Birth Fathers Getting Babies Adopted Out From Under Them In Utah
NumberSix spotted this and wrote:
I saw this on the NBC Nightly News earlier tonight and was properly horrified. Apparently Utah's laws on fathers' rights are making it a haven for women who want to give babies up for adoption without the agreement of the fathers.This kind of consent by default is much like how men in California "accept" financial responsibility for kids that aren't even theirs. In this case, fathers who want to raise the children have twenty days from notification to dispute the adoption.
The man in the video was sent a text message from his girlfriend, who contacted an adoption agency in Utah without telling him, saying she was giving the baby up for adoption. She did not tell him when she went into labor. He had twenty days from that text to file for paternal rights to the baby. That sounds nice and official, right? By the time he knew his baby was in Salt Lake City with an adoptive family, the deadline had expired.
The other man in the video had a girlfriend who lied about having a miscarriage, then later called him to say the baby was going to be born in Utah. A deadline he didn't even know he had was already looming. I thought you'd be interested in this sort of inversion of paternity fraud and how Utah is screwing men who want to raise their children. The local government doesn't seem to want to do much about it, either.
The short video is here. There is also a longer Dateline special here.
How whiny should we allow guys to get if they don't bother to marry the women first? Men who truly "want to raise their children" build homes with loving women. And in yer better societies, women are always going to have final say in matters of reproduction.
Right? (Say yes, modern women [and others], or I'll humiliate you with withering series of incisive blog comments.)
When parents are such fartingly incompetent assholes, it's difficult to get all cranked about policy, as if that were the problem. It's not the rest of the world that brought the crisis to these dorkweeds.
(Didn't watch the videos.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 5:01 AM
I have come to realize that there is no more a false belief than- "women are sugar and spice and everything nice"
David M. at August 24, 2011 6:15 AM
This situation is preventable. Life is unfair. Life is most unfair to the ignorant and the unprepared.
MarkD at August 24, 2011 6:28 AM
Damn right, Crid.
And how much say has the father ever had over a woman having an abortion?
KarenW at August 24, 2011 7:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2438588">comment from David M.I have come to realize that there is no more a false belief than- "women are sugar and spice and everything nice"
Well, how silly. Welcome to HUMAN nature.
Every man also isn't all "snakes and snails and puppy dog's tails."
Then again, I know this, because I don't get my information about humanity from Mother Goose.
The truth is, a lot of people are jerks, and a lot of people are pretty awful. But, if you have a desire to see who somebody is -- who they really are -- except in the cases of some clever and talented sociopaths, you probably can.
The problem is, a lot of people go in with their eyes wide shut, and hope things turn out okay, and when they don't, the blame pointing finger goes everywhere but in their own direction. That's when words like "feminazi" or "all men are assholes come out," when the truth is, the asshole was the person who leapt into a relationship with their eyes shut.
Amy Alkon at August 24, 2011 8:11 AM
Before leaping to conclusions, there is another side to the Utah's paternity laws; it prevents women from simply declaring a man is the father of her baby and putting him on the hook for child support for life.
Joe at August 24, 2011 8:28 AM
Here are some relevant sections from Utah state code:
(e) an unmarried biological father has an inchoate interest that acquires constitutional protection only when he demonstrates a timely and full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood, both during pregnancy and upon the child's birth. The state has a compelling interest in requiring unmarried biological fathers to demonstrate that commitment by providing appropriate medical care and financial support and by establishing legal paternity, in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
(b) If an unmarried biological father fails to grasp the opportunities to establish a relationship with his child that are available to him, his biological parental interest may be lost entirely, or greatly diminished in constitutional significance by his failure to timely exercise it, or by his failure to strictly comply with the available legal steps to substantiate it.
(c) A certain degree of finality is necessary in order to facilitate the state's compelling interest. The Legislature finds that the interests of the state, the mother, the child, and the adoptive parents described in this section outweigh the interest of an unmarried biological father who does not timely grasp the opportunity to establish and demonstrate a relationship with his child in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
(d) An unmarried biological father has the primary responsibility to protect his rights.
