[portlowski]

I received an e-mail message from the agency that facilitated the adoption of our son (I am an adoptive mom). This agency has been around for over 80 years, was a pioneer in open adoptions and has a reputation of being one of the "best" in the country in terms of education, counseling, etc.

So...the e-mail was alerting us to possible changes in our states putative father registry. In our state, a potential father has 30 days to step forward and register if he is not married to the mother or has not been named on the birth certificate. When the 30 days pass, if the mother chooses to place for adoption and signs TPR, the father's rights are terminated. Our state wants to change the father's right to register to one year, if he can prove that there were circumstances keeping him form registering. The e-mail was urging us to contact our representative and make sure this law does not get passed...their stance being that it keeps a child in "limbo" and without a permanent home for up to a year.

My gut is telling me that a father who does not know his child exists should not automatically be denied the right to raise the child if he finds out about it. This is very confusing and I am not sure what the "right" stance is on the issue. I am sure there are cases where the birthmom intentionally does not notify the man of the pregnancy or the adoption...or where he might know about the pregnancy and then take off and the birthmom doesn't feel he should have a right to come back after she has had to deal with pregnancy and adoption on her own. And I also believe that a child could be traumatized if removed from the adoptive family after a year...and of course the adoptive fanily would be heartbroken too BUT I am very against the idea of making it so hard for biological parents to raise their own children, and making them jump through beaurocratic hoops in order to give their kids away to more "deserving" parents.

As an adoptive parent, I am in a dilemma about the whole issue and would be interested in the getting the opinion of moms who have placed their children in with adoptive families. If the bfather was not involved in the decision, how would you have felt about having him come back months later to raise your child?

In our case, our son's birthparents made the decision together so this was not an issue. Although they are no longer together, my son's birthfather was the first one to place him into my arms.

Thanks in advance for your help.

[MommaKatja]

I can see why there is concern about this extended "limbo" period however based what I've just read I would support the change.

As you stated there are those father's who are unaware of the pregnancy and thus do not know there are parental rights to claim. Additionally putative father's registries are not well known. It seems rediculous to expect a man, especially one who was not informed of a pregnancy to add his name to an obscure registry within 30 days.

My hope would be that instead of fighting about time periods the legislators could spend there time figuring out a better way to do things and be rid of putative father's registries.

JMO
KatjaMichelle

[paigeturner]

This is Illinois HB 4220. The bill simply amends current law to exempt birth fathers from the 30 day timelines if fraud or misrepresentation are involved. I think it is reprehensible that an adoption agency would oppose such safeguards.

I think it's awesome that the Illinois legislature has a committee dedicated to adoption reform. I think that's fairly rare.

[paigeturner]

Tigger the new amendments to current law, if passed, wouldn't apply in either of your situations if you gave the father your correct name and/or if you didn't misrepresent "who" the father was.

[Tigger27]

So, I just noticed what you said, Paige, so it wouldn't have applied in my situations because I told both of them and they know/knew my name and where to find me/contact me.

They both knew I was pregnant and I didn't lie about who they are or anything so it wouldn't have applied to me then.

So, with the new understanding of the law, that would make more sense to me then...to give them more of a chance if fraud or misrepresentation had been involved.

[Dickons]

Adoptee here, not a birth parent...

Thank you for bringing this forward...

It is wrong for the adoption agency to lobby adoptive parents to write to your representative to not make this ammendment law. Adoption agencies have a financial stake in the outcome so they should be completely unbiased when it comes to something like this that pertains to a human being (the child who will grow up to be an adult) and his/her rights to grow up or have a relationship with a biological parent.

I truly hope no adoptive parent would support the agencies desire to quash this by writing to their representative.

Kind regards,
Dickons

[thanksgivingmom]

I too am disgusted and disheartened by the actions of the agency.....

[portlowski]

Thanks for your responses. I am so saddened by this because I really loved our experience with our agency. I believe they have followed some very ethical prcatrices such as having completely seperate advocates for eparents and potential adoptive parents, not having adoptive parents paying any expenses directly to birthmothers, etc. Plus the counseling they gave us regarding open adoption and the permanent loss involved in adoption and the birthmother's perspective made me feel that I was with an agency that had the highest of moral standards. but this changes that and really disappoints me. I am going to write them a letter and wait for a response. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

[thanksgivingmom]

By the way port, for what it's worth, it really means a lot to me that this has gotten you so worked up. Please let us know how the agency receives your letter! I'm very interested!

