing more to do with her, then I would offer to take the baby and raise the baby, but I could never demand that she lose her choice of finding adoptive parents of her own choosing in such a case.
My only issue with the above is that it puts the wants of the parent over the needs of the child.

Where a child ends up, when its parents do not or cannot raise it, should be determined SOLELY by what is in the child's best interests. Assuming blindly that adoptive parents are better than being raised by a father or grandparents is not based in reality.

Sometimes APs are the best choice, sometimes they are not but that is for a child advocate to decide not a 16yo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 09:21 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 60,532,892 times
Reputation: 22277
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
My only issue with the above is that it puts the wants of the parent over the needs of the child.

Where a child ends up, when its parents do not or cannot raise it, should be determined SOLELY by what is in the child's best interests. Assuming blindly that adoptive parents are better than being raised by a father or grandparents is not based in reality.

Sometimes APs are the best choice, sometimes they are not but that is for a child advocate to decide not a 16yo.
There is a danger in that -- WHO decides and by what CRITERIA?

If the needs of the child were put first above any of the parents then it could be decided that those in the better financial position would be given preference. Then it could even be that the bio father gets preference over the bio mother, if he has a job for example and she does not.

I realize that each situation is unique. There may be cases where paternal grandparents would provide the ideal home for the child.

I believe in over 99% of cases, if the bio-father shows the bio-mother that he will be a great father and provider and will be there through thick and thin to help with the upbringing of the child, she will jump at that option.

Also even if the bio-father isn't up to her standards or won't be responsible, if she has a very good relationship with his parents and they would provide her the support she needs, most women would consider that option. When the relationship is not very good, or she knows they will not support her or include her, or she distrusts them, she very likely will opt out and want a better option.

As far as an advocate, I don't think they should override the birth-mother. The advocate could try to explain and present various options but for a variety of reasons, I think the birth mother has the stronger rights especially when it comes to a man or his relatives who want the baby but not her in their lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2012, 10:25 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
18,601 posts, read 23,161,280 times
Reputation: 48605
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
That's different -- but not all bio-fathers want to offer any kind of committment to the bio-mothers.

It's what happens when the woman informs him of the pregnancy -- if he immediately says she can count on him for his support and he will be there, married or living together - she will almost not deny him fatherhood.

If he says for her to just get an abortion or he's got another girlfriend, and wants nothing to do with the mother herself, then what rights should he have?

Your brother is with the mother of the child. He's helping to support and raise the children -- but that isn't how it always is. Nor is it always the guy who wants to have a child to stay home with and raise, it can be his mother or even a girlfriend who wants the child of the woman he plans to ditch. Or if the mother has realized that her boyfriend is an idiot, a drunk, a womanizer -- should she be reduced to only two decisions? Turn her baby over to him or else raise it alone on her own?
I agree with the distinction that you have made. If it is the way Lizita's family situation is, that is one thing.

More often it is the first scenario.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:56 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top