Adoption and the biological fathers rights

[ghannit]

I just had a discussion with someone (a man) about adoption in Canada. Specifically the biological fathers rights. In theory, were I (or any girl/woman) to get pregnant, and was not living with the biological father (or say, even living with but not married), how much right would he have in her decision to give the child for adoption? Further, what if the father was showing disregard for the unborn child (i.e. not attending parenting courses with her, not going to doctors appts. even though she wanted him to, etc.

Basically, if Bio-dad were neglectful, or even emotionally abusive to mom-to be (both would be hard to prove in court no matter how extreme) how much right would he then have over her choices in adoption?

The person I had this debate with felt strongly that once the baby was born, the mother would loose all rights in the child's future and regardless of how poorly he treated mother (& child) during her pregnancy, he could then request (demand) custody of the child against the moms wishes to have the child adopted into another (likely more deserving) family.

If he is correct I am disgusted.

Is a bio-dad (and his family) able to subvert a birth mothers right to choose the fate of her baby EVEN THOUGH he (and his family) neglected the mother/child during pregnancy. At what point (if any) does he loose all rights.

[queenjane]

I dont know how it works in Canada, but i know these issues vary widely in the States, from state to state. In some states, if the father did not help support the mom during pg, he can lose the right to stop an adoption. And in other states, as long as he isnt a criminal or somehow proven unfit (which isnt easy), yes, he can stop an adoption. I'm not sure i disagree with that. And yes, if she wanted to give up the baby, then the baby would go to him....but if she decided to keep the baby, then they would work out custody w/ a judge.

A woman who has concerns about this should probably consult a lawyer if she is making an adoption plan.


Katherine .

[Blu Razzberri]

As a rule, the justice system here does the best they can to keep kids in their families, be it with the parents or extended family. I'd say that unless there was some situation (ie: he tried to kill the mother while she was pregnant and is on trial for it); the child would go to him if he made statement that he wanted it. But if the bio-mom made enough of a fuss about it, there would probably be some sort of other orders in place (ie: anger management, parenting classes, involvement with CAS, stuff like that).

Even when children are removed by CAS because the kids are being abused, they're most often returned after the parents meet certain requirements (again, like parenting classes, etc) that are placed on them.

This is just one of those things that sucks sometimes and is awesome other times. I should hope that if bio-dad was fighting for the child, that he wouldn't be doing it out of spite, and would actually care for the child.

PS: Welcome to MDC.

[mamajama]

Originally Posted by ghannit

Is a bio-dad (and his family) able to subvert a birth mothers right to choose the fate of her baby EVEN THOUGH he (and his family) neglected the mother/child during pregnancy. At what point (if any) does he loose all rights.

In short, yes.
As to your second question, that would depend on the extent of his abuse or neglect as well as the age of the child. If the mother gave up her parental rights, the child would most likely be placed into care until the father provided proof that he was a fit parent. That would vary by province. But I'm pretty sure it would be a fostering situation and the rules would be tailored to the specific needs of the father/child.

[MusicianDad]

Here in BC, if the father is known then he has to give consent. If it's claimed he's not known or not in contact, certain people involved in the adoption process (lawyer, social worker, adoption agency, or prospective parents) can ask for access to the Birth Father Registry. If he's found to be registered he has a right to be part of the process or refuse to consent to the adoption.

ETA: All adoptions in BC go through the registry so the only instance someone would need to request it is if they are adopting a BC child in another province.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by ghannit

The person I had this debate with felt strongly that once the baby was born, the mother would loose all rights in the child's future and regardless of how poorly he treated mother (& child) during her pregnancy, he could then request (demand) custody of the child against the moms wishes to have the child adopted into another (likely more deserving) family.

If he is correct I am disgusted.

Is a bio-dad (and his family) able to subvert a birth mothers right to choose the fate of her baby EVEN THOUGH he (and his family) neglected the mother/child during pregnancy. At what point (if any) does he loose all rights.

IMO and IME it's only fair. The hoops we had to jump through for me to legally adopt DD, because her mother, who hasn't seen her since she was four and refused to be a parent also refused to consent to the adoption. We had to file a claim of abandonment with the court. She even showed up AT OUR HOUSE after we sent the consent papers to tell us "no way", we asked if she wanted to see DD before she left (she lives in a different part of the province) she said the reason she wasn't raising her dd was because she didn't want to be a mother in the first place. We couldn't even do a second-parent adoption because she refused to consent.

[Sarahbunny]

I don't think the answer is as simple as YES, a birth/bio father is able to subvert an adoption.

Like pp's said, it varies widely, state by state.

