Should birth fathers have the same rights as birth mothers?

[adopteeWPD]

I think the wrong questions is being asked: not "should birth fathers have the same rights as birth mothers", but "should fathers have the same rights as mothers". To me, asking it that way puts it in a different perspective.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by malamute

There is a danger in that -- WHO decides and by what CRITERIA?

The same child advocates who are involved in custody, divorce, or other family court cases where the child's best interests need to be seen to. This isn't anything new. It is just applying the already existing system to adoption as it is to other issues of child custody.

If the needs of the child were put first above any of the parents then it could be decided that those in the better financial position would be given preference. Then it could even be that the bio father gets preference over the bio mother, if he has a job for example and she does not.

And the above statement is based on exactly NOTHING. That is not how it happens NOW in any other issue of child custody. There are criteria based on what is known to be most important to a child's well being, and finances are not the largest part of that equation now. So to pretend that it would magically be that for adoption is silly at best.

The current system certainly isn't perfect, but it certainly more fair to the needs of the CHILD than a hormonal teenager.

I realize that each situation is unique. There may be cases where paternal grandparents would provide the ideal home for the child.

Yes, even when the biological mother wants to place a child elsewhere.

I believe in over 99% of cases, if the bio-father shows the bio-mother that he will be a great father and provider and will be there through thick and thin to help with the upbringing of the child, she will jump at that option.

Sorry but what you BELIEVE doesn't really matter. The sheer number of fathers being denied their inherent parental rights belies that belief. And maybe one out of every hundred children being denied their relationship with their biological parents is fine with you. I can guarantee if you ask many of the adoptees here if they would be ok with it, they would say no. And most importantly, if you ask an adult adoptee who was taken away from a father who wanted them, they would not be ok with it either.

Also even if the bio-father isn't up to her standards or won't be responsible, if she has a very good relationship with his parents and they would provide her the support she needs, most women would consider that option. When the relationship is not very good, or she knows they will not support her or include her, or she distrusts them, she very likely will opt out and want a better option.

Again, some of us are unwilling to sacrifice any child's well being because you BELIEVE a majority of women will behave a certain way at one of the most emotional times in anyones life.

As far as an advocate, I don't think they should override the birth-mother. The advocate could try to explain and present various options but for a variety of reasons, I think the birth mother has the stronger rights especially when it comes to a man or his relatives who want the baby but not her in their lives.

You are wrong. A contested adoption is just another type of custody case and should be treated as such. A woman who wants to give up her parental rights has that option what she should not have, is to decide whether or not a man has to give up his rights. And she certainly does not get to decide that for a child she has already chosen NOT TO PARENT.

Let the family courts decide THE SAME WAY THEY DO FOR ANY OTHER CUSTODY CASE.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by adopteeWPD

I think the wrong questions is being asked: not "should birth fathers have the same rights as birth mothers", but "should fathers have the same rights as mothers". To me, asking it that way puts it in a different perspective.

Agree completely.

Contested adoptions are just another type of family court case. And as with family court cases the one deciding factor should be the best interests of the CHILD and the child alone.

[markg91359]

I think the wrong questions is being asked: not "should birth fathers have the same rights as birth mothers", but "should fathers have the same rights as mothers". To me, asking it that way puts it in a different perspective.

Respectfully, I think you miss the point though. Its been a long discussion and perhaps some of what's been said here and maybe elsewhere has been overlooked. Becoming a parent is different for men and women. That's probably the crux of this problem. All the talk in the world about "equal rights" for parents isn't going to change the fact that women gestate for nine months and go through labor or such before having a baby. All the talk in the world, won't change the fact that men have always had a history of traveling far and wide and women have generally been homemakers or nest builders for their families. Even today, working women tend to do more housework than men do when they are home.

Its completely possible for a man to father a child and vanish. It happens all the time. There are plenty of women out there who don't know who the father of their child is. Obviously, its not so easy for a woman to simply vanish. Situations of anonymous baby abandonments do occur. However, they are comparatively rare. Ninety-five percent of the time, its women who are left alone with a baby and have to make decisions about whether they can raise a child on her own or not. When those facts on the ground start to change, it may be time to start reconsidering some laws.

The legal system deals with these facts in different ways. Its not all about adoption. For example, if a woman who is married to a man becomes pregnant during an affair with someone else, the legal system says that the "legal parent" of the child is the man she is married too. These laws are known as "presumptive father laws". They were written at a time before DNA testing was available. They were written at a time when being conceived and born out of wedlock was considered stigmatic by society. That concern has largely vanished. However, these laws do continue to serve a valuable role in establishing a legal duty to support a child.

Until some very basic things change, we have to distinguish fathers who are married, or at least have a live-in relationship with the mother of their children, from those who don't. It is not unreasonable for states to place more of a burden on such fathers in preserving parental rights than on married fathers. That's the justification for the Putative Father Statute. Its why the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality. Its why over 30 states have some version of it.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by markg91359

Respectfully, I think you miss the point though. Its been a long discussion and perhaps some of what's been said here and maybe elsewhere has been overlooked. Becoming a parent is different for men and women. That's probably the crux of this problem. All the talk in the world about "equal rights" for parents isn't going to change the fact that women gestate for nine months and go through labor or such before having a baby. All the talk in the world, won't change the fact that men have always had a history of traveling far and wide and women have generally been homemakers or nest builders for their families. Even today, working women tend to do more housework than men do when they are home.