(e) An unmarried biological father is presumed to know that the child may be adopted without his consent unless he strictly complies with the provisions of this chapter, manifests a prompt and full commitment to his parental responsibilities, and establishes paternity.
In another section:
Each parent of a child conceived or born outside of marriage is responsible for his or her own actions and is not excused from strict compliance with the provisions of this chapter based upon any action, statement, or omission of the other parent or third parties.
* * *
The point is that if you are going to be a single dad, take responsibility, be involved and don't just whine when things don't magically work out to your favor.
Joe at August 24, 2011 8:35 AM
Robert Franklin of Fathers & Families has discussed this many times. http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/
http://www.google.com/search?q=utah+site%3Awww.fathersandfamilies.org
Joe, there is nothing good about this. Another way to prevent paternity fraud is a simple dna test and laws that respect that.
jerry at August 24, 2011 8:38 AM
If you're doing things that can make a baby, and you don't take precautions against making a baby ... well: Bed. Made. Lie.
And if you make a baby with someone who is so distant from you that she has to "notify" you in some legal sense: I have no idea why you expect me to care what the hell happens in your life, any more than I should care about the Octomom or the latest fertility-pill freakshow.
"Paternity fraud," my ass.
Kevin at August 24, 2011 8:41 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2438805">comment from KevinThe fact is, men have a right to the children that they make, whether you or I think it is wrong and irresponsible of them on a massive level to get somebody pregnant whom they have to "notify."
Also, there are sometimes failures of birth control.
I care about people's rights whether or not I approve of their behavior entirely.
I've just read Nancy Segal's excellent book, "Someone Else's Twin," about twins separated at birth. It is devastating for many people to be kept from their birth parents, and to find out later in life that they were actually somebody else's biological child.
Amy Alkon at August 24, 2011 8:49 AM
If you're doing things that can make a baby, and you don't take precautions against making a baby ... well: Bed. Made. Lie.
If you're going to saddle them with child support for 18 years in the case when a single woman chooses to keep the child, you should be willing to give them the opportunity to voluntarily take the responsibility.
Also: will you then be equal opportunity and allow that the woman in question should then be on the hook for child support for 18 years?
I R A Darth Aggie at August 24, 2011 9:04 AM
As an adopted child, I'm with Crid on this one. I don't even think they should be notified. My bio-father wasn't, thank God.
Just think about it. You're actually proposing that we give young, irresponsible, single guys these babies to raise? Over stable married couples?
There's usually a reason birth mothers choose adoption over staying with or giving the bio-dad the child to raise. Very good reasons. If she thought he was great father material, she probably wouldn't be making the choice for adoption.
lovelysoul at August 24, 2011 9:05 AM
>> The fact is, men have a right to the children that they make, whether you or I think it is wrong and irresponsible of them on a massive level to get somebody pregnant whom they have to "notify."
I gotta disagree with you on this when stated as an absolute. There are men out there that plant their seed anywhere and everywhere they can, with no care about the consequences. My adopted boy has several half brothers and sisters whom I am sure he will never meet.
Eric at August 24, 2011 9:11 AM
At least she let the baby live. She did what most people used to think was the right thing - adopt out if you're not married to the father and don't see any promise in the relationship.
If you want rules, get married.
jeanne at August 24, 2011 9:23 AM
You're actually proposing that we give young, irresponsible, single guys these babies to raise? Over stable married couples?
I propose that since men who father children are made to pay for them (are stuck with responsibilities) that they also are allotted their rights.
I may not like the idea of a single guy having a kid over a family, but again, the guy has rights. Or should.
Amy Alkon at August 24, 2011 9:27 AM
So you believe a woman has the right to choose abortion without the father's consent, but not to give the baby to a loving two-parent home? These men have clearly done absolutely nothing by way of supporting the women they knock up. A lot of the time they're almost kids themselves, and clearly not in any position to be raising a child. Removing the rights of absent biological fathers seems to me like the most fair situation possible for the mother, child, and yes, the father. Impossible to be hooked for child support when you have no parental rights.
