Mother's Right... Father's Wronged?

[Weird Harold]

John Baker, chairman of Families Need Fathers, said "It treats the child as the property of the mother, to be disposed of as she sees fit."

He said the ruling, taken in conjunction with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which ....
...
Fathers 4 Justice barrister Michael Cox said: "This father is the victim of a wicked deceit in which the State has been complicit. ...

I'm struck by a similarity in style between these "Father's Groups" and religious fundamentalist opposition to almost any form of sexual or reproductive "rights" -- the overall impression I get is one of "My Woman, My Progeny, My Property."

The rhetoric doesn't really match the purported concerns of these "Fathers' Groups."

I agree with sr71plt that this would seem to conflit with the principle that a father can be compelled to support a child he didn't know anything about simply because he contributed some DNA to the process. There is a serious imbalance in the legal precedents between "mothers rights/responsibilities" and "fathers rights/responsibilities."

 

[emap]

Ami your still funny.

I think perhaps we better back that truck up, cause ya'll are turning this into a little deeper conversation than I think was intended. The woman is giving the child of a one night stand up for adoption, I think she has every right to do so without bothering the father with having to say yes or no. Which is a rather good thing because not every one night stand tells his actual name or well anything else.

I got the impression she had a child from one of those, I've run into them many times, I never got pregnant so I didn't give a rats ass anyway.

Now as for whether she should be able to get child support and not telling the father, in this case, she doesn't want it. If a woman has a child from a man she is not married to and wants to keep, she should get child support and he should get visitation rights, end of story. If she wishes to give the child up for adoption, as in not wanting child support telling him shouldn't even be a consideration, well at least not mandatory because well hell they don't have a relationship.

Now see I'm not sure why it went off on this tangent, there are two totally different things being talked about. If she keeps the child dad should be told and allowed visitation rights at least, joint custody being better. See this is not about couples rights, or dad's rights, this is about a single woman who may or may not know who knocked her up wanting to give the child up for abortion, probaby the best thing for the child. Since of course you know, whoever she slept with is about the same age, in the same situation monetarily, do you really think either should saddle themselves with a baby?

Let's talk hypotheticals here, put yourself in her situation. You went out one night got drunk and wake up the next day to find fluids that are not yours dried on the bed and your thighs. No note, no name and number no nothing, you don't remember who you slept with or how many. Three weeks later your late and puking your brains out in the morning, CPT says congratulations your a mommy. Would you want to go and tell an overbearing mother and father that you got knocked up and have no idea who fathered your future child? Would you want to have you face plastered all over the news and in bars saying "did you sleep with me?" Would you then like to answer all those calls from perverts saying no but I would like to right now? Would you rather you were able to simply give the kid to child services after birth and know that your new son/daughter is guarenteed a better life than either of you would have together?

We aren't talking about keeping the child, we are talking about giving the baby up for adoption and avoiding the problems that come from having a new mouth to feed that can't get a job for 16 years. Personally if I was in that situation I would not want to have to find dad, I would simply want to give my bundle of joy and major problems up for adoption and pray they find a good home.

Don't get me wrong, I love kids, sometimes I wish I could have one. But in her situation adoption is the best choice. Besides which, ever tried to get a 2 year old adopted? Doesn't happen much, most adopters want a bouncing baby, why do you think so many go to third world countries to get a child to adopt?

Everything else aside, letting a woman put the child up for adoption without having to find and ask the father is a good thing. simply because of the reason I said above. Now if her one nighter had stuck around, very likely he was looking for more than a one nighter, they will trade phone numbers names and all that, at which point, he will find out because damn if I would not call him up and bitch him out.

Think about 'Knocked Up', they woke up together traded phone numbers and so forth. That would so happen to every guy who screwed a woman with her permission and wanted to deal with the consequences. If he does not want to deal with the consequences, he does not stick around, does not share his actual name, well generally doesn't, and forget a phone number. Not a single one of those guys would say oh no keep the kid I will pay child support. Those are the same men who run out on their girlfriend when she says I am pregnant, they are the same men who have to be chased after by the courts to pay child support.

