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.
So in this instance, what if a mother has no plan or way to financially support the child, but doesn't want to give the baby up for adoption?
In most cases, I'd be willing to consider some limited assistance. The assistance should be designed to get them job training and participating in the labor force as soon as possible.
I'm sure you're going to say "well that's not fair, because you're preferring women to men".
Yes, I am. What you and a few others don't seem to get here is that unmarried fathers and unmarried mothers are not equal. Unmarried fathers don't obtain automatic parental rights because they don't go through nine months gestation and labor to have a child.
There is a basis for treating the two groups separately and even the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged it. The court's ruling prevails over the opinion of some aggrieved person here on CDF.
If the OP post changed to say "What rights should an unmarried woman..."
Once the child is born, the thing about everything being about a woman's body no longer applies does it? Say the woman didn't care for the unborn except to eat for herself and so on. Child is born. Father wants to be Father.
We know who far that would go. We sure want to make sure equality fits all. Guess who will answer that question? Homosexuals because if two women are involved there is no male to take the lesser role as seen by society.
The SCOTUS decision has such farther reaching ramifications. While it dealt with marriage, the process of divorces have yet to permeate through that part of our society as a routine thing. It is on the way and we'll see some profound decisions and laws come out of that. Some of them will also affect how the OP's question is answered, at least as far as society goes.
If the OP post changed to say "What rights should an unmarried woman..."
Once the child is born, the thing about everything being about a woman's body no longer applies does it? Say the woman didn't care for the unborn except to eat for herself and so on. Child is born. Father wants to be Father.
We know who far that would go. We sure want to make sure equality fits all. Guess who will answer that question? Homosexuals because if two women are involved there is no male to take the lesser role as seen by society.
I think the issue with unmarried father is if he has established a relationship with the child or even acknowledged it. An unmarried woman has established a parental relationship unless she has given the child up for adoption. If she is a negligent mother the state can take custody of the child.
If it were two women in a relationship priority still goes to the mother of the child. The non-mother would have no rights at all unless she had developed a strong bond over years with the child.
-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
A good start would be to develop a monogamous relationship with a woman you trust and not go about spreading your seed recklessly. I would dare say it is a rarity that a pregnant woman would just skip town and try to avoid letting the man know she was preg. It is more the opposite.
And if a woman wants to establish paternity, she also needs a court order.
Quote:
-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.
I'd say another rarity. If a man acknowledges fatherhood and is there to be in the child's life the mother would have little reason to put the child up for adoption.
Quote:
-Men skip town to avoid paying child support for 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.
So its ok for a man to have "reasons" to not skip town and never acknowledge their child but still have the right to come back at any time to be a part of their life, but not ok for a woman to have reasons to put the child up for adoption or not wanting the biological father in the child's life?
Like:
1. No financial assistance from the father
2. Father doesn't initially acknowledge the child
3. Father hasn't seen the child
4. Father isn't involved in the care of the child
5. Mother has to go on gov. assistance to help support the child
6. Mother meets someone else who gladly fills the role of father
7. Child is settled in a stable loving home.
8. Father is a stranger to the child
And interest is not charged for late support payments.
Quote:
Yeah so maybe we should have laws like the saudis and then tell women life isn't
fair
All that being said I believe if the fathers name is on the birth certificate and he shows a desire to develop a relationship with his child he should have the same rights as a wed father. And also if a woman petitions for child support the father should have at the very least the same visitation and rights as a married father.
I think the father should have the same rights, unless he has proven himself to be unfit, or if he chooses not to be.
I gave up a baby for adoption 24 years ago through a state agency, and the man I stated was the father had to sign a release stating he did not want to claim "ownership" (not sure if that's the appropriate word here) of the child, just so the adoption could go through.
Just because the woman is the one carrying the child does not absolve her from giving this baby a chance to have both parents in its life, again, unless either parent is unfit for whatever reason (and it better be a good one, like a drug addict, abuser, etc., not just because the guy doesn't have a job, or something else pathetic cooked up by the female participant).
