Rs: *See, if the birth-mother wishes, she can assume all responsibilities by raising “her” child by herself. Some women make that “choice” so as to be unencumbered with the presense of the “biological father”. *
Not true. If the father wants parental rights and responsibilities, he is legally entitled to them. The mother is not legally allowed to shut the father out of parenthood against his wishes just because she “wishes” to be “unencumbered” by him.
Again, let’s not mix up what people are legally allowed to do and what they may be able to get away with doing. Yes, if a man never learns that he fathered a child due to the mother’s secrecy, he might be unfairly cheated out of fatherhood. But the law doesn’t condone that: the law says he does have the right to be a father to that child.
The only practical way for a man to safeguard that right is to make good decisions about his sex partners and to keep in sufficiently close touch with them that he knows whether or not they have a child that might be his. Armed with that knowledge, he can’t legally be cheated out of his paternal rights.
Kimstu’s right: that’s not correct. If the man wishes to claim the child as his own and he can establish paternity, a father has many rights as to the child, generally the following: right of custody; duty of care and upbringing; duty of support; duty to manage the child’s estate; right to consent to marriage, medical treatment and military service; right to represent the child in legal actions; right to the child’s services and earnings, right to recieve and disburse funds for the child’s support and benefit, and the right to inherit from the child. The mother cannot legally divest him of these rights, and they extend to every parent and child regardless of the marital status of the parent.
I remember a controversial court case a frew years back, where a woman put her kid of for adoption without telling the birth father (they had a tiff). The kid was happy in his adoptive home. But, a while later, the birth parents got together, and the birth dad decided he wanted his kid back, since he’d never signed the adoption papers. And lo and behold, after much heartache in the courts, he got the kid back. Because he had that right.
No, it the hell can’t be assumed.
How do we know what is in each man’s mind? Some guys have always wanted kids and will want to keep a kid that they fathered. I daresay that there are a lot of men like that—that once they know that they have produced offspring, they will want to be part of that offspring’s life. I think you do the male sex a disservice to assume that just because they didn’t have much to do with the mom (other than to have sex with her) that they will not want to know their own kids.
For a woman to knowingly conceal the fact that the man has fathered a kid is wrong. And if he finds out later (after the kid is adopted) a lot of heartache can come of it. I remember that court case I cited above—it was horrible. The adoptive parents loved that kid and he loved them. They were his parents in every sense of the word. And then after some significant length of time, a “stranger” suddenly comes in the picture, insisting that the kid was his. And it wasn’t as if it was the bio-dad’s fault because he wanted his kid back (even though the whole thing was horrible, and I felt horrible for the kid and the adoptive parents). The bio dad was never was given a choice as to whether he wanted a kid or not. He was never told that he had a kid.
Your “red herring” is not analogous to my contention because in the case you site, there existed a definable relationship.
You’re right, some guys have always wanted kids, and have had no “choice” but to stand aside while the “mother” aborted the child that they, at one time, had both planned for. I find it hypocritical that you now are putting yourself in the noble role of a defender of a man’s “rights”, of course, you are only doing so when it fits with your personal ideology. You seem to care less when it comes to a man’s rights when it interferes with the ideological correct version of “freedom of choice”.
Yes, it is wrong, but it’s not illegal and it does happen. Society even condones it, so long as the mother is financially independent, but that is where it ends. Once the “mother” runs into financial hardships and needs assistance, then, and ONLY then, is there a concern for the biological fathers obligation to his child.
There hasn’t been a case where a “mother” was incarcerated for denying a biological father his “rights” to know his child.
On the otherhand, there have been men incarcerated for refusing to financially assist the “mother” with her unilateral and private “choice”.
And feminists say that “men just don’t get it”. What a joke.
I’m not sure I understand you there. Are you saying that a man cannot claim any interest in a child so long as the woman is financially independent, and that only men are jailed for interference with custody and visitation, and for failure to pay child support?
Rs: *Once the “mother” runs into financial hardships and needs assistance, then, and ONLY then, is there a concern for the biological fathers obligation to his child. *
Not true. Consider just two high-profile cases about bio-fathers’ rights, just in relation to adoption disputes:
It is widely recognized that a biological father does have parental rights even if the mother doesn’t want him to be involved. Razorsharp’s claim that the courts always ignore the claims of fatherhood unless they are seeking child support is simply false.
There hasn’t been a case where a “mother” was incarcerated for denying a biological father his “rights” to know his child.
Cite? There have certainly been cases where biological fathers have been awarded monetary damages by the courts for being unfairly deprived of parental rights: Adopted boy’s dad awarded $7.8 million
Like I keep saying: once a child is born, the official parental rights and responsibilities are pretty much symmetrical for men and women. If the courts are not enforcing the obligations fairly for both sexes, that’s where our outrage ought to be directed, not dissipated on useless grievances about how unfair it is that only women get to have abortions.
Huh? Where did you get all that? Are you confusing me with someone else? I detect more than a little misplaced hostility here.
Please copy and paste where I wrote that I advocated “choice”. I stay away from the abortion threads like the plague, but when pressed, I will confess that I lean more towards pro-life. I think there are times when abortion is understandable (extreme distress of the mother), but speaking personally, abortion gives me the heebie-jeebies.
I feel that it is terrible for a man to be denied knowledge of their kids because of something I witnessed in my own family. There was a situation where a female relative was willing to let her boyfriend walk away and not be responsible for his own child; she’d raise the kid by herself. He was vehemently against the notion. He said, “Hey—I don’t want a kid of mine walking around somewhere without me knowing them and them knowing me.” And he meant that. It would have been a horrible thing for him to be denied access (or knowledge) of his own kids. He wanted kids, badly. I daresay that he’s not the only man that feels that way.
JIC that had anything to do with my own situation as I outlined it, I would like to make it clear that my daughter’s biological father is aware of her existence, and has a contact address for me, but since he has decided not to make contact, I am not going to force him. If he were to desire visiting rights, and I denied them to him, then he could take me to court. I would have to prove that he shouldn’t have access to his daughter; the burden of proof would lie with me. He has many rights as a father, should he decide to utilise them.
I agree that a twelve-year-old boy, or a man who only consented to oral sex, or a man who had sex whilst unconscious, should not be expected to support an unwanted child. Those are cases where the law was applied badly - but that doesn’t mean the law itself is bad.
So, if we can find no cases where a mother was jailed for refusing to grant a father his court-awarded rights, then that means the system is anti-fathers? (Or perhaps that when a father has gone so far as to get a court to award him visiting rights, few mothers deny him?)
OTOH, if we were to find a case where a mother had been jailed for refusing the father visiting rights, then that would prove that mothers really are as mean to fathers as you suggest.
What’s the name for that kind of argument? Unfalsifiable?
Not true. If the father wants parental rights and responsibilities, he is legally entitled to them. The mother is not legally allowed to shut the father out of parenthood against his wishes just because she “wishes” to be “unencumbered” by him.