[raybuffer]

I thought this question deserved it's own thread: How do you feel about "Father's Rights"

1.) as they relate to relinquishment through adoption?

2.) as they relate to legally abandoned babies via Safe Haven/ Baby Moses laws?

-Ray

[Noel9375]

This is a very good question. I believe that birthfathers should always have a say in what happens with thier children. It is after all their child also. I think that there are a lot of birthfathers that are never even given the chance to have a say because they are not told. If however the woman or girl was raped I feel different. I know many single fathers that do a great job at parenting.
If a woman or a girl wants to place her child for adoption and the birthfather feels different, I don't think that the birthmom should keep the baby just to keep the baby away from the birthfather. If the birthfather is a drug user or in a gang or a murderer or some other kind of shady person then the birthmother needs to prove him unfit in a court of law. I think that the birthfather should do the same, if he thinks that the woman or girl that is carrying his child is not fit to be a parent and his wishes are to either parent or place the child for adoption then he should take her to court as well. I think that a lot of birthfathers are just simply not told about the pregnancy and never given chance and I believe that is wrong. As far as babies that are abandoned either legally or unlegally the birth father should have rights to that child before anyone else including the mother.
Noel

[Sharon]

Birthfather rights:
Well, I think they should have rights, and I'm surprised that they don't. It's obviously a throwback to the days before DNA testing, when it was not possible to establish paternity with 100% accuracy. Now that it is possible, well... the birthfather is as much a parent as the mother, and deserves equal rights and consideration.
It bothers me when I read threads about potential adoptive parents taking birthfathers to court to have their rights terminated so that they can adopt their children. Some justification is usually given: the birthfather is accused of being involved in unsavory activities, or his character is attacked... he is irresponsible, he has been mean to the birthmother... all unproven, of course. Excuse me, but we don't take unborn children away from their parents because of their personalities, because we think their past behavior will make them inadequate parents in the future. I can't believe this happens.
I am not against adoption, but in my opinion if EITHER PARENT wishes to parent the child, the adoption should not go through. In most scenarios, a parent actually has to do something wrong before they can be deemed "unfit" and have their children taken away. I don't understand why this is not the case for men whose partners have decided to place their children for adoption. If the mother doesn't want to raise the child, that's fine. But if the father DOES, then he should definitely have custody of the child. How can you terminate his rights when he hasn't done anything wrong, or had a chance to prove his fitness as a parent one way or the other?
JMO, ~ Sharon

[mom2j&d]

I don't know every states law regarding birthfather rights but I do know the law in the state I adopted from.

When we adopted my older son, his birthmom had to name his birthfather. She was still seeing him on and off and was able to contact him. Once we entered a program with her he had to sign a paper stating he was aware of her adoption plan. A month before the baby was born we certified mailed him another letter regarding our adoption plan so we knew he would recieve it. After my son was born the social worker went to his home for him to sign relinquishments which he did.

When my little man was born (bio sibling, same bmom and bdad) the same took place. This time after my son was born the social worker could not find him to sign relinquishments. We sent him via certified mail a letter stating that the baby was born and the adoption plan was going forward. The social worker knew he was aware of the adoption plan because #1 my son' s bmom was still seeing him on and off and #2 a month before my son was born we sent him the same letter we did for my older son via certified mail informing him of the birth moms adoption plan and he sighned for it.

In his second certified letter after my son was born it stated that the birthmom signed surrenders on such a date and that he had 120 days to petition the adoption. After 120 days his rights would automaticlly be terminated.

I think this is a good way to make sure the birthfather is aware of the adoption plan and it gives him ample time to take action if he wishes to do so. I totally believe in birthfather rights. Only a child who is truly available for adoption should be adopted. Birthparents should have the first rights!

[debsdone]

Boy, I really hate this subject, lol. No easy answers but.......If a man is the father of a child that is kept, and it is proven he IS the father, (I know my local DA's office does dna testing) well then, he is responsible for child support until the child is 18. That should IMO be the foundation of birthfather rights, as I always see rights and responsibilities as 2 sides of the same coin. If a birthfather wants the keep the child, he should be able to. So does b-mom now pay child support? YUP. Should either parent have the right to give up parental rights/responsibilities independent of each other? It doesn't seem to come up often, but it is a quandary. I guess I really didn't answer, sorry! Debi

[raybuffer]

Some very interesting issues have been raised. Thanks for those who have commented thus far. Let me add a broad nugget of info:

In standard relinquishments, many states have passed a requirement for "Father's Registries" where dads names are placed on file. Of course a man must first know he is a father to have a reason to check these, and even then, the registries aren not really advertised or easy to find and navigate. Also, there are situations, obviously, where a couple concieve a child without even knowing one another's full name. So even if a birthmother wishes to identify the birthfather, she can not.

In Safe Haven - legal abandonments, there is nothing in law to require any notification to birthfathers, even if the birthmother knows how to contact him, prior to legally abandoning the child.

Up until recently, Florida did have an ill-concieved law where they mandated four advertisements in four consecutive weeks of newspapers by birthmother's announcing her intent to relinquish a child and identifying sexual partners within the last year, so that possible fathers to this child would have been given legal notice. The real reason was not to defend father's rights but to stave off the hardships to adoptive families who after caring for a child, risk having it removed from their custody due to delayed paternity suits. This practice was stopped through repeal after 4 plaintiffs and the ACLU complained. Apparently the law was also being enforced upon victims of rape.

To Debi's point: IF the mother has to pay support, there is now a financial incentive for her to make sure that the true father never finds out about the child.

An interesting site: http://www.dadsrights.org/

-Ray