In our state, if a man has intercourse with a woman, the law states he should automatically know that there is a chance she will become pregnant. He would have up until 30 days past the birth of a child to put his name on the putative father's registry. After the close of business on that 30th day, if his name is not on that registry with the presumed mother's name, then he has no legal recourse at that point in time.

Well, of course, he does - he could sue, but it has been tested here in this state and the law was upheld.

Our agency, and I imagine most if not all here, encourages the woman to not sign the final papers until day 31 for that reason. If she signed on day 12, then yes, he could place his name on the registry and he would have all rights that a parent is entitled to - assuming paternity was proven. She would have NO recourse at all, assuming she signed and the 10 business days were past (10 days to change her mind).

I'm speaking of newborn adoption.

[ghannit]

Thanks all,
I can't believe that a man could flat-out terrorize a pregnant woman and STILL claim he was able to parent that child upon birth. Nothing fair about that. Nothing right.

I imagine that many women would choose abortion when adoption would be preferable to them just to avoid bringing a child into a world where she (the mother) could not ever protect that child from a sick father. I say sick because any man who would abuse a pregnant woman is sick or on drugs/alcohol. Either way, it's not at all healthy.

If a healthy, sane girl/woman was confronted with an unplanned pregnancy and knew that she and her baby were now stuck with a sick (or alcoholic/drug-addict) baby-daddy forever, it would be so very hard to choose to keep the pregnancy.

If she felt it best to seek out a more stable, safer household for that baby (which she is now fully charged with bringing into life healthy), she should darn well be able to do this.

In my opinion to say that it's not her right is to treat her as a cow. If bio-dad had sex with her, got her pregnant, yet did not stick around to notice or care-for that pregnancy, he has no rights.

All those spouting off about "family values" should turn their wasted focus from the non-issue of gay marriage and turn it to this issue. That a man could knock-up a woman outside of any real commitment to her, and then ignore her/terrorize her while the child came to life within her, AND THEN assume (correctly!) that he now has rights to the child... is horrible. Dangerous even.

The woman has zero power in this scenario.

[Jemmind]

I was wondering too then...if the bio mom wanted to place the child up for adoption, and the father took the child instead, would the mom then have to pay for child support?

[Polliwog]

But it would have to be proven that the father is unfit, it's not enough for the woman to just allege it. Same as if the mother was accused of harming a child. There has to be some form of evidence.

[UnassistedMomma]

Originally Posted by Jemmind

I was wondering too then...if the bio mom wanted to place the child up for adoption, and the father took the child instead, would the mom then have to pay for child support?

Yes... just like if the bio mom kept a child that the bio father wanted to either not have or to put up for adoption.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by ghannit

Thanks all,
I can't believe that a man could flat-out terrorize a pregnant woman and STILL claim he was able to parent that child upon birth. Nothing fair about that. Nothing right.

I imagine that many women would choose abortion when adoption would be preferable to them just to avoid bringing a child into a world where she (the mother) could not ever protect that child from a sick father. I say sick because any man who would abuse a pregnant woman is sick or on drugs/alcohol. Either way, it's not at all healthy.

If a healthy, sane girl/woman was confronted with an unplanned pregnancy and knew that she and her baby were now stuck with a sick (or alcoholic/drug-addict) baby-daddy forever, it would be so very hard to choose to keep the pregnancy.

If she felt it best to seek out a more stable, safer household for that baby (which she is now fully charged with bringing into life healthy), she should darn well be able to do this.

In my opinion to say that it's not her right is to treat her as a cow. If bio-dad had sex with her, got her pregnant, yet did not stick around to notice or care-for that pregnancy, he has no rights.

All those spouting off about "family values" should turn their wasted focus from the non-issue of gay marriage and turn it to this issue. That a man could knock-up a woman outside of any real commitment to her, and then ignore her/terrorize her while the child came to life within her, AND THEN assume (correctly!) that he now has rights to the child... is horrible. Dangerous even.

The woman has zero power in this scenario.

She really should consult a lawyer. An adoption agency could probably help her with this. If she has proof of the abuse, she *may* be able to do as she wishes w/o his consent, however even abusing your partner is not usually grounds to lose your child forever...so if he was absolutely opposed to an adoption, he might be able to prevent it.

The issue arises too, as someone mentioned, about whether she can prove it...and what if a woman made up allegations just to be able to complete an adoption? Where do you draw the line? The situation could be reversed as well, what if a woman is an absolute nightmare, but a man is basically stuck with her if she has his baby and chooses to keep it...its not like he can force her to place it for adoption. And she cant force him to place for adoption either, unless the situation meets specific criteria set forth by your state/province. Courts generally take maternal/paternal rights very seriously. Its important to find out the specific laws where the mother lives.

