OK, and the relevance of your distinction would be…?
Regards,
Shodan
That the specifics vary state by state. And the notification is done upon pendency of the adoption proceedings, not upon the birth mother giving the child up for adoption. And the birth mother isn’t herself required to notify the birth father. Not in DC, anyway.
DC isn’t a state. As long as we are throwing meaningless quibbles around…
Seriously - what exactly are you intending to add to the discussion with all these meaningless nitpicks?
Regards,
Shodan
Your. Answer. Was. Wrong.
Or, at least, clearly overbroad.
And in Pennsylvania (which, btw is a state) they pass out pamphlets to high school and college students that specifically say Baby Safe Haven and no questions asked.
So no, apparently she doesn’t legally have to notify the father in ‘all fifty states’.
Well, if the pamphlets say that in Pennsylvania, they are wrong.
The hell with it - you folks just want to nitpick.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, if the mother wants to place the baby with an adoption agency, the father will have to be notified and consent before the adoption can take place. That’s got nothing to do with the “Safe Haven” concept as far as I can tell. The Safe Haven concept seems to be " Here’s a place where you can leave the child, with no questions asked. It’s better than leaving the baby in the back of a church,in the mall restroom or in an empty lot -safer for the baby and we won’t prosecute you." No paperwork involved- it’s basically decriminalized abandonment. And the adoptions, no doubt, are handled in the same way as similar cases- the baby left in the hospital by the mother who gave phony contact info, or the one found on the church steps gets adopted, even though neither parent’s identity is known.
Wow. Don’t listen to someone with a year of actual, y’know, experience in dealing with adoption law, or anything.
Safe Havens have nothing to do with adoption - the adoption proceedings start after parental rights have been terminated. Leaving your child in a safe haven is the first step to having your rights terminated, but there is more to it than that from the babies perspective and the adoptive parents.
I’d imagine the process varies by state, but functionally a baby left in a safe haven has to have no one come looking for it for a time. In the meantime, the baby is put in foster care. If the birth father reports a missing baby to the state, and the baby were in a safe haven, it would be found and returned to the birth father. Generally, our society would rather place a child with a relation than a “stranger adoption” - so grandma or auntie or uncle coming forward and taking responsibility would likely get parental rights, unless there were reasons to deny them. Even the birth mother could change her mind and come back and likely regain custody.
On safe havens:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/saf_have.htm
In all states except Oregon, an effort must be found to find the father. The responsibility for this depends on the state. In Oregon, a birth father who is unaware that the woman he slept with is pregnant is not required to be notified - in other words its his responsibility to make a claim to the child. If the situation was a one night stand where he didn’t know her last name, he doesn’t have any rights in the adoption. That is the exception - adoptive parents love women who got pregnant in Oregon! Some states, such as Minnesota, have birth father registeries. If you suspect your former lover may have gotten pregnant, you register that you want to retain rights with the state. In effect, its a stupid law with no effect except to make people feel better after some of the “Baby Jessica” type stories.
The law however, doesn’t really match the reality of a situation, which is some woman who don’t want the father of their child to know what is happening have another male friend stand in and sign away his non-parental rights. This is probably not at all ethical (I suppose I can come up with abusive relationships where I could make a case this is ethical) - and probably fraud - but the reality is everyone knows it happens on occation. And frankly, I have to sort of agree with Oregon, if birthdad wasn’t around long enough to realize he knocked birthmom up, he really doesn’t have a lot of claim to the results of his ejaculations. If he does, he has nine months to lay claim to the child.
BTW, if a woman terminates her rights and custoday is left with the birth father, she is still on the hook for child support - just like him.
Korea is a different case entirely. The culture has long supported child abandonment - female infantacide was not unheard of in the past 100 years (course, infantacide isn’t unheard of here either). Although under a legal marriage a man has far more rights than in the U.S. (and usually retains the children in a divorce if he has any interest in doing so) without marriage he has no rights whatsoever to the children that result from a relationship - and its highly unlikely he would pursue such. Biological children, inherientance, legitimacy, gender and birth order have all the weight in Korea that they have in most Asian cultures - though as Korean Westernizes, some of this is changing.
Shodan, I generally enjoy your posts, and I don’t understand why you seem to be upset. Nobody’s “nitpicking;” we’re (well, they’re, I haven’t actually contributed anything) discussing the complexities of a morally and legally difficult situation. When you said
you were making a broad, generalized statement. Now the discussion has moved on to more specifics: variations in state law; who, exactly, is required to notify the father; and exceptions such as Baby Safe Havens. And IMHO, it’s not nitpicking to point out that the adoption agency or adoptive parents are required to notify that father, not the mother. To me, that’s a big difference.
Knowing nothing about adoption law, I can only say that I think that in most cases, there’s certainly a moral obligation for a woman to try to notify the father of her child that’s she’s pregnant and plans to give the baby up for adoption, regardless of her legal obligations. Exceptions that I can think of off hand would be rape and a situation where the woman believes that the father would hurt her and/or the baby if he was informed. In most cases, though, I think the father should be given the chance to keep his child.
The fact that there are sometimes exceptions to a law does not negate the law itself. Speeding is against the law, yet when my mother was in labor in the car, a police officer himself gave my father an escort to the hospital at high speed.
I agree with the safe haven concept wholeheartedly. Someone, presumably more of an expert than you or me, has figured out that safe havens help prevent dead babies in dumpsters.
I seriously doubt safe havens are a popular option, with women driving up and dumping babies willy nilly. Rather, I assume that most go through the regular legal channels, complete with father notification and all.
Catsix, your tone seemed to me disapproving of safe havens? Why? Yes, there is an injustice being done to the father, but IMO, it is much overshadowed by the injustice done to babies dumped on doorsteps or in dumpsters when safe havens aren’t an option.