Besides, in the case that comes to mind, it wasn't even the father wanting custody that led to the situation. HIS mother was the one who wanted the baby, and she was willing to rip a one-year-old out of a stable, loving home so she could play mommy one more time after completely failing to raise a decent son. The father hadn't graduated high school, had no job, and was in every possible way unqualified to have a kid. Do we really think it's ok to reverse an adoption so that a child can grow up being spoiled to death by his biological grandma while his father does jack shit? No. Just no.
Jessica at August 24, 2011 9:41 AM
"I propose that since men who father children are made to pay for them (are stuck with responsibilities) that they also are allotted their rights."
Yes, but in the case of adoption they aren't being asked to pay for them. Why take one area where the state actually does the right thing and reverse it just because you don't like the way they handle another area?
Actually, in both areas, the state is attempting to do what's best for the child and society as a whole. Unmarried fathers haven't shown enough responsibility to raise babies alone. There will be exceptions, of course, but, as a general rule, that's a good one. We'll only end up with far more kids in an already overwhelmed foster care system.
lovelysoul at August 24, 2011 10:20 AM
Also: will you then be equal opportunity and allow that the woman in question should then be on the hook for child support for 18 years?
Hell yes. Why not? Someone's getting the joy of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next 18 (or 20, or 25, or 30) years.
I propose that since men who father children are made to pay for them (are stuck with responsibilities) that they also are allotted their rights.
Amy! "Stuck with responsibilities" for a baby you created? If you create a baby, it IS your responsibility! It's tangential to this discussion, but the idea of anyone "stuck" with responsibilities for a child they made reminds me of those dads who talk about "babysitting" their kids.
Kevin at August 24, 2011 10:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2439190">comment from KevinA man who has sex with a woman in a bar should not be on the hook for child support. This fosters checkbook daddyhood, which I do not support. The woman is the one who gets pregnant and should either have the cash to pay for any baby she has or get an abortion or give it up for adoption.
Amy Alkon at August 24, 2011 10:30 AM
Most of the commenters critical of the men have clearly not read anything at all about the cases in question. The men in this case have acted completely responsibly.
jerry at August 24, 2011 10:48 AM
> Most of the commenters critical of the
> men have clearly not read anything at
> all about the cases in question.
Ooo ooo ooo! (Arms waggles) That's me! Oooooo!
So here are some questions: Did they sensibly marry these women before they made babies with them.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 10:50 AM
I think when you're playing a game - even the game of life - and you know all the rules; they're clearly spelled out, then you can't really complain when thise rules work against you.
For centuries, when there have been unplanned pregnancies, the girl, and often her family, got to decide what happened to the baby. There was no obligation to notify the father. One-sided? Yes. But everybody knew the rules, including the boys.
I know the rules. I have a son, and he knows the rules. If he knocks up his bitchy girlfriend, I would hope she'd give us a say in the matter, but I don't believe she HAS to. It's her body, even if she's carrying around our DNA.
If she kept the baby, I'd expect he should help support it. He knows that going in (so to speak). Everybody knows the rules in these situations. You can't claim foul when you find yourself at a disadvantage.
To be consistent with this argument, we'd have to give boys the choice over abortion too, and I wouldn't want to see that either.
lovelysoul at August 24, 2011 10:58 AM
If the state is so hell bent on doing what is "best for the child" then neither the birth mother or father should be able to keep the child and the baby should automatically go to a two parent family. Why is it fine and dandy that a birth father not even be informed of the birth of his child, but it is a okay if the mother decides to keep the kid without any father in the picture. The rise in crime rates, suicides, mental health and teen pregancy have been linked to fatherless children. Wouldn't that be best for society.
Further more, why is it assumed there was something wrong with the father in these scenrios? Maybe the women were so awful that the men had enough, but still wanted the child he had father. It does happen. Women aren't perfect either.
Asha Mathew at August 24, 2011 11:04 AM
Ok a few things here. Sex outside of marrige is not illegal and sometimes accidents happen.
