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.
In light of a recent Supreme Court decision I'm curious what people think about what rights unmarried fathers should have to be in their child's life and/or raise their child. Please consider the following two scenarios:
1. Anne and Bob are a couple when Anne becomes pregnant. A few months into the pregnancy they break up and Bob lets it be known that he has no intention of paying child support or being involved with the child. The two move away from each other and have no further contact during the pregnancy. Bob is basically MIA emotionally, physically and financially and is therefore failing to do anything to benefit his unborn child. He is taking no parental responsibility during the pregnancy or birth. But a few weeks into the baby's life Bob has a change of heart. He now wants to take care of his child and be an active part in his child's life in every way. Should he be allowed to be in his child's life at this point with this history?
2. The second scenario is identical to the first until the point where Bob changes his mind and wants to be a father. In this scenario Bob contacts Anne to let her know that he wants to step up to the plate and wants to see his baby. But to his surprise he finds out that Anne doesn't have the baby. The baby has been placed with another couple to be adopted. Bob is vehemently against the adoption and wants his baby to raise her on his own. Should he have the right to do so or has his history of lack of action during the pregnancy negated his right to father his child? Should men in Bob's situation, who are not married to the mother and has not provided support during the pregnancy, have the right to their child or have any say at all?
I'm curious what people think about both scenarios.
Note that I'm not talking about what the law says in these situations. I'm only wondering what your opinions are, not how things currently work legally.
Too often, mothers throw around "abandonment" to be able to terminate unmarried father's rights in adoption cases. For instance, there was recently the huge case where an active duty serviceman was sent to SC and left his pregnant wife behind in Texas because she didn't want to leave. Despite living off of the money he was putting into their joint savings account, she claimed abandonment and went to Utah for the adoption proceedings without ever telling her HUSBAND that she had given birth. Then she disappeared and by the time he found his wife and tracked down the whereabouts of his daughter, the daughter was 4 months old. That lead to a 2 year court case - he only just got his daughter back. If he had not been married, he likely would have lost the case and his daughter.
I don't know what the answer is to prevent a he-said, she-said. Just because the father doesn't want to be with the mother doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't want to parent his child. The parents' relationship should be irrelevant to these types of custody cases.
The question is best answered by assessing what is best for the child.
I'll add that we are talking about 9 months here, of an unborn kid. The support (financial, emotional, etc.) is much more valuable after the child is born.
The first scenario is easier to answer. Bob should probably be let in, for the good of the mother and the child.
Thh second scenario is much more complicated and has many "it depends" in it. If Bob is a mature adult with a good track records and a good career then he should probably have a say. Good people aren't perfect and when it's something of this level of importance, they should absolutely be given consideration. If on the other hand Bob is a complete F-up, he may just dissapear again when he decides it's too hard or too overhwelming or too whatever. So it really depends on Bob and the many other parts of the situation.
I think that upon birth every attempt should be made to locate the father and have him sign or not the birth certificate accepting responsibility and paternity. If he does so then yes he should legal rights to custody and legal responsibility for support. If he choses not to do so then that should end both his rights and responsibilities.
In situations where the father is not aware of the pregnancy and birth I would lean towards no rights for the father because there wouldn't seem to be enough involvement but still would think such cases should be heard on an individual basis and all circumstances taken into account.
It is about the well being of the child.
If a woman has a child out of wedlock and wants to give it up for adoption, she should be able to. If the father is more suited to raise the child than an adoptive mother and father, then he should have the option, but I doubt if this is the case very often.
If a woman chooses to keep the child, the father needs to pay child support.
Men need to wake up and smell the coffee. Pay to play. You reap what you sow.
It is about the well being of the child.
If a woman has a child out of wedlock and wants to give it up for adoption, she should be able to. If the father is more suited to raise the child than an adoptive mother and father, then he should have the option, but I doubt if this is the case very often.
If a woman chooses to keep the child, the father needs to pay child support.
Men need to wake up and smell the coffee. Pay to play. You reap what you sow.
Most of this talk about how the laws discriminate against unmarried birth fathers is just hooey. The plain fact of the matter is you can't really talk about equal rights when two people are in a very different position in life. Men do not go through the experience of gestation for nine months, labor, and producing breast milk. A man's biological function is completed after a pregnancy begins. A woman's biological mission is not completed until a child is not only safely delivered, but raised as well. In short, until a man has established a family relationship with a child (beyond mere biology) he is not on equal footing with the mother of the child. Marriage makes a difference because marriage declares to the community that he is willing to assume such a relationship, duty, and responsibility.