Katherine

[koalove]

hmmmm.... i think it varries by state. in my state, oregon, (we actually moved to california a few weeks ago but i placed my dd in oregon...) the birthmom sign a paper after the birth and before placement that states that birth father did not support you in any way but it included "we did not live together during the pregnancy". i think that even if they lived together he could have rights. he may have done nothing else but just living together is enough and ide like to take a risk here and suggest...why not let him? if he wants to raise the child and is able, he is the dad and the baby is not only a child to the mother. when i was pregnant with dd and planning to place her, her father said that we would raise her by himself and the thought terrified me so i understand where you re coming from. he however, was a drunk and mentally unstable so it wouldnt have been a safe option. i also have a son who is with me whose father was totally absent during the pregnancy and definately emotionally abusive to me but is now a healthy and capable father. he just needed to fall in love...good luck!

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by ghannit

Thanks all,
I can't believe that a man could flat-out terrorize a pregnant woman and STILL claim he was able to parent that child upon birth. Nothing fair about that. Nothing right.

I imagine that many women would choose abortion when adoption would be preferable to them just to avoid bringing a child into a world where she (the mother) could not ever protect that child from a sick father. I say sick because any man who would abuse a pregnant woman is sick or on drugs/alcohol. Either way, it's not at all healthy.

If a healthy, sane girl/woman was confronted with an unplanned pregnancy and knew that she and her baby were now stuck with a sick (or alcoholic/drug-addict) baby-daddy forever, it would be so very hard to choose to keep the pregnancy.

If she felt it best to seek out a more stable, safer household for that baby (which she is now fully charged with bringing into life healthy), she should darn well be able to do this.

In my opinion to say that it's not her right is to treat her as a cow. If bio-dad had sex with her, got her pregnant, yet did not stick around to notice or care-for that pregnancy, he has no rights.

All those spouting off about "family values" should turn their wasted focus from the non-issue of gay marriage and turn it to this issue. That a man could knock-up a woman outside of any real commitment to her, and then ignore her/terrorize her while the child came to life within her, AND THEN assume (correctly!) that he now has rights to the child... is horrible. Dangerous even.

The woman has zero power in this scenario.

Um, if mom can give up a baby for adoption without consulting dad. Then the father has absolutly no power, no matter how good a man he is. It's one of the things that DD's bio mom tried to do. Dh fought it and won. Without this layer of protection for DH's rights as a father, DD would be living with some other family and I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't even be having the baby due in November simply because before I really started spending time with the two of them as a family I never wanted kids.

If you want to give women ALL the power, you have to be willing to screw over good men, and that is no more fair then a woman having to put up with a man who's refusing the adoption just to spite her.

I was wondering too then...if the bio mom wanted to place the child up for adoption, and the father took the child instead, would the mom then have to pay for child support?

We never bothered with that route, but I think that if mom doesn't sign away her parental rights then she can be made to pay child support. Just like if a man doesn't sign away his parental rights, he can be made to pay child support.

We did consider sueing for back child support when bio mom wouldn't agree to a second parent adoption, but in the end realized it was more out of spite then anything and went a different route.

[2lilsweetfoxes]

How about the opposite--the women who thwart the father's attempts to be involved at every turn out of spite or whatever, so that he "doesn't mess up the plan"--especially if she's already "promised" the baby to someone? If he gets custody, she could end up paying him child support...

And sometimes a man may be advised to not have much to do with the pregnancy if he has any doubt as to whether or not he is actually the father, to wait for a DNA test so that he does not end up having to support someone else's kid.

[ghannit]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

Um, if mom can give up a baby for adoption without consulting dad. Then the father has absolutly no power, no matter how good a man he is. It's one of the things that DD's bio mom tried to do. Dh fought it and won. Without this layer of protection for DH's rights as a father, DD would be living with some other family and I'm pretty sure that we wouldn't even be having the baby due in November simply because before I really started spending time with the two of them as a family I never wanted kids.

If you want to give women ALL the power, you have to be willing to screw over good men, and that is no more fair then a woman having to put up with a man who's refusing the adoption just to spite her.



We never bothered with that route, but I think that if mom doesn't sign away her parental rights then she can be made to pay child support. Just like if a man doesn't sign away his parental rights, he can be made to pay child support.

We did consider sueing for back child support when bio mom wouldn't agree to a second parent adoption, but in the end realized it was more out of spite then anything and went a different route.