Pretending men how accidentally knock up women can force them to marry is just stupid crid.
As for this case,
1 the guy supported his girlfreind durring the pregnacy.
2 The girlfreind told him they would raise it together.
3 When he showed up to the hospital, staff their lied about her not being a patient
4 he filed for emercey custody under his states laws, and complied with the statutes by furishing a room and buying hunndered of dollar of baby supplies
5 the legal loophole being used to justify this kidnapping - and make no mistake it is a kidnapping - is that he didnt file within 20 days withing the UTAH court system. And why should he have thought to do so given that
(A) he had recived a ruling in his state that he was given custody of the child before the adoption papers were even signed
(B) he had no idea which state the adoption agency had taken his kid at that time &
(C) he had no idea of Utah state laws regarding adoption &
(D) the offical window had closed before he even recived notification as to the final location of his daughter
Its kind of catch 22 to demand he file an appeal within 20 days when it took more than the 20 day to even inform him as to which state she was in.
Also it is unconsionable that no criminal charges have been filed given the man had not had his rights termiated, and indeed had gone to court and was the legal gaurdian of the child before the adoption papers had been signed and she had been smuggled out of the state.
Factor in this adoption agency kept the mother seuestered for alomst a week in a hotel room with no cotact with anybody but the adoptive parents and the adoption acecy staff - which is just creepy if you ask me.
And one thing no one seems to be asking. How do these parents think their daughter is going to react when she looks for her birth parents?
Its one thing when you parents gave you up for adoption to give you a better life. How is she going to take it when she finds out her father wanted to keep her, but her adoptive parents used their high priced lawyer to run out the clock on some obscure legal statute?
lujlp at August 24, 2011 11:05 AM
...and this is how you create a misogynist.
Robert at August 24, 2011 11:06 AM
Tough call.
On one hand: The child's needs trump the rights of the father. And if being raised in a two-parent adopted household is better for the child, too bad for the father.
On the other: If being raised in a two-parent household is truly best for the child, then the unmarried bio mother shouldn't have the option of keeping the kid either. And the father should have the ability to place the child for adoption against the mother's wishes.
sofar at August 24, 2011 11:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2439300">comment from Asha MathewAsha Mathew and luj make great points.
Amy Alkon at August 24, 2011 11:08 AM
> Pretending men how accidentally knock
> up women can force them to marry is
> just stupid
Fortunately, no one suggested anything of the kind.
Between your incessant misreadings (such as that one), your petulance, and the spaghetti jumble of your spelling and so forth, I just can't take you seriously. To answer you thoughtfully would be like making fun of the retarded.
This is true, really. It's been going on for years. I don't want people to think I'm mean to idiots just for being idiots.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 11:17 AM
Again, everybody knows the rules. These rules came about because paternity, until recently, couldn't even be established, and because, quite obviously, the girl is much more impacted by the pregnancy. The act of carrying the child 9 months and giving birth to it creates an inherent bond.
My birth mother gave me up in the 60s, and though she apparently named my father, he was married to someone else, and denied even knowing her until after I was born (two months early). Then, he broke up with his wife, and came calling, deciding he wanted to be a dad, but thank goodness I was already adopted by then!
It doesn't make me any less grateful to be adopted knowing that he "wanted" me. If he'd really wanted me, he could've married my mother and created a stable environment for me to grow up in - the way my adopted parents did.
lovelysoul at August 24, 2011 11:43 AM
lovelysoul, your situation and this situation are not comparable
you dad denyed knowing your mother - this one supported the mother
your dad didnt show up until months after the adoption and his marrige had fallen apart - this guy was given custody by the courts BEFORE THE ADPOTION PAPERS WERE SIGNED, he showed up for the birth only to be lied to by the hospital and thrown off the premisis, he had been looking forward to taking his baby home since he found out about the pregnacy, he bought a crib, clothes, diaper, all sorts of supplies.
lujlp at August 24, 2011 11:51 AM
A man who has sex with a woman in a bar should not be on the hook for child support.