I believe that except in a very few limited situations that placing a child for adoption or not is the mother's call to make. If she makes it, there should be very limited reasons for a birth father to stop it from happening. I would emphasize that a birth father wanting to prevent adoption should have a legal acknowledgment of paternity filled out and on file with appropriate state agencies prior to the delivery of a child, or very shortly thereafter. Such a father should have to file a plan stating how he proposes to financially support the child.
There are simply too many instances of men fathering children and than skipping town to avoid paying child support. It places both the child's mother and the public (who must provide government assistance) in a very disadvantageous position. Laws known as Putative Father Statutes properly place the burden on unmarried men to come forward and make official filings to preserve and protect their rights. If the father fails to abide by the terms of the statute, he can and should lose his parental rights.
Sometimes, life just isn't fair. However, if you are unmarried father and you expect parental rights, you better do your research and act to preserve them. It is not society's obligation to do these things for you.
Men in today's world have very little rights to their children and it's sad. I do not have a criminal record and I'm not addicted to drugs. I work 12 shifts over night only 3 nights a week at a high paying job. I pay for my childrens medical and I pay child support. I've gone to court a few times, but the judges REFUSE to let me see my kids more than ever other weekend (4 days a month). My ex wife would drop off my 3 year old at 8am, pick him up at 6pm, and have him in bed around 7:30-8pm 5 days a week while I'm sitting at home. The judge acted like my son would somehow be scarred for life if he ever stayed overnight at my home.
Unmarried fathers only have to right to over pay for their children... When money is involved is the one and only time when we're treated like the child is ours...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
I think that upon birth every attempt should be made to locate the father and have him sign or not the birth certificate accepting responsibility and paternity. If he does so then yes he should legal rights to custody and legal responsibility for support. If he choses not to do so then that should end both his rights and responsibilities.
In situations where the father is not aware of the pregnancy and birth I would lean towards no rights for the father because there wouldn't seem to be enough involvement but still would think such cases should be heard on an individual basis and all circumstances taken into account.
It should not matter what previous involvement a father has had in the childs life... It should not matter if he was aware or not of the child's existence. None of that changes the fact that he's the child's father and not only should he have the right to be in this child's life, but the child should have the right to have their father in their life as well.
If the man's does not pose a threat to his child and he has decided that he wants to be there, he should have a right to be in his life point blank no questions asked... When it comes to child support, we believe that a man, regardless of his involvement, has a duty to provide support, so why is it that people want to impose so many roadblocks when it comes to a father wanting to be with his child? Why doesn't it go both ways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Most of this talk about how the laws discriminate against unmarried birth fathers is just hooey. The plain fact of the matter is you can't really talk about equal rights when two people are in a very different position in life. Men do not go through the experience of gestation for nine months, labor, and producing breast milk. A man's biological function is completed after a pregnancy begins. A woman's biological mission is not completed until a child is not only safely delivered, but raised as well. In short, until a man has established a family relationship with a child (beyond mere biology) he is not on equal footing with the mother of the child. Marriage makes a difference because marriage declares to the community that he is willing to assume such a relationship, duty, and responsibility.
I believe that except in a very few limited situations that placing a child for adoption or not is the mother's call to make. If she makes it, there should be very limited reasons for a birth father to stop it from happening. I would emphasize that a birth father wanting to prevent adoption should have a legal acknowledgment of paternity filled out and on file with appropriate state agencies prior to the delivery of a child, or very shortly thereafter. Such a father should have to file a plan stating how he proposes to financially support the child.
There are simply too many instances of men fathering children and than skipping town to avoid paying child support. It places both the child's mother and the public (who must provide government assistance) in a very disadvantageous position. Laws known as Putative Father Statutes properly place the burden on unmarried men to come forward and make official filings to preserve and protect their rights. If the father fails to abide by the terms of the statute, he can and should lose his parental rights.
Sometimes, life just isn't fair. However, if you are unmarried father and you expect parental rights, you better do your research and act to preserve them. It is not society's obligation to do these things for you.
What the hell does the fact that a woman carries the baby for 9 months have to do with anything? What do fathers who skips town have to do with the many more fathers who are being denied the right to be a part of their childs life? It does not matter what the statutes are and statistics support that. I, like many other good men out there, have abided by the law and still ge denied a fair amount of time with our children.
Yes there are men who are deadbeats, but there are women who have abortions to get out of handling their responsibilities. There are men paying a ridiculous amount of support while the mother sit at home with their 5 kids by 5 different men living on welfare and the fathers money... So what was the point of bringing that up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
It is about the well being of the child.
If a woman has a child out of wedlock and wants to give it up for adoption, she should be able to. If the father is more suited to raise the child than an adoptive mother and father, then he should have the option, but I doubt if this is the case very often.
If a woman chooses to keep the child, the father needs to pay child support.