There are far too many fatherless children out there that have no contact with their fathers because the mother got mad at the sperm donor not being there. Women need to get some personal responsibility and realize that it's not all about you. It's about this child you & he brought into this world and what is best for it.
In the first scenario, if the possible father says he won't have anything to do with any pregnancy or child, that's what the mother will be going by when she has a baby. If the man changes his mind and wants back in, this is a sober conversation that must take place between him and the mother and anyone else who is providing in some manner for the child (lie parents she's living with), and how everyone feels about it. If Joe Blow is a good kid and just made a monumental error, give him a trial go at money and visiting, but limit it to say three months, and if he's still really interested in the whole thing, he can arrange for visitation, alimony and/or child support. But it's up to the mother what she wants to do with the baby and the relationship. Remember, she set out with this under a whole diff set of rules.
On the second scenario, once the child has been given up for adoption, as much as you wish you had known about this child, you got the girl pregnant without knowing it (or discussing it for that matter), and it would be heartbreaking to the adopted family to give up their new little baby for your ego. Advice: All men, if you're going to have sex with a woman, use protection, if possible ask the young lady to please let you know if she winds up pregnant by some miracle, and don't have sex with any girl until you've gotten to know her fairly well.
Visitation is about as good as you can do, and in any case is the best you can do, and in any case is also something not possible. Again, you gotta have your ducks in a row when you have sex with women. In the old days, that's why women couldn't date men until a certain age, the father had to hate him, children were automatically given up for adoption or the mother gave up all rights to a free life and stayed home until the child was in school. To come outta nowhere and ask an adopted family or a mother who has really been thru a trying time, with no talk about pregnancy pre-sex time, well, nobody has too many rights, really, so a judge has to be consulted. But if I were a man, and a woman didn't want me around, I might send money but I wouldn't harass the woman.
In both cases, if you have money and can help out, unless you were cruely denied and you had done all the right things, a donation now and then would be a good idea for perhaps a positive future way down the road. But as for the children, they are not things, they are not to be moved around, they are not possessions of a mother or a father...they are supposed to be part of a loving family, and if you cannot provide that when you have sex with a woman, DON'T HAVE SEX. Remember, you can always walk away, but a mother never can. And there are actaly plenty of women who have sex with several men andhave no idea who the father is.
What if the man is married but not to the married mother of the child. I guess then that 10% of children born to married men have mothers who are not their fathers wife.
The issue I raised is whether it makes any difference if the mother is married to another guy at the time of the birth, especially in light of the laws in many states that automatically make a man married to a woman at the time of birth legally responsible for a child whether it is their child or not.
Read the story I linked.
BTW, there are about a hundred permutations of custody/child support/marriages. If you can imagine it, it has happened a hundred times. The primary beneficiaries are lawyers and people working in the child support industry. Yes, it is now an industry.
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?
It's a few weeks into the baby's life. Of course he should be able to be in the baby's life. Why? Because the baby has a right to both parents. Just because mom hates him now means nothing. The best interest of the kid is what should call the shots here.
Quote:
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 don't think that mom is legally able to put the child up for adoption without the father's consent or the father signing to terminate his parental rights. If mom doesn't want to raise the baby and dad does, I say let him raise his child.
People change. Maybe he was an irresponsible lout before the birth but maybe the birth of the child became real to him and he reached a turning point in his life and realized it's not all about him. To dismiss that and say "too bad, you were a tool, so you get no contact and have no say" is wrong.
In situation 1., I would have sent the state after Bob and got the child support and he would have been entitled to his parental rights which I believe would be important to his child, to have the father care even if delayed and situation 2. If I were putting a child up for adoption through a reputable source, Bob would have to relinquish his rights prior to the adoption being finalized. I don't see an issue with the laws and while sometimes the outcome doesn't seem the best, it is not the fault of the law but of the negligence of the parties involved.
Most states have a "presumptive father law". This makes the man who is married to the woman the legal father of the child. In this situation, a biological father almost never can seek custody of the child. He has no standing under this statute. I personally think the law's presumption that a married man is the father of any child born to his wife during their marriage is a good one.
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.
