[numbr1dbcksfan]

Food for thought!

[mimc]

I would have to wonder why he is opposing the adoption. As one poster stated, there is a big difference between opposing the adoption and wanting to take full responsibility for raising a child.

Can the birthmom talk to him and find out more about why he opposes the adoption? I don't think it's your responsibility to talk to him about this. If contact is going to be initiated with him, it needs to come from the birthmom or from your agency or attorney. Then, if he is notified that the birthmom is planning to place the child for adoption, he can step forward and formally assert his rights. If he does, then I'd back off and let the biological parents work out the situation. If he doesn't, then I'd consider moving forward, but only if it feels right to you.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

I think you are totally right...if he opposes, they COULD proceed and serve him and see if he asserts his rights.... if he is serious--he will!

But it doesnt matter what the reason is that he contests it....just the same as it doesnt matter why a mom changes her mind....

[mimc]

Nana C wrote:

I wish everyone would sit back and imagine what kind of reception a father would get if he marched into an adoption agency and wanted to make an adoption plan for his unborn child, when the mother really wanted to parent. I'm never sure why it is so different when it is the other way around, as it so often is. I know there are alot of loser expectant fathers, but there are loser expectant mothers too, and last I heard, no one thought it was right that these fathers try to arrange an adoption in spite of the fact that the mother didn't want to.


I think society tends to side with the placing woman rather than the biological father because of the biological fact that a woman has a lot more involvement in creating a child than a man does. Sure, they gave equally of their DNA, but she is carrying the child inside of her and has a far greater physical and emotional involvement in the pregnancy than he does.

A woman's greater involvement in pregnancy is even legally recognized in cases of abortion. If a woman wants to have an abortion, but her husband/boyfriend/partner does not want the abortion to proceed, he cannot legally stop her from ending the pregnancy, even if he is willing and able to parent the child.

[texasmom-to-be]

Wow, this topic has certainly hit some nerves with people. And I'm glad to hear all the different points of view. Our desire has always been to only be matched with birthparents where the birthfather is on board with the adoption plan. The only exception to that would be if we were presented with a "baby on the ground" (the baby's already born) wherein the father hasn't been at all involved up to that point and he would have to be found and served with termination papers.

[79nic]

Hey...

I found a site today where you can click on your state, and it tells you the laws regarding relinquishment, revocation, etc. for that state.

According to that site, Massachusetts does not even always require the bfather to sign away his rights. It said that only the mother has to do that when the child is born out of wedlock.

Does anyone know if that's true?

If so, it looks like Massachusetts views it the same as mimc... it's really the expectant mom's decision.

Hate to say it, but I'm almost leaning towards the Massachusetts way of doing it. The more I think about, the more I think: If a woman wants an abortion, she doesn't have to get bfather's permission; if she wants to parent, she doesn't have to get bfather's permission; why should she have to if she wants an adoption?

(Oh wow, probably created waves with that one...)

[NanaC]

<<<The more I think about, the more I think: If a woman wants an abortion, she doesn't have to get bfather's permission; if she wants to parent, she doesn't have to get bfather's permission; why should she have to if she wants an adoption?>>>

A man doesn't have to give his "permission" for a woman to get an abortion because he has no legal standing to tell her what to do with her body. Whether you agree with it or not, the courts don't consider a pregnancy a baby, and the state of pregnancy is just a another "condition" that only the woman has the right to control. That is why he can't contest an abortion.

And, yes, a man (father) has no legal grounds to contest a woman keeping her child. BUT, he does have the legal right to disagree with, and contest, her custody desires. According to the law, once the child is born, he has rights. And, he also has responsibilities...responsibilities that he has no opportunity to get out of (like the mother) because he feels he can't fulfill them, so it is best that the child be given up for adoption.

I think that there are plenty of people who were raised (almost solely) by loving, attentive fathers, who would seriously disagree with your assessment that fathers shouldn't be allowed any say as it relates to what happens to their children.

I appreciate the fact that the woman has the greater burden in regards to pregnancy and childbirth, and said as much in my "I realize all things are not equal" statement. But, nevertheless, I don't think a woman's greater burden gives her a greater right, particularly when the father can't be proven unfit and is willing to accept his responsibilities.

I respectfully submit that comparing what happens in abortion situations to what happens in adoption or child-rearing situations just muddies the issues, and is not a valid comparision, no matter how you feel about abortion.