No, but I want to know the name of THAT bar, and if they have drink specials!
::bada boom shhhh:::
Kevin at August 24, 2011 12:49 PM
And, as is common here, no one has suggested that maybe men need better male birth control if they don't want to find themselves in sad situations like this. (That is, it's just plain foolish to put your future in the hands of another - or to assume that your partner will do just what you want or expect, like a robot.)
Not that young, naive men would necessarily use it, of course, but many are unaware that such research is even going on, so who knows what they'd do if they did know?
The best-looking options so far seem to be RISUG and the IVD. Google on "male contraceptives" to find more - and check out "male birth control" at Google News now and then. (There's a new article on Alternet by "Michael Parsons" that's getting a lot of comments.)
lenona at August 24, 2011 12:55 PM
"The fact is, men have a right to the children that they make,"
Amy just made a prolife argument. Did the father of the child you aborted get a say? If he'd wanted it, would you have birthed it? If we're making men unnecessary for the killing of their child, it's rather logical they'd be unnecessary for it's raising, as well.
"The woman is the one who gets pregnant and should either have the cash to pay for any baby she has or get an abortion or give it up for adoption."
This sentence of yours, Amy, completely contradicts the first one I quoted. Either men have a right (and therefor inherent responsibility) to the baby they make, or it's the woman's issue entirely. One or the other.
momof4 at August 24, 2011 1:03 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2439482">comment from KevinKevin, don't remember the name of it, but it was on La Brea, also a restaurant, and they have a small red-painted bathroom, or did at the time.
Amy Alkon at August 24, 2011 1:07 PM
> Here are some relevant sections from Utah
> state code:
Oh, it's ON, bay-bee....
And already, I'm like all like, wtf?.
FUCK YES it's "inchoate"! It's choate is so in that it might be said not to exist. Do we really want lawmakers squaredancing with pixie phantoms this way?
OK, ok, the whole thing:
This is whatcha call a contradiction in terms. If he's an "unmarried biological father", his commitment is by definition neither timely nor full.
Know what I hate?
No, really. Know what I hate?
I hate that people think government will make all the intimate things in your life go well. That some typical government employee, scratching at his balls DMV-style at his desk while dreaming of a double-dip in the pension system, is going to step into your life and successfully fulfill all the responsibilities that a loving family should cover... Emotional development, nutrition, education, social skills, health care, sense of purpose, and on an on.
Got in a BIG fight with my friend at work last week. It went on for hours. I had to buy him three books at Amazon when it was over... His soul has been scrambled by lefty daydreams. He can't hear this said: The things that go wrong for poor people in America will require INTIMATE SUPPORT to repair, and government can't provide it.
Can't, not won't.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 1:16 PM
Amy just made a prolife argument. Did the father of the child you aborted get a say?
When Amy used the word "child," I assumed she meant already-born child, not unborn child.
There's a difference between an embryo/fetus (still in the womb, completely reliant on the mother to continue existence and posing health implications only to the mother) and a baby (in need of care, food, and financial contributions that a mother AND father can -- and ideally should -- provide).
A man has no right to force a woman to complete a pregnancy. To me, that is simple. But, once the child is out, things get complicated -- as evidenced by this discussion.
sofar at August 24, 2011 1:24 PM
> once the child is out, things get complicated
Only where incompetence is ennobled as "complication"
Remember that thing? Y'know? A few years ago? Where those bankers yoosta bundle all those bottom tranches of alt-A home loans and get them certified as AAA? Remember? And how the ratings agencies went along with it, because the bankers were the customer, and they needed the fees?
It's like that. Huge swathes of jurisprudence are pretending that all sorts of soul-savaging idiocy are actually fatherhood... Because their customers, the voters, don't want to worry to much about fulfilling their own responsibilities.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 1:35 PM
Fer cryin' out loud, we're talking about UTAH
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 1:36 PM
Wow, Crid, the basis of your criticism consists of "I'm illiterate." Stunning.