If there was a way to simply bypass finding and asking the father to put the child up for adoption it makes life easier for all three, the child gets adopted, mom and dad don't have to talk to each other, and he does not have to pay child support. Having to find the father is probably the reason why more one night kids are not put up for adoption to begin with.

 

[slyc_willie]

"He said, she said." Exactly. Row/Wade and the way societal perspectives were going for a while--and were being reflected in judge appointments gave more weight to the "she said" than to the "he said." Even earlier then the type of issue brought up here this was reflected in who paid support (and moved out of the house) no matter who was more or all at fault in the breakup of a marriage (the mother got the house and the kids if she wanted them unless she was a criminal or a certified crazy and the father paid the bills). The trend now is moving back toward equal credence to "he said" and you are seeing a whole lot more fathers taking the kids and mothers footing the bill. And you are seeing a whole lot more "shrug; we'll just have to split it down the middle" and/or "if you can't produce his permission slip to do what you want in relationship to this pregnancy/child, we won't stick him with responsibility for what you decided" in court decisions.

This isn't a "we can decide for ourselves" issue. This is controlled by court decisions--and the courts are trending in this direction. (And, again, there was a time when "she" had no say at all--and there are countries and legal systems where this is still the case).

(Relatively) young, more conservative, traditional-view judges are being appointed to the courts. So a reversal of the trend won't happen naturally and it won't happen now in the short term--and it will require shoe leather, not "oh woe is me" or "I don't think that's right" opinion writing.

Equality in parental responsibility. What a novel thought.

Yeah, it's going to take a while. For the courts, for society, to recognize maturity in such cases. More than that, though, will be the move to accept them, and take the child's interests at heart, rather than the rattlings of mom vs. dad.

 

[sr71plt]

I agree with sr71plt that this would seem to conflit with the principle that a father can be compelled to support a child he didn't know anything about simply because he contributed some DNA to the process. There is a serious imbalance in the legal precedents between "mothers rights/responsibilities" and "fathers rights/responsibilities."

This is the nub of why I said anyone looking at this objectively would see the common sense argument in this. This is tied to the legal concept of due process, which is a foundation concept in the British legal system, which became the foundation of the American legal system. The operable concept is that you can't be held responsible for something you didn't know about and/or had no choice in. This isn't a pure "truth" that always rules a court decision (e.g., parents are held responsible for a whole range of acts of their minor children to a great extent even if the child did it without the parents' knowledge or acquience)--but it's always an argument that can be taken to appeal (and at the moment anything that gets kicked into higher-level courts has a good chance of a conservative decision).

 

[slyc_willie]

This is the nub of why I said anyone looking at this objectively would see the common sense argument in this. This is tied to the legal concept of due process, which is a foundation concept in the British legal system, which became the foundation of the American legal system. The operable concept is that you can't be held responsible for something you didn't know about and/or had no choice in.

So, then, a man and women go to bed, engage in unprotected sex. I believe the act of doning -- or not-- a condom would satisfy wether or not the resulting act would be 'responsible.' Having sex with a condom, after all, would at least show some responsibility.

This isn't a pure "truth" that always rules a court decision (e.g., parents are held responsible for a whole range of acts of their minor children to a great extent even if the child did it without the parents' knowledge or acquience)--but it's always an argument that can be taken to appeal (and at the moment anything that gets kicked into higher-level courts has a good chance of a conservative decision).

Did we somehow jump to the future? I thought we were talking about actions of consensual adults, and not children.

 

[elsol]

The decision states in black and white for anyone to read that a father has no rights to the disposition of his child. It's not about her body anymore, because the creature now has an independent existence.

Cool as far as I'm concerned... because I can walk into any courtroom now and shout "No Taxation without Representation." I don't have a rights when it comes to my child, then I also don't have responsibilities.

I need everyone to remove the combination of 'bad fathers' from their vocabulary and never again use the term 'deadbeat dad'.