I totally see the point you make here... and there are of course terrible bio-mothers and good men who risked having sex with a not-too-great woman and just could not deal with the pregnancy fallout. Of course such men should have worn a condom though!.

I know of too many women who suffered slightly or greatly during their respective pregnancies due to the bio-dads subtle emotional and/or outright physical abuse.

I suppose I just see it as the womans great responsibility to nurture the child for nine long months and being that she is the only one doing the grunt-work in bringing the child forth, she should have the primary say in the childs beginnings.

If she is truly a drug-addict/alcoholic or truly mental unfit (pre-pregnancy of course, as pregnancy causes depression in many otherwise stable women. Particularly when the pregnancy is fraught with turmoil form bio-father), I agree that bio-father should have his rights to the child protected. So long as he himself has no alcohol/drug issues.

I STRONGLY believe that most women would choose to keep the child... would want to keep the child themselves. When adoption is her choice, I really think that circumstances must be extreme. Not always I know. But in most cases she is likely wanting the very best for the child, and knows that the bio-dad is dangerous.

It's complicated I know. I also see more women/girls suffering at the hands of bio-dads than should ever be.

[Tigerchild]

No parent should be automatically denied rights because of their gender. There should always be a process for removing parental rights, it should never be able to be done without challenge. Otherwise NONE of us are protected.

Oh, and by the way, the same people who focus on 'gay marriage' also tend to be the ones who are the happiest to loosen protections for birthparents so that those babies can be placed in 'proper' homes as soon as possible. They're also only too happy to lie to/intimidate birthfathers. So don't fear, the morality police are already working quite hard in some areas to try to get adoptions to take place in as 'uncomplicated' and 'quick' a manner as possible.

Thank goodness that's illegal most of the time.

Obviously, you've had some very bad experiences. Extrapolating that to adoption policy is a very poor idea though.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by ghannit

Of course such men should have worn a condom though!.

I'm only going to semi agree with that statement, simply because DH wore a condom and still ended up with a dd and I know he wouldn't change anything for the world.

[ghannit]

Originally Posted by Tigerchild

No parent should be automatically denied rights because of their gender. There should always be a process for removing parental rights, it should never be able to be done without challenge. Otherwise NONE of us are protected.

Oh, and by the way, the same people who focus on 'gay marriage' also tend to be the ones who are the happiest to loosen protections for birthparents so that those babies can be placed in 'proper' homes as soon as possible. They're also only too happy to lie to/intimidate birthfathers. So don't fear, the morality police are already working quite hard in some areas to try to get adoptions to take place in as 'uncomplicated' and 'quick' a manner as possible.

Thank goodness that's illegal most of the time.

Obviously, you've had some very bad experiences. Extrapolating that to adoption policy is a very poor idea though.

I personally never considered adoption myself with DD. It is unfair & a bit demeaning that you'd suggest my concern with this issue is personal. I have thought about adoption allot though. I have a number of friends who were adopted and a very close family member who many years ago gave her daughter for adoption (One of those send the girl away so no-one knows she's pregnant situations. NOT ideal.) I am currently watching a pregnant friend of a friend go through an ordeal with the bio-dads family (bio-dad is hardly thinking on his own in this matter) with her wish to give her baby for adoption. I watched two women close to me in two years struggle with similar worries and experiences. One was counseled (coerced) into not having an abortion because she could "give another family a gift and give the child for adoption." She loved this idea yet never did, and now loves her son but still feels threatened daily by bio-dad. I know women who felt it was easier to have an abortion than deal with an abusive bio-father.

It is complicated. I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I mention the issue of the "morality police" and their focus on gay marriage because when I hear anyone object to adoption it seems to key into their opinions on gay marriage and subsequent adoption. And it infuriates me. Really infuriates me.

OF COURSE the adoption process should not ever be "uncomplicated" or "quick" or hidden from the bio-dad. But it should heed & respect the pregnant woman/girls worries/concerns first. If only to protect the developing life inside her. Again, I strongly believe it would be very rare that any woman going through with a pregnancy would choose adoption in the end, unless it was for a good reason.

[MusicianDad]

We do need laws in place that protect the men who love that child just as much as any mother too, though. That's why the father has to have the right to contest an adoption. So that the ones like my DH don't come out the other end having had their child stolen from them.

We can't let a woman's rights trump a mans. If he didn't want a baby, he should have taked steps to prevent it. But the same goes for her, if she didn't want a child or couldn't take care of one at that time, there are things she can do as well.

Just as there are things she can do to remove the man from her childs life. But, if there is no evidence of abuse or of him being an unfit father, the court isn't going to take away his right to be a father just because she doesn't want him to be.