Joe at August 24, 2011 2:03 PM
Never be so sarcastic that you aren't clear.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 2:21 PM
Reproductive rights in this country are a damn mess. Every state has different rules on adoption, abortion, parental consent, parental notification, etc. Good luck trying to make sense of any of it. I find it pathetic that grandparents have zero rights when it comes to their grandkids, or that biological parents almost always trump foster/adoptive parents, but that's the Justice System.
Oh, and Crid, here in Virginia segregation wad totally legal until 1967. All states are guilty of having stupid and repulsive laws on their books. Don't generalize. You're smarter than that.
UW Girl at August 24, 2011 2:28 PM
So many places to start here:
First - the Utah statute. Seems fairly coherent as related above - but there needs to be some standard for notifying the biofather.
Frankly, I find the assumption that the men in these equations are necessarily always irresponsible, wanton blackguards disburbing and a little disgusting. As Amy notes, sometimes birth control fails; some women are, in fact, pretty depraved as well. Fatherlessness is a plague on our society, and yet many of you are not only discouraging men from taking that role, but condemning them for it. Men - fathers - have enough strikes against them, between a biased custody system, a rapacious and feminized child-support bureaucracy, and the perceptions that, well, so many of you are spreading. The facts of the case in question show us a guy who tried to move heaven and earth to do the right thing - and was actively stymied.
You think this is OK?
Do yourselves a favor - don't say it to my face.
You're actually proposing that we give young, irresponsible, single guys these babies to raise? Over stable married couples?
As Amy said - even irresponsible people have rights. And this is the sort of even that makes the ones that are inclined to, become responsible.
Like the protagonist in this story.
There is no circle of hell too hot for people who take a child from its loving, caring, fit parent of either gender.
MBerg at August 24, 2011 2:31 PM
Oh, yeah - and all of you crossing your arms and saying "He didn't marry her before they had sex - tough luck!".
So does having sex outside of marriage result in no parental rights for men and absolute rights for women, then?
Or shall the state just take the kids away from both unmarried parents?
Because that's really the only logical answer.
MBerg at August 24, 2011 2:33 PM
"So does having sex outside of marriage result in no parental rights for men and absolute rights for women, then?"
Yes, it has been so for centuries, and the adoption process has long relied on this standard to successfully place children like me in stable homes.
If boys didn't want to find themselves in this situation, they could use condoms or get married...or, sometimes, the girl's dad put a shotgun to his head and made him get married. Girls could stay virgins, or, after the pill, rely on birth control, or later, turn to abortion. But both boys and girls knew the unfortunate and unfair consequences of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Yet now, we want to do away with consequences. It all has to be painfully fair, even if that's not in the best interest of the child...even when someone, a birth mother, is actually making the less selfish choice of NOT keeping a child she didn't plan for and isn't prepared to raise as a single parent.
It's completely absurd to suggest that the only way a woman should be entitled to the autonomy of this decision is if she chooses to murder the unborn child. Momof4 is right. To claim that boys must always have a say over the "babies they make" certainly opens that door - wide open - and some here have actually argued in the past that guys should have the right to either force an abortion or refuse consent for one because it's his child too.
None of this is good for society or the children involved. It's bad enough that we, as taxpayers, must support so many single parent families, but to actively condone creating MORE single parent households out of some misguided "fairness" is really stupid.
And the arguments for stupid policy always rely on the exceptions. You don't see backers of entitlement programs parading out the crackhead single mom with 6 out-of-wedlock, illiterate kids to make their case. They don't acknowledge that this is what their policy encourages. No, they'll show the hardworking single mom who is somehow triumphing despite her situation (with lots of government help).
So, though this one biological father's case is very sad, he is the exception. The poster child of birth fathers. The reality is that the majority of unwed fathers are not competent to raise a child alone, and we shouldn't be encouraging that as a policy.
lovelysoul at August 24, 2011 3:22 PM
> Reproductive rights in this country
> are a damn mess.
The fulfillments of reproductive responsibility are even worse, and not as a consequence.