What state is this in? I need to start packing.

 

[starrkers]

Disclaimer: I've only scanned large portions of this thread, after the first few posts.

My first thoughts on this are - I'm damned glad I ain't a bloke. Seems they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
If a woman ends up pregnant and doesn't want the father involved, it's her choice. If she does want his money, it's her right.
He gets no say in what happens to the child after birth, but can be dragged in to help pay for it.
It's all well and good to say "he should've worn a condom", but she should've taken precautions too. There is no way I would ever place my life and lifestyle on the line by relying on someone else to take the responsible line.

The mother can choice to abort or not (and I'm certainly not going to deny her that right); but why shouldn't the father have that choice too? Not to physically abort, but to choose no contact, no support, no acknowledgement?

 

[Weird Harold]

Everything else aside, letting a woman put the child up for adoption without having to find and ask the father is a good thing. ...

If there was a way to simply bypass finding and asking the father to put the child up for adoption it makes life easier for all three ...

I think that there could be a logical argument made for giving the "father" right of first refusal in adoptions -- if the father is known. In the case described in the OP, I got the impression that the mother could have notified the father if she wanted to without resorting to a legal notice in the newspaper to find him.

However, the case also seems to revolve around a requirement for both parents to agree before an adoption can go forward and that is often an impractical requirement because the father is unknown -- literally unknown by either the mother, father, or independent witnesses. A paternity test is pointless if you have no clue where to start testing.

This also could just be a variation on the "fifth amendment" protection against self-incrimination -- the father she doesn't wish to identify/notify could well be underage and identifying him could cause her other legal problems.

I think in general, this is just one more case where legal inflexibility prevents those closest to the situation from making decisions appropriate to the specific circumstances -- and neither we nor the media have enough information to make a positive judgement.

 

[slyc_willie]

The decision states in black and white for anyone to read that a father has no rights to the disposition of his child. It's not about her body anymore, because the creature now has an independent existence.

Cool as far as I'm concerned... because I can walk into any courtroom now and shout "No Taxation without Representation." I don't have a rights when it comes to my child, then I also don't have responsibilities.

I need everyone to remove the combination of 'bad fathers' from their vocabulary and never again use the term 'deadbeat dad'.

What state is this in? I need to start packing.

*sigh*

Gawd.

Good night.

 

[sr71plt]

So, then, a man and women go to bed, engage in unprotected sex. I believe the act of doning -- or not-- a condom would satisfy wether or not the resulting act would be 'responsible.' Having sex with a condom, after all, would at least show some responsibility.

Talk about having to deal with "he said, she said" by the time that got to a courtroom . . .

Wouldn't doning of the condom show rather denial of responsibility/intent for a seven-pound, wailing result? For the situation posed here, sure, if the woman produced an ID-tagged used condom with his DNA in it and a time dated video tape documenting the penetration taken by two third-party witnesses testifying they were present when this ID-tagged condom was used, the mother would have a good case in court that she doesn't need to consult with the father when she puts the baby out for adoption--because he obviously was denying any seven-pound, wailing result. (But then any cases she might put forward for any form of support for the father logically is a no go.)

Did we somehow jump to the future? I thought we were talking about actions of consensual adults, and not children.

I don't follow. If anything we slipped into the past to show foundation for the present.

What prompted my interest in this thread was the voicing by some posters (as if they had a veto vote in the matter) of "what is" about something that never quite became "what is" and that increasingly is trending toward "what isn't."

 

[sr71plt]

I think that there could be a logical argument made for giving the "father" right of first refusal in adoptions -- if the father is known. In the case described in the OP, I got the impression that the mother could have notified the father if she wanted to without resorting to a legal notice in the newspaper to find him.

However, the case also seems to revolve around a requirement for both parents to agree before an adoption can go forward and that is often an impractical requirement because the father is unknown -- literally unknown by either the mother, father, or independent witnesses. A paternity test is pointless if you have no clue where to start testing.