Men need to wake up and smell the coffee. Pay to play. You reap what you sow.
If it was about the well being of the child, then married or not, the child should have the right to have a father in his or her life and bitter women or biases judges should not be getting in the way of that.
I'm tired of better women and white knights using the small amount of deadbeat men or men that hurt them as excuses to justify a broken system that is fueled by bitterness and money leaving fatherless children to suffer for their selfishness...
------
Have you seen the statistics comparing fatherless children to those who grow up with fathers? After seeing that, how can you claim you're doing what's best for children while denying them God given right and giving them the best chance at life?
How many times have you seen stories about adopted children who, even though they had a very loving adoptive parents and upbringing, had a burning in their guts to know where they came from?
Fathers matter... Maybe not to women and mothers, maybe not to some ignorant men, maybe not to some children who do not know what they're missing, and maybe not tho the legal system... but we matter...
Last edited by DoniDanko; 06-29-2013 at 06:52 PM..
Most of this talk about how the laws discriminate against unmarried birth fathers is just hooey. The plain fact of the matter is you can't really talk about equal rights when two people are in a very different position in life. Men do not go through the experience of gestation for nine months, labor, and producing breast milk. A man's biological function is completed after a pregnancy begins. A woman's biological mission is not completed until a child is not only safely delivered, but raised as well. In short, until a man has established a family relationship with a child (beyond mere biology) he is not on equal footing with the mother of the child. Marriage makes a difference because marriage declares to the community that he is willing to assume such a relationship, duty, and responsibility.
I believe that except in a very few limited situations that placing a child for adoption or not is the mother's call to make. If she makes it, there should be very limited reasons for a birth father to stop it from happening. I would emphasize that a birth father wanting to prevent adoption should have a legal acknowledgment of paternity filled out and on file with appropriate state agencies prior to the delivery of a child, or very shortly thereafter. Such a father should have to file a plan stating how he proposes to financially support the child.
There are simply too many instances of men fathering children and than skipping town to avoid paying child support. It places both the child's mother and the public (who must provide government assistance) in a very disadvantageous position. Laws known as Putative Father Statutes properly place the burden on unmarried men to come forward and make official filings to preserve and protect their rights. If the father fails to abide by the terms of the statute, he can and should lose his parental rights.
Sometimes, life just isn't fair. However, if you are unmarried father and you expect parental rights, you better do your research and act to preserve them. It is not society's obligation to do these things for you.
I find your argument sexist, anti-male and outright offensive.
-How can a father even know if a kid is his before its born, he has to have paternity test to determine if it is even his, and if the mother skips town good luck, and if she refuses, you need a court order
-Why can a mother give away a child when its bio faher wants it, why would you give a child to strangers when it real family wants it except one post partum depression mentally volatile female.
-Men skip town to avoid paying child supportfor several reasons
1. they are blocked from seeing the kids
2. the kids, they believe are not theirs
3. they cannot pay or cannot afford the payments. If men have trouble to find or get a job they go to jail, when women can't afford their kids they get government assistance
4. The interest rate for late support is so high it is virtually impossible to come back from arearrs
5.Once you start paying before a pat test you cannot get out.
Yeah so maybe we should have laws like the saudis and then tell women life isn't fair
I think the father of the child (even if needed to be proven via paternity tests) should have all rights to his child. In the first scenario, assuming he's not some crazed lunatic, he should get 50% custody. In the second scenario, again, assuming he's not some crazed lunatic, he should get his baby back and receive 100% custody with the mom signing her rights away.
If you're curious why I feel they should get 50% custody, it's because if you want to be a father, then you are going to be a full-time father. None of this every other weekend crappola.
It should not matter what previous involvement a father has had in the childs
life... It should not matter if he was aware or not of the child's existence. None of that changes the fact that he's the child's father and not only
should he have the right to be in this child's life, but the child should have
the right to have their father in their life as well.
If the man's does
not pose a threat to his child and he has decided that he wants to be there, he
should have a right to be in his life point blank no questions asked... When it
comes to child support, we believe that a man, regardless of his involvement,
has a duty to provide support, so why is it that people want to impose so many
roadblocks when it comes to a father wanting to be with his child? Why doesn't
it go both ways?
Well I believe there should be a time limit and questions should be asked. Its not fair to the child for a father to come back, especially in case of adoption, years later and disrupt the child's life. There is a difference in sperm donor and father. Just because you can procreate doesn't give you automatic and unconditional ownership of that child, be you father or mother. If your any kind of father you most likely know of the pregnancy and birth and you don't wait years and then decide you want to be part of your child's life.
The same should apply to support. If you cant prove paternity within a certain time frame, too bad.
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.