> Don't generalize. You're smarter than that.
First, BLOW, with shiny lip gloss, before condescending so clumsily. Second, many truths are general. Third, I have no idea what specific, relevant complaint you're making with what I said, or how segregation has anything to do with this. Fourth, "totally legal" is weird & contestable wording for the changes in that part of the world in those years. Fifth, see the response to Nikki in the airplane topic today for which your "totally" is like her "never"; glib, cynical, and unhelpful.
> Do yourselves a favor - don't say
> it to my face.
This here blog is all we have to work with. I think you're wrong. Specifically, I think a man who impregnates an idiot and learns of this at some great distance in later days is "necessarily always" mistaken if he expects me to think he's being cheated.
> even irresponsible people have rights
Not always. We almost never let drunk drivers choose which radio station to listen to in the squad car on the way to the drunk tank. Once you've already been irresponsible....
> So does having sex outside of marriage
> result in no parental rights for men
> and absolute rights for women, then?
Pretty much. The baby threatens her well-being in ways that will never apply to a father... Women's genitals are weirdly configured, y'know... Perhaps you've heard about this— For most of human history, childbearing was popular way to die, or be maimed, or be bedridden until death. And then there are all the social and burdens of single motherhood, hazards which continue through this day. Paglia has described women (paraphrasing) as in a war with nature to the death.
I want women legally and medically equipped to defend themselves. If that overwhelms your un-condomed sensitivities, then stay home on Saturday nights, OK?
> There is no circle of hell too hot for people
> who take a child from its loving, caring,
> fit parent of either gender.
There's a scorching one for parents who don't bother to select a loving spouse for the project, too.
> there needs to be some standard for
> notifying the biofather.
Yeah? There does? Hmmmm... "Some standard." How would that go? A social custom?...
...Or something legal? Are we going to need to kick the Bureau of Weights and Measures out of the Statehouse for this? Are we going to need their office space for administration of your new "standard", and licensed investigators for complaints that some one night stand from a hillbilly bar in the northeast corner of the state didn't do the paperwork correctly?
Do you really suppose the entire culture wants to set aside a bunch of time (and money and effort) to sort these things out for socially incompetent people who're inattentive to consequences?
There's already a perfectly good mechanism for "notifying the biofather": Glancing over the newspaper during a breakfast of fruit and fresh-pressed coffee, she says "By the way, Sugar, I'm late."
(For extra poignance, she can drop her blouse down a couple buttons before speaking, and have a few grains of cinnamon from her toast sitting in the corner of her mouth, just waiting to be licked away.)
Works great! And here's the best part: IT LEAVES ME OUT OF IT, and it leaves my entire community out of it. Because I know he can't be too surprised. And whether they're married or whether they aren't, they've been thinking about this and maybe even planning for it, and have selected each other as the best candidates for mates in child-rearing.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 5:23 PM
Yes, it has been so for centuries...
...as were the customs of burning witches, stoning a virgin every spring to bring a good harvest, and thinking Democrats are the party of the working stiff.
Fact is, we have to do better.
Your perspective, "lovelysoul", seems to be to favor adoptive parents over natural parents, because - you claim - good single fathers are the exception. and you consider their rights expendable.
Yet this attitude, devaluation of fathers, spread throughout our society - custody after divorce, a domestic abuse industry that treats men as guilty until proven innocent, a child support industry in which government is in league with the bar to treat men as disposable ATMs,and of course cases like this one - are not symptoms; they are the disease. The devaluation of fatherhood isn't a result of our society's decay - it's one of its causes.
Men who will move heaven and hell to be good fathers should - MUST - be encouraged, or this society is screwed. And if we do that as a society to the point where being a good father - rather than being a devalued, interchangeable "sperm donors" - is not only valued but expected, and lots of this society's problems start to heal,finally.
Of course, it'd put a lot of lawyers, social workers and pundits out of work.
By the way, I've been a single parent for a long time. You seriously underestimate an awful lot of young men.