This also could just be a variation on the "fifth amendment" protection against self-incrimination -- the father she doesn't wish to identify/notify could well be underage and identifying him could cause her other legal problems.

I think in general, this is just one more case where legal inflexibility prevents those closest to the situation from making decisions appropriate to the specific circumstances -- and neither we nor the media have enough information to make a positive judgement.

Ah, now you move over to the crux of the matter for the adoptive parents to consider. Because if someone claiming to be the father--whether or not he was ever told--appears on the scene and claims rights to the child, the courts would, in fact, entertain his claim (and there's therefore the chance that they would give him the child if the DNA matched). This is why the adoptive parent side of such an arrangement would press for a signed disclaimer from the father (and, increasingly, the grandparents as well, because courts are beginning to recognize that they have an oar in this pond as well). In many cases where this might actually happen, the father might be some stinker wanting to fleece the adoptive parents rather than get the child back--but it could go to court and could wind up either way--and the adoptive parents are stuck assessing the risks.

 

[Caitano]

I agree with stella, besides a one night stand how many guys are going to even admit they could be the father?

Right. Lots of them. Thousands and thousands of them. What planet are you from?

 

[elsol]

Ah, now you move over to the crux of the matter for the adoptive parents to consider. Because if someone claiming to be the father--whether or not he was ever told--appears on the scene and claims rights to the child, the courts would, in fact, entertain his claim (and there's therefore the chance that they would give him the child if the DNA matched). This is why the adoptive parent side of such an arrangement would press for a signed disclaimer from the father (and, increasingly, the grandparents as well, because courts are beginning to recognize that they have an oar in this pond as well). In many cases where this might actually happen, the father might be some stinker wanting to fleece the adoptive parents rather than get the child back--but it could go to court and could wind up either way--and the adoptive parents are stuck assessing the risks.

The father has no rights to violate according to Lady Justice Arden. Therefore, he will never have those rights. As a lower court judge, I wouldn't even blink at taking the easy out on a bitchy decision.

I'd like to see how they handle a situation where the couple was married, the child was conceived while married, but born after a divorce. That would be the nail in the coffin and the previous decision points at how the decision 'should' go.

Where was this decision made anyway?

I want to read the opinion (Is this UK? The whole Lady & Lord thing... didn't think that was an American usage. If it isn't I need to move to that state... Lord Justice Elsol... has a certain ring to it.)

 

[Caitano]

Ami your still funny.

I think perhaps we better back that truck up, cause ya'll are turning this into a little deeper conversation than I think was intended. The woman is giving the child of a one night stand up for adoption, I think she has every right to do so without bothering the father with having to say yes or no. Which is a rather good thing because not every one night stand tells his actual name or well anything else.

I got the impression she had a child from one of those, I've run into them many times, I never got pregnant so I didn't give a rats ass anyway.

Now as for whether she should be able to get child support and not telling the father, in this case, she doesn't want it. If a woman has a child from a man she is not married to and wants to keep, she should get child support and he should get visitation rights, end of story. If she wishes to give the child up for adoption, as in not wanting child support telling him shouldn't even be a consideration, well at least not mandatory because well hell they don't have a relationship.

Now see I'm not sure why it went off on this tangent, there are two totally different things being talked about. If she keeps the child dad should be told and allowed visitation rights at least, joint custody being better. See this is not about couples rights, or dad's rights, this is about a single woman who may or may not know who knocked her up wanting to give the child up for abortion, probaby the best thing for the child. Since of course you know, whoever she slept with is about the same age, in the same situation monetarily, do you really think either should saddle themselves with a baby?

Let's talk hypotheticals here, put yourself in her situation. You went out one night got drunk and wake up the next day to find fluids that are not yours dried on the bed and your thighs. No note, no name and number no nothing, you don't remember who you slept with or how many. Three weeks later your late and puking your brains out in the morning, CPT says congratulations your a mommy. Would you want to go and tell an overbearing mother and father that you got knocked up and have no idea who fathered your future child? Would you want to have you face plastered all over the news and in bars saying "did you sleep with me?" Would you then like to answer all those calls from perverts saying no but I would like to right now? Would you rather you were able to simply give the kid to child services after birth and know that your new son/daughter is guarenteed a better life than either of you would have together?

