Should birth fathers have the same rights as birth mothers? (infant, options)
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.
Since this is an adoption forum, let's assume there was no abortion and that the woman who had casual meaningless sex decided to have the child but didn't want to keep it. The father decides the sex was meaningless but the child isn't and wants to keep it. Why shouldn't he?
Well, I suppose in that case he should. This is probably quite rare though and I doubt it would end well.
People have casual sex because they don't want long term commitments. Raising kids is most definitely a long term commitment. Also, just because a man wants to be father, doesn't always mean he should. Some people just aren't cut out to be parents (lazy, selfish, drug addicts, abusive, violent, alcoholic, no education/job/home/money, diseased, disabled, etc.) The father could have a "trial" - live with and raise the child for a few weeks/months and if the social worker approves of the child's living conditions and the way he is raising the child, he should be allowed to keep the child permanently.
I wish people would be more careful having sex and only choose to become pregnant when they know the child will be raised in a stable environment, but I know that's unrealistic to hope for. Single parenthood, adoption/foster care and abortion are all undesirable options.
Well, I suppose in that case he should. This is probably quite rare though and I doubt it would end well.
People have casual sex because they don't want long term commitments. Raising kids is most definitely a long term commitment. Also, just because a man wants to be father, doesn't always mean he should. Some people just aren't cut out to be parents (lazy, selfish, drug addicts, abusive, violent, alcoholic, no education/job/home/money, diseased, disabled, etc.) The father could have a "trial" - live with and raise the child for a few weeks/months and if the social worker approves of the child's living conditions and the way he is raising the child, he should be allowed to keep the child permanently.
I wish people would be more careful having sex and only choose to become pregnant when they know the child will be raised in a stable environment, but I know that's unrealistic to hope for. Single parenthood, adoption/foster care and abortion are all undesirable options.
Let us know when you find that perfect world - it hasn't existed as long as I have been on this earth, which has been a while...how on earth would their be so many adoptees in middle to late senior years if things had been the perfect scenario you describe anytime in the recent past.
I do take offense that you wish to paint men as the lesser abled in the parenting department...you would be surprised how many people (including adoptees) hold their father up as the better parent.
Well, I suppose in that case he should. This is probably quite rare though and I doubt it would end well.
People have casual sex because they don't want long term commitments. Raising kids is most definitely a long term commitment. Also, just because a man wants to be father, doesn't always mean he should. Some people just aren't cut out to be parents (lazy, selfish, drug addicts, abusive, violent, alcoholic, no education/job/home/money, diseased, disabled, etc.) The father could have a "trial" - live with and raise the child for a few weeks/months and if the social worker approves of the child's living conditions and the way he is raising the child, he should be allowed to keep the child permanently.
I wish people would be more careful having sex and only choose to become pregnant when they know the child will be raised in a stable environment, but I know that's unrealistic to hope for. Single parenthood, adoption/foster care and abortion are all undesirable options.
I find this line of thinking disturbing. Why do we need only the father to prove himself capable of caring for a child? Just because a woman gives birth does not mean she is capable of being a good mom (not related at all to adoption- this is a general statement that applies to all women, even myself as a biological mother).
I'm not sure which circumstances would give rise to this sort of arrangement. As far as I am aware, the only time a social worker would ever be involved would be because the child was being placed for adoption as a choice (in which case, yes, both the mother and the father need to agree) or there was as red flag, such a substance abuse or other children already in state custody.
Social workers are not involved if two people have casual sex and get pregnant and the woman chooses to give birth. Nor should they be. Are you proposing that social workers get involved in these types of situations? And where do we draw the line? What about couples that have been only dating a month? In that case, should the man also be investigated? Is a year long enough to be together for the man to step forward and claim his rights as father without it being contested and put as a trial parenthood?
If I were to have died giving birth to my child, should my husband have been investigated by social services and made sure to be raising our child appropriately? Of course not. Our child would have been taken home by her father.
It is a tragedy for a child to lose a parent, whether through death, abandonment, or adoption. In all cases, if there is one parent who is willing to act as a single parent and care for the child, that is the best case- mother or father. Men are completely capable of being good parents. My husband, if he had to, would be a good single dad. Of course there are cases where the person is not a fit parent. Quite frankly, I know married couples who I would categorize as unfit parents. But fathering a child in a one-night stand is not the defining characteristic in determining fitness. Giving a child up for adoption does not guarantee them fit parents, either. Even with a homestudy.
I'm sad that no one knows any good men, apparently. I've known my fair share of jerks, but I also know men who have stepped up to the plate and taken on their responsibilities.
Few single men want to raise a child. Those that do usually have extensive family to help out, and usually his Mother takes care of the child. But, if a man wants his child, he should have it. And the Mother is still obligated financially to support this child.
Men who have casual sex don't have a right to have a say in what happens to the baby. If she wants to give it away for adoption or have an abortion, he should keep his mouth shut. Meaningless flings don't have weight.
Baby born in 2010 - father took the case all the way to the Utah Supreme Court - which heard his case back in September 2011 and JUST ruled Friday - HE WON! - now it goes back to the lower court.
Utah claims the adoption law is to ensure there isn't a delay for the best interests of the child - so how can it take so long to work through the courts? He filed in the putative fathers registry in January 2010 (delayed entry into the registry by 4 days due to a state holiday - baby born one month early) and because of the delayed entry into the registry he was denied rights...so now almost two years later he has won in the Utah Supreme Court - but now it goes back to the lower court and who knows how long they will take. So much for concern in the courts for timeliness for the child.
Baby born in 2010 - father took the case all the way to the Utah Supreme Court - which heard his case back in September 2011 and JUST ruled Friday - HE WON! - now it goes back to the lower court.
Utah claims the adoption law is to ensure there isn't a delay for the best interests of the child - so how can it take so long to work through the courts? He filed in the putative fathers registry in January 2010 (delayed entry into the registry by 4 days due to a state holiday - baby born one month early) and because of the delayed entry into the registry he was denied rights...so now almost two years later he has won in the Utah Supreme Court - but now it goes back to the lower court and who knows how long they will take. So much for concern in the courts for timeliness for the child.
It is so sad to me that money is more important than a child. Utah makes an awful lot of money based on the way they do adoption. They care absolutely nothing for the interests of the child. It's the all-mighty dollar that is their primary focus.
Pathetic. And it should be illegal. This is when federal laws should step in: when a state is clearly perpetuating the abuse of a group of people.
It is so sad to me that money is more important than a child. Utah makes an awful lot of money based on the way they do adoption. They care absolutely nothing for the interests of the child. It's the all-mighty dollar that is their primary focus.
Pathetic. And it should be illegal. This is when federal laws should step in: when a state is clearly perpetuating the abuse of a group of people.
I agree with you that Utah's adoption laws are grossly unfair and this is an area where we would benefit by having federal law govern it. But I don't think money is the motivation here. I think it's religion and conservative morals. It's about "family values". Kids should be raised in good two-parent Christian families and their laws favor these good Christian families over these "poor low lives who engage in casual sex". It also has to do with clout. Who do you think has more clout to affect adoption legislation; adoptive parents or single, usually working class men?
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.