vc318

I apologize in advance for not having a link for this discussion but this was from a program I was watching on t.v.:

I was watching Dr. Phil the other day and it was about a man and woman who created a child together after having reckless and unprotected sex.
Apparently the woman claims that the ex-boyfriend was mentally abusive to her and tried to harm her while she was pregnant, which was why she decided to give the child up for adoption. However, the ex-boyfriend claims otherwise and now wishes to get custody of the child. The girl has been with her new adoptive parents for the past 4 months.

My question is: was this a legal action on the mother's part? Should this father and other fathers have a legal right to be informed that their child will be put up for adoption before the mother makes a decision? Should this child be returned to her father?

In my opinion, I can't understand why this lady was allowed to give her child away without consent from the father. I mean, I know how she did it - it's not even required by law for the mother to indicate who the father of her child is since most of the time the child is a result of an unplanned pregnancy and the father usually doesn't want to have the child. Maybe that's why there are laws today that allow such an injustice to fathers. In this case, the woman claims the ex-boyfriend was at fault but she was at fault too. She was reckless in more ways than one not wearing protection and keeping herself safe. But this little girl is the one I worry about. She should be entitled to know who her dad is. At least he's making an effort - he wants to have a relationship with his child. I think this woman gave the child up for adoption just because she was mad at the boyfriend. I'm not looking to see the child taken away from her adoptive parents but I would like to see the child get to know who her biological father is.

Jen Jaree

If both parents are at least still in contact with each other than yes since it his child too. But say if the father abandoned the mother and clearly stated that he doesn't want to be involved than that's where I am a little different on. I don't like the fact that the justice system seems to always favor the mother. There are a lot of mothers I know who I don't think deserve to have children.

sunnykerr

I think that is the birth parents are in any kind of a good relationship, the father's role in deciding to go for adoption is implicitly a given, you know? Giving a child for adoption, as far as I can see, is one of the hardest decisions a woman can ever make and I would assume that, when faced with it, she would avail herself of all of her resources. If the father is part of that equation, I see no reason why he wouldn't be involved.

If it's not a good relationship, then I don't see how or why the father needs to be involved. If he can't keep himself available for contact in case of a life-changing event such as this, then he's got no cause for complaint down the road.

vc318

Sometimes I think the courts assume that the mother always has the child's best interest in mind when they do these sort of things. But like Jen mentioned, the mother isn't always right or fit to be a parent. I don't see how just because a woman has the biological ability to carry a child then that gives them the free pass to take away the rights of the father. In most cases, it's just to be mean.

sunnykerr

No doubt, many fathers are wrongfully deprived of their parental rights. I agree with that completely.

Perhaps a happy medium would be best, but I can't imagine how we'd come at it in a matter that would ensure that only good parents were allowed to give up their children for adoption.

aerisVII

If it takes two people to make the child, it should be up to both people to decide what happens to the child

TheAngel

Well, it does take two people to make a child, but in a one night stand, the father may not have any involvement with that child's life but the mother is at least responsible for that child's life for nine months, which in my opinion gives her a little bit more legitimacy in deciding what to do. In some cases the father may not even know he had a child, but if the mother doesn't think she can take care of the child then it should be her right to put the child up for adoption if she wants to.
I think it's sad that a lot of fathers aren't given the chance to be involved in their child's life and I think that the father should have the ability to petition for rights to custody. I know my boyfriend is a single father with full custody and he loves his son and he was really lucky to get custody in his divorce, but a lot of fathers don't get that chance. I think courts should give more rights to fathers, or at least make it easier for fathers to gain custody if they can prove that they want to raise their child and they have the ability to do so in cases like this, when the mother wants to put the child up for adoption.

sunnykerr

Well said. I totally agree.

Ideally, yeah, both parents would share equally in any and all decision-making that goes on with any child created and born into this world.

Sometimes the mother isn't fit, for whatever reason, to take care of the child; sometimes the father is willing and able to do so. Sometimes the father isn't around, isn't interested, isn't known to the mother.

We can only do the best we can with what we're given.

I'm always hesitant to advocate for absolute laws, because the application is way too open for problems and dilemmas. Ideally, a father should be able to prevent his child's adoption by a third party if he wanted to. But what do you do when the father wasn't around (couldn't be reached, wasn't aware of the circumstances, etc.) at the crucial moment? What do you do when the father is far less suitable than a third party willing and able to adopt?

Obviously, many worthy fathers get the short end of the stick when it comes to custody battles. And that should absolutely be remedied. No questions about that.

But writing laws where a father can come in after the fact, like some sort of cockeyed deus ex machina, and put a stop to an otherwise perfectly fine process... is abhorrent to me.

So, to me, a case-by-case approach would be best.

vc318

I always hear that the mother wins most of the time in any custody battle because the courts value mothers so highly just because they've carried the child for 9 months. The father shouldn't be punished for that. Any female out there can have a child but it takes a rea woman to be a mother. I don't understand why the courts don't get that. So what about labor pains and stretch marks! Those things shouldn't be a fair reason for a woman to be entitled to keeping the child over a responsible father. The court system needs to wake up and realize that not all women are as innocent as they proclaim to be.

sunnykerr

There's also the idea that babies are physically dependent on their mothers. It's really unfair to fathers.

vc318

Again, fathers shouldn't be punished for natural factors. Give a baby a chance to know his father and I'm sure he or she will grow physically dependent on the father too. He may not be able to produce breastmilk but not every mother gives their child breastmilk. Something about making their breasts saggy or whatever. I think the courts have made too many ill assumptions about fathers and that all they're good for is for a "deposit." It's really sad. Not all men are worthless.

sunnykerr

Oh, I absolutely agree. I'm just stating the facts from the little that I do know (I have a friend who went/is still going through a custody battle over his baby girl). Not every mother breastfeeds at all, but judges tend to rule in favour of the mother because of it all the same.

It's a shame, too, because there are really decent fathers out there. And, even when they're just doing the best they know how, it's still worth it.

sum1

He's the child's father no matter how the relationship went. That's got to count for something. A child shouldn't be put up for adoption if either biological parent is willing to raise the child and can and isn't some sort of psycho. Fathers have rights with their children too and that needs to be recognized.

sunnykerr

Again, absolutely.

But if the father's nowhere to be found, if it was a one-night stand, if the relationship ended and the guy disappeared... Beyond a normal search for the paternal unit... we can't honestly expect a woman/girl who wants to put her child up for adoption to wait around for the father to give sign of life.

If the guy isn't around in the months leading up to the birth or, as you so aptly put it yourself, if he's anything that falls under the heading of "psycho," then I don't see why he absolutely must be involved in that decision.

Sure, when the dad finds out years later that he had a kid, he might feel some regret. And I'm not trying to diminish that very real reality. But you can't expect a woman who doesn't want to be a mother (or who can't be a mother for whatever reason) to hang on to a child until such a time as the dad comes back into their lives (assuming he ever does) on the off chance that he might want to be involed.