We aren't talking about keeping the child, we are talking about giving the baby up for adoption and avoiding the problems that come from having a new mouth to feed that can't get a job for 16 years. Personally if I was in that situation I would not want to have to find dad, I would simply want to give my bundle of joy and major problems up for adoption and pray they find a good home.

Don't get me wrong, I love kids, sometimes I wish I could have one. But in her situation adoption is the best choice. Besides which, ever tried to get a 2 year old adopted? Doesn't happen much, most adopters want a bouncing baby, why do you think so many go to third world countries to get a child to adopt?

Everything else aside, letting a woman put the child up for adoption without having to find and ask the father is a good thing. simply because of the reason I said above. Now if her one nighter had stuck around, very likely he was looking for more than a one nighter, they will trade phone numbers names and all that, at which point, he will find out because damn if I would not call him up and bitch him out.

Think about 'Knocked Up', they woke up together traded phone numbers and so forth. That would so happen to every guy who screwed a woman with her permission and wanted to deal with the consequences. If he does not want to deal with the consequences, he does not stick around, does not share his actual name, well generally doesn't, and forget a phone number. Not a single one of those guys would say oh no keep the kid I will pay child support. Those are the same men who run out on their girlfriend when she says I am pregnant, they are the same men who have to be chased after by the courts to pay child support.

If there was a way to simply bypass finding and asking the father to put the child up for adoption it makes life easier for all three, the child gets adopted, mom and dad don't have to talk to each other, and he does not have to pay child support. Having to find the father is probably the reason why more one night kids are not put up for adoption to begin with.

You make a good distinction. If she keeps the child, the dad should have a right to be involved. If the kid is adopted, the adoptive parents do not need a pack of dads hanging around claiming a say in how the child is raised. But I think Weird Harold has the answer to your ideas. Put yourself in his position. The thoughtless woman who had the unprotected sex is throwing the child away to adoptive parents. She doesn't want to take responsibility for the child any more than she did for the unprotected sex. Fine. But the child is still his child, and he should have the right to be in the loop enough to take it, since she doesn't want it. Not as an adoptive parent, but as a natural parent. Your proposal, and that of the Justice, is that he doesn't even get the option, because the mother's got all the prerogatives! Even when she wants to be rid of the child as soon as possible!

 

[elsol]

If I were female... which obviously I'm not, I'd be much more curious to find out about this legal guardian and local authority crap.

I don't like things in black and white, but if the birth certificate says UNK and the mother puts up the baby for adoption... that's pretty much a done deal right there.

How did the state become involved?

 

[neonlyte]

If I were female... which obviously I'm not, I'd be much more curious to find out about this legal guardian and local authority crap.

I don't like things in black and white, but if the birth certificate says UNK and the mother puts up the baby for adoption... that's pretty much a done deal right there.

How did the state become involved?

Sorry I slept through three pages of posts. Elsol's point is exactly what struck me when I read the article. I don't understand how this was anyone's business except the mother's?

It strikes me she was aware from the outset she either wouldn't be able to raise the child or didn't want to raise the child and abortion was totally out of the question, so she did the only sensible thing open to her. She offered the child for adoption. Why does the state / courts feel they have any say in her choice? (To the best of my knowledge, the father has no idea he is a father and has not had any involvement in the legal process).

 

[Caitano]

If I were female... which obviously I'm not, I'd be much more curious to find out about this legal guardian and local authority crap.

I don't like things in black and white, but if the birth certificate says UNK and the mother puts up the baby for adoption... that's pretty much a done deal right there.

How did the state become involved?

Good enough. Except that a birth certificate can say whatever she puts on it. What if it ain't UNK? What if she puts that down to simplify her life?

 

[Caitano]

Sorry I slept through three pages of posts. Elsol's point is exactly what struck me when I read the article. I don't understand how this was anyone's business except the mother's?