[paigeturner]

Originally Posted by thanksgivingmom

By the way port, for what it's worth, it really means a lot to me that this has gotten you so worked up. Please let us know how the agency receives your letter! I'm very interested!

Ditto! I would also like to add that I believe laws should be strengthened to prosecute all people who commit fraud in the adoption process.

[loveajax]

I'm wondering if fraud and misrepresentation mean simply not being told of a pg? What else could it mean? And I suspect that there are often good reasons for this. For those of you who did not tell a bdad about a pg, would you be in favor of this law?

I think a year is really way too long (but I also have my own perspective as an a parent and I am sure am biased....I can say that we waited a few weeks for a paternity determination and it was stressful....people may not care about that but I do think stress does affect a baby). And why only a year? I mean the same "problem" would exist at 2-3-4 years old. Is a one year old not bonded to a parents? I guess no matter what happens, I think it would be pretty risky for a parent to adopt a kid in IL in the case of an "unnamed" birth father.... Also, Portlowski, I take it then that finalization of an adoption couldn't happen until after a year in the case of an "unnamed" birth father?

I know in MA there is a publication requirement. I don't know if this is "fairer" or not (because how many people really read those tiny print legal notices?!).

Anyway, just my two cents (which I realize are based on my being an a parent).

[paigeturner]

LA,

Not knowing isn't a good enough reason, fraud and misrepresentation have to be a part of it.

Here's the synopsis of the bill:

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Adoption Act. Provides that a lack of knowledge of the pregnancy or birth is not an acceptable reason for failure to register with the Putative Father Registry, unless that lack of knowledge was due to a fraudulent misrepresentation by the birth mother (instead of a lack of knowledge of the pregnancy or birth is not an acceptable reason for failure to register). Provides that a putative father who brought an action to assert an interest in the child, but who did not obtain a ruling from the court that he proved by clear and convincing evidence the 3 conditions of subsection (g), has an opportunity to present evidence at a hearing to overcome the prima facie evidence of sufficient grounds to support termination of his father's rights under this Act.

[loveajax]

Thank you, Paige. That's a lot more limited which makes me more comfortable (as an a parent). Though I'm wondering what the "fraud" could be: "I'm pg, but Harry's the father, not you?" (I'm having visions of a bad soap opera, with Sammi Brady switching DNA results or something). Or the "fraud" about the birth?: "I'm pg, but it's going to take me eleven months to deliver this baby." I'm just trying to envision scenarios where the dad could make a claim of fraud!

In any event, I do feel bad for guys who learn that they have a kid many years down the road. I often wonder if DH's birth dad even knows he exists.

[thanksgivingmom]

I would guess that fraud could be, "I'm pregnant with your child, but I'm having an abortion" - then no abortion, and biofather finds out later.

Just one scenario I came up with......

[paigeturner]

I can only think of soap opera scenarios as well! Like a woman giving a man a false name and getting pregnant on a one or two night stand...man registers, but for the wrong woman...Or, the abortion scenario that TGM mentions.

IMO there are very few excuses for not informing a birth father of a child. Very few. I wasn't thrilled about giving the information to the father of my child either. I had nightmares about him refusing consent. All of my fears were unfounded as he denied paternity. I was so afraid that he'd make my life a living hell when I returned to our small town after giving birth. Funny, 26 years later and I've ran into him a grand total of twice. No fireworks, no drama.

I read about adoptive parents telling how their agency said things like, “birth fathers rarely step forward, don’t worry about it.” Or, “We’ll publish it but no worries, its tiny print in the back of the weekly.” That sort of a process is unfair to all sides of the triad and the only party that benefits is the agency and their bank account. Why else would they actively lobby against a simple safeguard that in my estimation could rarely be used?


Believe me LA, I sympathize with the adoptive parents in these instances. There’s enough uncertainty in adoption. That’s why I will always push for clear notification in the first place.