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.
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.
The cases I've heard of is where the father comes in quite a bit after the fact. If the father is on record from the start as not being on board with adoption, adoption shouldn't occur. If the mother wants to forfeit her parental rights, the father should be given custody if that's what he wants.
The cases I've heard of is where the father comes in quite a bit after the fact. If the father is on record from the start as not being on board with adoption, adoption shouldn't occur. If the mother wants to forfeit her parental rights, the father should be given custody if that's what he wants.
I haven't heard of many where the father has come back 4-5 years afterwards. That's because once the adoption has actually been officially finalised, it is almost impossible for the father to overturn unless there has been proof of gross impropriety by the solicitors of the adopting couple, and even then it normally goes in the adopting couple's favour. I would say most claims by bfathers that are likely to make it to courtt are made either straight after and almost always before finalisation takes place (which can take a while - though I was adopted at 4 months, my adoption wasn't actually finalised for 1.5 years, which I think was a normal length of time back in the 60s).
In fact, in the majority of cases, the adoptive couple will win out. If they don't, it is usually because the adopting couple's solicitors haven't dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's or sometimes have tried to pull a fast one, so it is very important for the solicitors do everything above board.
Even Utah judges acknowledge the difficulties biological fathers face:
Quote:
In most states, putative fathers have certain requirements they must meet to stop an adoption, but many local and national experts agree that Utah is one of the toughest—if not the toughest—state for unmarried fathers to stop an adoption. Presiding judge of the Utah Court of Appeals James Davis has written that Utah adoption laws put unmarried fathers in an “impossible bind.†Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court Christine Durham has written that Utah could become a national “magnet for those seeking to unfairly cut off opportunities†for fathers qualified to raise their own children. Five men registered as putative fathers in June alone. According to the Utah Office of Vital Records and Statistics, about 20 men register each year.
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?
Dear Lizita,
The system is wholly unfair to birth fathers. The system forgets it takes a man to create a child too. Women can "choose" to abort the child or have the child without giving the father any thought. If a woman "chooses" to have the child and keep the child she becomes legally entitled to child support and the father's only "choice" is to pay child support or face going to jail. If the woman "chooses" to have the child and put it up for adoption the father is not given notice and can only protect his rights to raise his child in Illinois by being lucky enough to know the mother gave birth and placing his name as a father on the Putative Father registry within 60 days of the birth or it is too late.
JS
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 11-07-2012 at 11:13 AM..
I do not believe that unmarried natural fathers should have exactly the same rights as birth mothers. Their lives aren't endangered by birth (yes, it still kills women sometimes.) Their bodies aren't changed forever. They can disappear early in the pregnancy and be nearly impossible to find. They will never have to scramble and find health insurance (maternity so often excluded from individual policies.) And of course, they do not carry an infant within their own bodies for three quarters of a year.
But I am horified by how far Utah has taken it. Sick to my stomach. I believe that the pregnant woman should be legally required to inform (or attempt to inform) the father of her intent to place for adoption.
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 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?
Totally agree with you. As I pointed out in an earlier post, my paternal grandparents made it very clear to the adoption agency that they were willing to support both my parents AND me! Out of desperation, my paternal grandparents told Catholic Charities that THEY would adopt me. The agency said no because that is not want their paying customes, my maternal grandparents, wanted.
There was absolutely no reason for me to be placed with strangers. Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles--all efforts to keep the child within the biological family should be made before stranger adoption is even considered. Many of us may have had grandparents or other family members who would have been more than willing to step up if they had been given the opportunity.
I have zero sympathy for rapists or men who choose to have unprotected casual sex with female strangers and then protest when the birth mother chooses to give away the infant for adoption.
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.