It strikes me she was aware from the outset she either wouldn't be able to raise the child or didn't want to raise the child and abortion was totally out of the question, so she did the only sensible thing open to her. She offered the child for adoption. Why does the state / courts feel they have any say in her choice? (To the best of my knowledge, the father has no idea he is a father and has not had any involvement in the legal process).

Why on earth shouldn't the natural father have first dibs on his own child? Whose idea was it that he has had no involvement in the legal process? The mother's, according to the story. She kept it a secret from everyone.

 

[elsol]

Good enough. Except that a birth certificate can say whatever she puts on it. What if it ain't UNK? What if she puts that down to simplify her life?

You're allowed to lie as far as I'm concerned... that's an issue between two people. He didn't make her sign a contract at the time of sex that stated 'if something happens from this, you are obligated... blah-blah-blah." She answers to her concience at that point.

But the moment it hits the court's docket things change, and when it hits the Court of Appeals, things really change because this decision becomes the basis for other decisions.

My question is how did it become a legal issue; how did this not get tossed by the state not having any standing.

 

[Caitano]

Goddam. Tell me how, in any circumstance, you can ever keep the state the hell out of your life, and I'm your disciple. The state always thinks it has a right to be involved.

 

[Oblimo]

Gotta break it down to the different scenarios:

* Mother opts to abort and not inform the father.
* Mother opts to bring to term, raise the child, and not inform father.
* Mother opts to bring to term, raise the child, and sue for paternity.
* Mother opts to bring to term, put the child up for adoption and not inform the father (or make reasonable attempts to do so).

The last situation is the stickiest, with the mother's interests at their weakest and the father's at their strongest (presuming both were competent and consenting for the conception). Then there's intrafamily adoption vs. extra-familial...oy, these things get messy.

 

[Oblimo]

Tell me how, in any circumstance, you can ever keep the state the hell out of your life, and I'm your disciple.

Religious hermatige with a truly observed vow of poverty. That tends to stick.

 

[rengadeirishman]

come now everyone, this is the 21st century, men dont matter anymore.

Slainte,
Ren.

 

[emap]

Caitano, your missing the entire point. Go back and read the hypothetical I stated earlier. If the father of the child is not around, he doesn't want to know or already does and skipped town, he doesn't give a rats ass to begin with. In this case, she shouldn't need to find him to get a yes let's put our child up for adoption notice. That is what I am saying, if the father was around she would have told him and they would have made a decision together. I seriously doubt in this case that is the case.

I am all for the father of a new child getting full rights of parentage over said child, if he is around, if he disapeared, why does she have to then make herself and her child go through the couple years it probably will take to find said father to get permission to put their child up for adoption which means their child is now a 16+ years ward of the state? I don't get it, why are you so protective for fatherly rights that said father DOESN'T EVEN WANT????

Yes there are thousands of one night stand men that would want to know about a child they helped create, sadly there are MILLIONS that don't want to know and will fight tooth and nail to not have to pay child support. In that case, let mom decide to keep or put up for adoption on HER OWN, do not make the courts waste precious time and money looking for a man who doesn't want to know, doesn't want to have a son or daughter and would not ackowledge having one anyway.

If he is around sure fine he gets full parental rights, if he isn't, mom gets every tiny little stinking bit of it, for the good of the child. If you don't think it is bad to be a ward of the state, visit one of the places, talk to them, they are overcrowded don't get enough money and generally the kids are looked down on by other kids in school and on the street. If there was a way to help kids avoid that I am going to fight tooth and nails for them to be able to, why do you not care? There are three lives at stake, one doesn't give a rats ass anyway, one can't afford to care for a child and one is the child that under your view would be cursed to being a ward of the state until they turn 18, before that going hungry with mom until they can find the father.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If a child is chattel, then I suppose a woman has a right to do with it however she pleases.

If a child isnt chattel, she doesnt.

Believing children are property (chattel) is indicative of a mental disorder called Borderline Personality (psychotic/anxious).