[alwaysus]

Just to throw this in here, If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she can have an abortion. EVEN IF HER HUSBAND/BOYFRIEND WANTS THE BABY! She can chose whether or not to give birth. A man on the other hand, if he doesn't want children, in theory has to pay child support for 18 years. Where is the " reprodudctive choice" for the man?Someone earlier said that if a man doesn't want kids he should keep it zipped or be sterilized. Why is that not true for the woman. If men and women are indeed equal, why can't a man chose not to " have a baby"?
Don't get me wrong, people who don't pay child support and make their kids suffer really make me mad. BUT, how can we as women have it both ways?

[numbr1dbcksfan]

The man cannot prove that it is his child to have a say in Abortion. Plus (and most importantly) it isnt an apendage to his body.. if ever men can carry.. im willing to bet my right arm that the rights will be equal!

And it IS true for women she can keep it zipped or get steralized.

Not understanding how it is both ways... Can you clarify?

This isnt an abortion debate because it is regarding children who are given birth to. Rights are equal.

[MkMw]

O.k. - before I respond to specific comment to me - I've been thinking about this all morning.

Right or wrong - MHO on this is that paternity testing was created to stop men from walking away from their responsibilities. In the 50's and 60's that's what many of the boyfriends of many girls/women did - "it's not mine" - it's a common story. Just ask some of the birthMoms from that era on this board. Now, with this we are again absolving men of ANY responsibility of their actions. What does that as a society teach them - how do I teach my sons to be respectful of women in general, the girls/women they date, when society tells them that if they don't want to be a parent - they don't have to be even if it can be biologically proven. It's a HUGE step backwards for women's rights the way I see it. AND conversly, for father's rights as well - how long until a woman says, "yep, he's the guy, but I don't want him to see the child, and don't want his money - and since he can make that choice why can't I" ummmmmmm just all around if it goes through (which I can't imagine it will) a bad decision.

O.k. - Mimc - yes, I wouldn't dream of going back for child support, actually we have a "plan" in case we do fall on hard times in place - an decisions made have to be made based on the information you have at the time, last I checked no one can accurately predict the future. It is as likely (probably more likely) as becoming famous that a bio father would become injured or otherwise unable to work and have to reduce their CS payment regardless.

And, yes, I know that if a man is married is he the legal father wether he is or not - I guess if he has reason to believe he isn't he can pursue legal options - *shrugs* I'm sure it's been done, but I have no clue. As far as the rest - what else would you presume? Being married (in most cases) means both parties presume monogamy - should we just run a paternity test on every baby born just to be sure....

As for continuing child support - well, I guess if he has been a Dad to the child, and has a father/child relationship, then if paying child support is part of continuing that relationship - then absolutley. I guess if the bio father at that point stepped up and said "o.k. - I'm ready to take over now" and the Dad says "o.k. and tpr's himself" then - well - more power to 'em, but I'd sure feel bad for the child - talk about feeling like a possesion.


Bassette - in domestic adoption either a birthfather has to sign to terminate his rights, or a court has to determine that he has not excersized his rights, repsonibilities and terminate them for him. Either way you are right, his paternal rights must be terminated prior to an adoption occuring.

[BrandyHagz]

Can I add something to this...and hopefully not take it to far off track...

There are a lot of you talking about DNA - and since this is an adoption forum - I thought I'd throw this out there.

What about a man who goes thru the process of adopting with his wife under false pretenses...(there was a recent story about it, I believe)...he is considered the "legal father" but no amount of DNA testing would make him the biological father.

So my question - what about the men who knowingly marry a pregnant woman (I have a brother who did this) and sign the birth certificate (remember, the man HAS to sign, or his name won't go on there - even if you're married) - aren't they obligated to stand by the decision to be the parent? I mean, you can't just 'opt out' of a childs life when you no longer share a bed with his or her mother.

I guess I just find it ironic to read so much about DNA on a forum where we're constantly saying DNA means nothing in regards to who the parent is.

[BrandyHagz]

For the record - I've been fighting for support for over 11 years - a man doesn't HAVE to support a child if he doesn't want to...it's all about choice.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

THAT is a wonderful point Brandy!!!!

[AdrienneG]

If I was the judge on the case, I would judge the father's unwillingness to become a parent by whether HE used birth control. . . the use of condoms or a vasectomy (if he doesnt want to become a father period) are also effective ways of knowing if he is taking responsibility for his body and his own desire not to have a child.

In the age of AIDS it is scary that a man would chose to opt out of fatherhood because she didnt use birth control...what if she had AIDS, is he going to feel he should take her to court on that too?

Adults are responsible for their own bodies and in having sex we are taking a mutal risk that a pregnancy may happen.

Having sex without condoms because she said she was on the Pill is irresponsible and doesnt indicate that he took action not to become a father.


I think that opting out of fatherhood is irresponsible in those situations.

If she lied about paternity, and he did not know there was another man, and he paid child support on a child that wasn't biologically his child, then he should be able to opt out of fatherhood.

[AdrienneG]

Originally Posted by BrandyHagz

Can I add something to this...and hopefully not take it to far off track...

