As per title.
Um, I think a woman planning to put a baby up for adoption is legally required to have the father’s consent. Unless she doesn’t know who the father is, of course; but if she does know, then she’d be lying if she said she didn’t.
Obvilously.
Once the baby’s out of her body, father and mother have equal say over what happens to the baby. Theoretically.
I, for one, am getting damn sick and tired of these coy OPs in Great Debates! If you have a case to state, state it. If you don’t have a case to state, then obviously you don’t really care enough to make it worth starting a thread.
Yes, in the US an American birth mother is legally required to notify the birth father.
Regards,
Shodan
Proud father of two adopted children. Insufferable bragging available upon request. And often before that.
Did I mention my daughter is getting straight A’s?
I for one am shocked by your (a moderators) opinion in this debate. I can only assume you are posting with the hat on because you haven’t responded to the question of this debate but rather attacked my sincerity. Have I broken a rule ? Have I not presented a question worth debating? Is it not relevant to a concurrent thread with an almost identical title to make the connection obvious?
Was I being coy? Fuck no!!! This question popped into my head from another thread and rather than HYJACK that thread I thought the best coarse of action was to start another thread. Its been done before without controversy. You know that, so what is really your problem?
For your information, it is quite common to initiate a debate without taking a position.
And Model if you look at our post counts relative to our join dates, you will note that I am far mor discriminating with opportunities to post than you are.
I agree that GD OP’s that do not take a position are frustrating, which is why I generally do not participate in them. But I even more strongly agree that This Year’s response was inappropriate for a moderator who did not explicitly declaim ex cathedra status.
–Cliffy
Then how on earth do those ‘no questions asked’ Save Havens work?
Or you could just say: "Some members doubt the sincerty of OPs. Some members are moderators. Thus, it is possible for mods to doubt the sincerty of an OP.
You assume wrong. My posts as a moderator have “Moderator Notes:” in the title.
“As per title” is just a bit less than not taking a position. And, as I mentioned, I’m tired of it.
I think the point of Safe Havens is supposed to be that they protect against “baby dumping” or abandonment of children who don’t have anybody able and willing to look after them.
Yes, that means a caring parent could conceivably be cheated out of a child that they actually wanted. (And it wouldn’t necessarily just be the father: AFAICT most “Safe Haven” laws allow either parent to relinquish the baby with no questions asked, and in some states anybody can do so.) Presumably a committed parent who knows of the baby’s existence will come looking for it if it disappears and can get it back from the Safe Haven, but what if they don’t?
You’re right that the privacy and parental-rights issues involved in Safe Havens are a real can of worms, but I guess they’re perceived to be an improvement over having desperate people dropping newborns into dumpsters, which is just as problematic from a parental-rights point of view and has the additional disadvantage that the baby gets dead.
Well boo hoo to you then. Thanx for the hijack :wally
Lordy, Dutch, if you’re looking for trouble that seriously, you’re welcome to some of mine—I got extra! 
You’ve probably just acquired plenty of your own, though, so never mind.
The wally smily, when used to address another poster, is considered a personal insult in all forums other than the Pit. Do not do this again.
Dude, you just got schooled.
Daniel
PS: As for the OP: Depends.
Ummmm . . . honey, weren’t you nine months pregnant a few days ago?
As long as the mother isn’t in the process of escaping an abusive ex (the father), she should feel obligated to tell him about the baby before its put up for adoption. Court cases have shown that not telling a man he’s a father and putting up the baby for adoption does not necessarily mean he won’t find out and fight for custody after the adoption, so it’s in the baby’s best interest - for his/her future well-being - that his father know sooner or later. Far better a court case to keep a child from being put up for adoption than one to take him or her away from adoptive parents.
In South Korea, which is where my kids were born (you know, my charming handsome son and my beautiful intelligent daughter - did I mention the straight A’s?), there was a home where women could give birth, sign the necessary documents, and then leave. There were questions asked - we have a brief history of the birth parents - but I don’t believe there is an explicit waiver from the birth father. If there is, I don’t recall it offhand in the documentation.
I am told there used to be a place in local police stations in South Korea where children could be dropped off anonymously. Don’t know how the paperwork resolved itself there.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan:
Speaking as someone who just finished a year of clerking for an adoptions judge, this is wrong. Or rather, it’s a matter of state law. It’s generally true that a birth father must be given notice before the child is adopted (it stems from a federal due process right, although the specifics vary state to state), and it falls upon the adopting family or the adoption agency (or the state) to do the notifying. The way it works in D.C.: If the father, after good faith, diligent efforts, cannot be identified or located, he need not be notified of the pending adoption.