Its completely possible for a man to father a child and vanish. It happens all the time. There are plenty of women out there who don't know who the father of their child is. Obviously, its not so easy for a woman to simply vanish. Situations of anonymous baby abandonments do occur. However, they are comparatively rare. Ninety-five percent of the time, its women who are left alone with a baby and have to make decisions about whether they can raise a child on her own or not. When those facts on the ground start to change, it may be time to start reconsidering some laws.

The legal system deals with these facts in different ways. Its not all about adoption. For example, if a woman who is married to a man becomes pregnant during an affair with someone else, the legal system says that the "legal parent" of the child is the man she is married too. These laws are known as "presumptive father laws". They were written at a time before DNA testing was available. They were written at a time when being conceived and born out of wedlock was considered stigmatic by society. That concern has largely vanished. However, these laws do continue to serve a valuable role in establishing a legal duty to support a child.

Until some very basic things change, we have to distinguish fathers who are married, or at least have a live-in relationship with the mother of their children, from those who don't. It is not unreasonable for states to place more of a burden on such fathers in preserving parental rights than on married fathers. That's the justification for the Putative Father Statute. Its why the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality. Its why over 30 states have some version of it.

Sorry but this is bologna.

We as a society are already recognizing the similarity between married and non-married fathers when it comes to the support of children women chose to parent. If a woman has a child, chooses to parent that child, and then goes after a man for child support he is expected to pay. Because once that child exists, its best interests involve the financial support of both parents. Unmarried fathers are not told they can pay less, or chose not to pay at all.

So already, the courts are recognizing financially there is no difference between married and unmarried fathers. It is just a matter of time before unmarried fathers are accord the same RIGHTS as well as responsibilities of married fathers, and certainly not some misogynistic perversion of biology will prevent it.

Once a child is born, it is in the child's best interest to make sure both parents consent to adoption. There is no moral way to dispute that fact. And sooner or later, there will be no legal way either.

[MirrenC]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

Agree completely.

Contested adoptions are just another type of family court case. And as with family court cases the one deciding factor should be the best interests of the CHILD and the child alone.

This makes complete sense to me, as well.

[nj185]

I agree that the unwed father has a higher burden of proof than a husband. [but I really can't assume that because he doesn't want to marry the mother he doesn't sincerely want to father the child]. Having the bar set is one thing and it should be clear, but it should also be reasonably achievable. I'm not saying bend-over-backward achievable, just reasonably.

I imagine - but don't know - that the percentage of unwed fathers who want to assert their bid for custody may be small. But those who do want to should not have to be lawyers, psychics, or making 80K a year to get their case on the radar. I find the laws in some states are designed to make it as onerous as possible for an unwed father to actually be a father.


Once a mother decides to stop parenting, why should she have the "right" to decide who gets to parent her child? Will she change her mind if the father[or the "wrong" AP] gets to parent? If so, it doesn't feel like her decision was well informed. She honestly should have been counseled on what exactly she was doing - giving up all parental rights. At that point as I said on another post - her wishes can be considered - but it is up to qualified child advocate professionals to decide.

[malamute]

I seriously doubt that most birth mothers don't want the best for the child they carried for 9 months. If she wants her child to be raised in a stable home, then she should be able to choose that for her child. The pregnant woman must have choices -- and she should not be forced to keep the child herself or else see the child turned over to a jerk of a man -- and yes, she should be able to decide he's been irresponsible or a jerk.

The best thing a girl or woman who doesn't want to have interference from either the guy or his familiy would be to never tell him she's pregnant or that she suspects the baby is his. She really does have options -- she just may need to remember early on that the less said the better if she wants to keep her options open.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by malamute

I seriously doubt that most birth mothers don't want the best for the child they carried for 9 months.

Did you not read the thread about the woman who gave away a baby she did not want despite the FACT that her husband was prepared to parent????

Clearly some unknown percentage of women make choices that are not in fact best for the child.

If she wants her child to be raised in a stable home, then she should be able to choose that for her child. The pregnant woman must have choices -- and she should not be forced to keep the child herself or else see the child turned over to a jerk of a man -- and yes, she should be able to decide he's been irresponsible or a jerk.

You don't seem to understand the difference.

In your scenario, a birth parent, (who CHOOSES not to parents), still "owns" their child. This birth parent may or may not have their child's best interests at heart. Especially teenagers, who are typically still in a self-centered mind set.

In our scenario, the placement of the child is done by objective adults who only have the best interest of the child at hear.

In a perfect scenario, where mother and advocate both have best interest of the child in mind, than they will agree on placement. In the scenario where the mother is not objectively choosing, than the advocate will ensure the child goes to the best situation.

Either way, if an advocate is involved the child gets the best outcomes. Your way we have no way of knowing whether or not that is the case.

The best thing a girl or woman who doesn't want to have interference from either the guy or his familiy would be to never tell him she's pregnant or that she suspects the baby is his. She really does have options -- she just may need to remember early on that the less said the better if she wants to keep her options open.

All you seem to care about is the birth mother. She has every right to make choices REGARDING HERSELF. But once she chooses not to parent, morally she forfeits the right to dictate decision for a child she is no longer responsible for.

It is not in the best interest of a child to have a father that is stable, and emotionally ready to parent be denied that right. Even if it is what the birth mother wants. Her wants do not outweigh the best interest of the child.