There are a lot of you talking about DNA - and since this is an adoption forum - I thought I'd throw this out there.

What about a man who goes thru the process of adopting with his wife under false pretenses...(there was a recent story about it, I believe)...he is considered the "legal father" but no amount of DNA testing would make him the biological father.

So my question - what about the men who knowingly marry a pregnant woman (I have a brother who did this) and sign the birth certificate (remember, the man HAS to sign, or his name won't go on there - even if you're married) - aren't they obligated to stand by the decision to be the parent? I mean, you can't just 'opt out' of a childs life when you no longer share a bed with his or her mother.

I guess I just find it ironic to read so much about DNA on a forum where we're constantly saying DNA means nothing in regards to who the parent is.

If I was the judge on the case I would not grant him the relinquishment of his fathering rights unless he was placing the child up for adoption. My reasoning would be that the court doesn't want a child to be without a father, and by his signing the birth certificate he was making a choice to become the child's father...and that his relationship with the mother is not a good enough excuse to opt out of fatherhood.

[BrandyHagz]

I agree 110%.

When a man signs the birth certificate - he's dad - regardless of his DNA make up. Making the decision to sign is making a life long decision (as is adoption).

[numbr1dbcksfan]

Originally Posted by BrandyHagz

I agree 110%.

When a man signs the birth certificate - he's dad - regardless of his DNA make up. Making the decision to sign is making a life long decision (as is adoption).

Here if you sign acknowledgement of paternity you have a VERY small window to recant it. An outside party can come forward later but the mother and father listed are bound until that person proves paternity... and he has to ASK and be granted permission for the test. Show cause.

If the guy can show fraud, he can get out of the acknowledgement.. but that is hard because he absolutley has the option of DNA testing beforehand and does not HAVE to claim paternity.

[echaos]

Originally Posted by AdrienneG

If I was the judge on the case I would not grant him the relinquishment of his fathering rights unless he was placing the child up for adoption. .

Could he not chose to place the child for "adoption" with the baby's biological mother?

[sugarbabysmommy]

Originally Posted by AdrienneG

If I was the judge on the case, I would judge the father's unwillingness to become a parent by whether HE used birth control. . . the use of condoms or a vasectomy (if he doesnt want to become a father period) are also effective ways of knowing if he is taking responsibility for his body and his own desire not to have a child.

I agree, the guy in this case, and many others, put his destiny in someone esle's hands and then cried fowl. edit, I mean to say cried foul, though fowl as in "I'm a big giant trukey" would be nice.

I'm interested to know, what if a woman chose not to abort, as it was against her beliefs, but also doesn't not want to relinquish her rights, and does not want to be a full time parent... can she then, if we're talking equality, call up dad from the hospital and say come pick up your kid, I'll be by on Sundays to visit? Not likely, though it happens plenty when the genders are reversed, another example of why the courts recognize that women carry the greater burdon.

[AdrienneG]

Originally Posted by echaos

Could he not chose to place the child for "adoption" with the baby's biological mother?

No because it is her child already. You place a child for adoption with an adult who is not the parent who wants to become the child's parent.

Plus the issue wasnt custody but terminating his parental rights so he wouldnt have to pay child support. (as opposed to terminating his parental rights so that the child can be placed for adoption)

What would need to be changed, law wise is the law that states that the person who signs the birth certificate as father is the father, and the law that says that in a marriage, the husband is the presumed father and that this stands
even if the DNA doesnt match.

[AdrienneG]

Originally Posted by sugarbabysmommy

I agree, the guy in this case, and many others, put his destiny in someone esle's hands and then cried fowl. edit, I mean to say cried foul, though fowl as in "I'm a big giant trukey" would be nice.

I'm interested to know, what if a woman chose not to abort, as it was against her beliefs, but also doesn't not want to relinquish her rights, and does not want to be a full time parent... can she then, if we're talking equality, call up dad from the hospital and say come pick up your kid, I'll be by on Sundays to visit? Not likely, though it happens plenty when the genders are reversed, another example of why the courts recognize that women carry the greater burdon.

You are correct that it doesn't happen as much that a mother drops their child at the father's house. In most cases that I know of this happening, the mother had behavior issues from the child she had been raising and felt the children needed their father to straighten them out. Oprah Winfrey's one example. Oprah's parents were not married when she was conceived. When she hit her teens she was an out of control promiscuous teenager and her mother sent her to live with her father Vernon Winfrey to straighten out her behavior.

I think that there is a societal stigma and assumption that women just will be the mom. Even Primal Wound theory focuses on the bio mom not the bio dad and adoptive parents hear strangers say "how could the bio mom give up such a beautiful child?" but rarely do we hear "how could the bio dad give up/abandon such a beautiful child?"

Legally a woman can leave the hospital and drop her baby off with his father to raise.

[AdrienneG]

I am playing Devils Advocate here....

If a man can opt out of fatherhood by saying "she told me she was on the Pill she deceived me" when he didn't use a back up contraceptive.....the woman can say "The Pill didn't work" or "He didn't want to use condoms and I assumed he was fine with the possibility of my getting pregnant".