ou can’t do it over the objection of the father. If the father is unknown or not forthcoming, then essentially, there IS no father. If the father is known, then you DO need his permission.
This isn’t about financial responsibility, it’s about an attempt to assert paternal rights.
Again you do not support your statement. The birth mother can and often does without the father’s permission.
From the choices of adoptions page of the pregnancyquestions.org website, “If the father is named, the attorney may notify the father to see if he wants to be involved in the adoption plan. All attorneys do not do this since the State of Ohio does not require it. It depends on the wishes of the mother.”
Step up to the plate and support your assertions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that parental rights are fundamental under substantive due process, and termination of those rights has to meet with procedural due process.
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).
More specifically, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause mandates that proceedings that terminate parental rights require notification of the parents by service of process (or publication if service isn’t possible), and that proof of the necessity of termination be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
It cannot be done over the objection of the father. If the father wants the baby, he can have it (but he may need to show that he can support it).
You’re not going to make any headway, I’m afraid.
The argument’s now gone from “you can’t put a child up for adoption without the father’s permission” to “well, what I really meant to say is that sure you can put a child up for adoption without the father’s consent, but you can’t if he objects. Also, he’s not a real father if he’s not forthcoming. But if he’s not forthcoming he’s the real father and has to pay child support, because after all I’ve spent the whole thread arguing that a father can’t get out of his pecuniary responsibilities by opting out.”
There’s a reason that the word “stubborn” is used quote so often in certain discussions.
The father is actually forced to show he is fit, if the mother chooses to release her rights, however the mother is not compelled to do so, this in of itself is an inequity.
But besides that, you are flat out wrong, in the quote I cited from pregnancyquestions.org, the state of Ohio the attorney and the adoption service knows the name of the father (while the father may not) and yet they can legally chose not to inform the father and proceed without his consent.
Stop telling me I’m wrong and just prove it.
Actually I believe this is the same for both parties. If you have a situation where the father has sole custody of the newborn, and the mother is absent, and the father gives the newborn up for adoption, I believe it is the case that if the mother objects, her parental rights can be terminated in exactly the same fashion.
It’s a very rare situation - it is almost impossible for there to be a situation where the birth mother is unknown, and in the overwhelming majority of cases I would assume it is the mother who is the custodial parent.
The web site is sensibly written to deal with the situation as it usually occurs. If the law has discrimination written into it, I would suggest that needs carefully addressing.
I’ll just go ahead and state that a woman can’t put a baby up without the father’s permission. That is, for all practical purposes, a fact, especially with regards to the context of the discussion in which it has been repeatedly asserted that women have parental rights that men don’t have.
Guess what. If a man theoretically fathered a baby with a woman who subsequently deserted him, and whose name he did not know, he could put the child up for adoption himself if the mother’s identity and wherabouts were unknown. It would be very unusual, but not theoretically impossible.
I have nothing new that hasn’t been already offered, just wanted to add a voice in favor of:
[ul]
[li]Reproductive rights for all genders.[/li]
[li]The idea that a woman has just as much right and *responsibility *to “keep her legs crossed” as a man does to “keep it in his pants”. We all know where babies come from, if she wasn’t prepared for the outcome she didn’t have to have sex.[/li]
[li]The idea that child support and parental rights should be dependent on marriage. A man should have no expectation of parental rights to a child he fathered out of wedlock, and a woman should have no expectation of child support except within a marriage.[/ul][/li]We now return to our regularly scheduled quibbling.
Yes yes, in the face of a cite showing that you are wrong, you will repeat yourself. Admirable.
If by fact you mean “total bullshit” then, yes, it is a “fact”. Unfortunately, the truth has already been posted, and cited, which is that in a great many states a woman can put a baby up for adoption and the father never even needs to be contacted, even once. You could also, as you’ve started to do, play silly language games by arguing that a father isn’t a father if the mother doesn’t inform him that he’s the father, but he magically becomes a father if she decides to sue him for child support.
If the mother is not compelled to do what?
You don’t comprehend what you’re reading. It only means the woman’s attorney and the adoption agency don’t have to tell him. He still has to be notified by the state.
Well I wasn’t trying to address some strange case where the birth mother is unknown. The inequity I’m describing is simply this, in order for the birth mother to assert parental right (for instance to decide to or not to enter adoption proceedings) she just has to walk out of the hospital. The father must actively pursue his right by registering (which he can only do in 33 states), meet some state dependent standard for “a relationship with the child”, and then prove his fitness as a parent in a court proceeding. Again, all the mother has to do is walk out of the hospital.
Obviously, the state and or the father (if he knows) can try and prove the mother is unfit, but she’s basically assumed innocent until proven guilty, whereas the father is pretty much considered guilty into proven innocent.
There has been no cite showing that I’m wrong. All cites have shown that I’m correct. Try reading them.
You are incorrect. If the father is known, he DOES have to be notified by the stae, just not by the woman or the adoptioon agency. Try looking at Pravnik’s second cite. You shouldn’t pop off at the mouth when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If the father is unknown, then there is no legal father. If the father is known then there iS a legal father. Why is that so difficult to understand? It’s not about whether he’s known to the mother, but whether he’s known to the state.
This is the second time this has been offered in this thread, and I’m kind of surprised because it’s seems painfully close to requiring marriage in order to have sex legally. Is this what men really want?
Again, it’s quite convenient to set the cutoff at the point of conception rather the intercourse, but it doesn’t make rational sense. And it doesn’t serve the interest of the state, either. They’d have a greater incentive to ban pre- or extra-marital sex, than to let unwed fathers off the hook.
The same standards would apply to a non-custodial mother, so there isn’t any inequity.
ETA, I never had to do any of this shit to assert paternal rights for any of my children. All I did was write my name on the birth certificates and walk out of the hospital with them.
The mother is not compelled to show fitness to be a parent if the father releases his rights to parent the child. However, if the mother release her right’s to the child the father must then show fitness in order to claim custody.
BTW, this is all only relevant for unwed parent’s that may have been missed.
He does NOT have to be notified by the state (not every state at least) if you think otherwise prove it or give up.
If the mother is a non-custodial parent trying to take custody, this is not true.
Read Pravnik’s 2nd cite. He does have to be notified by the state. Your cite only says that not every state requires that he be told by the adoption agency or the mother’s attorney.
Are you sure on this?
I assume you mean this part of the web site you linked to…
To me, that suggests the burden of proof is on the state to demonstrate that the father is not a fit parent; the very fact that parental rights must be terminated indicates that the rights exist, and must be severed. Also remember that the web site is written by an adoption agency, which has as its interests portraying the process of giving up a child for adoption as being as simple as possible.
Now it is possible that the presumption in a case under the law is that the burden is not only on an absent father to show up for the hearing, but also that the burden is for him to demonstrate fitness. I just doubt that is the case. I’d trust a citation to the actual law more than I would an Adoption Agency website.
Your interpretation doesn’t seem to fit in with the (very limited) reading I have done in the past regarding this.