MBerg at August 24, 2011 6:06 PM
Pretty much. The baby threatens her well-being in ways that will never apply to a father...
Er,yeah. I have two kids, I know how it works. Except that parental rights don't and can't be selective by gender.
And then there are all the social and burdens of single motherhood
Y'see, there you go - presuming that mothers are the only ones that raise kids!
I want women legally and medically equipped to defend themselves. If that overwhelms your un-condomed sensitivities, then stay home on Saturday nights, OK?
You've never met me, and you're already insulting me?
The hatred I see for men here is kinda disturbing.
Mberg at August 24, 2011 6:19 PM
> Men who will move heaven and hell to be
> good fathers should - MUST - be encouraged,
> or this society is screwed.
Let's encourage their "movement" before the irrevocable biology is underway... It's much more reliable that way, and much less trouble for the rest of us.
I HATE HAVING TO ADJUDICATE PERSONAL PROBLEMS FOR IDIOTS, or paying to have it done by others.
> You seriously underestimate an awful
> lot of young men.
And we're disappointed by a much greater number.
> parental rights don't and can't be
> selective by gender.
Says who and why not?
> presuming that mothers are the only ones
> that raise kids!
They're the overwhelming majority of single-parenthood cases. If that suffering can be made to go away, I'm not going to worry too much for people who think everything needs to be even-steven in all contexts. Women aren't like men.
> You've never met me, and you're
> already insulting me?
Well, after that beer-taunt about saying things to your face, it didn't seem like you'd be such delicate rainflower.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 6:33 PM
The reality is that the majority of unwed fathers are not competent to raise a child alone, and we shouldn't be encouraging that as a policy.
Posted by: lovelysoul
By that logic no single woman should be allowed to keep children either.
Again, how is this kid going to react when she finds out her parens used legal manuvers in what is basically the only theocratic state in america to steal her away from a parent who didnt want to give her up? How are they going to explain to her as a child the adoption process? Well honey we had the money to illegally smuggle you out of the state that give your real dad custody and then used our lawyers to hide you long enough so that when your dad was finally able to file the right paper work he had already lost should he decide to sue us. I mean its not like they can say 'your parnets thought giving you to us would give you a better chance at life'
And given how many children in america need adoption how can you justify adopting a child that DOESNT need it?
lujlp at August 24, 2011 6:49 PM
Also... Well, maybe I should start a new blog with my favorite arguments with people here. One of the bigger themes, top 5, is the way people today imagine themselves to be so MUCH more erotically sophisticated than people of previous generations, despite the punishing evidence to the contrary:
I blame Hollywood. It's taught people the importance of pretending to know more about the human heart than one actually knows... The movies & media haven't actually made people more sophisticated, merely more resentful at being called rubes.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 7:43 PM
"Your perspective, "lovelysoul", seems to be to favor adoptive parents over natural parents, because - you claim - good single fathers are the exception. and you consider their rights expendable."
No, my point is that a sizable percentage of the human population behaves irresponsibly...and we're all paying for it. So, when we have a small glimmer of humanity willing to do the right thing - to give an illegitimate and unplanned child the best shot at a stable home and a good life - we shouldn't go searching for voices of dissent.
The state shouldn't be asking, "How do you feel about this adoption? Don't you want to stop it?" to men who weren't even aware they made a baby because they aren't full partners. They're not husbands.
It's unwise for society to do this, just as it is for us to encourage unwed single mothers to try being parents. Sure, many of them do well, and nobody wants to rip the babies they carried and gave birth to out of their arms and give them to more stable two-parent families (even though we probably should).
But, as a social and state policy, encouraging single parenthood involving either gender is unwise. The vast majority of unwed single parent families do poorly. We KNOW this. Every objective study tells us this.
So, encouraging more single parenthood by giving babies to single fathers who must be "notified" is completely and utterly irresponsible!
Women don't have to be "notified" of a pregnancy. The state doesn't have to tell then they're having a baby. We can't help that fact of biology, or stop the ones who'll make the foolish choice to keep these babies growing inside them when they can't raise then well. But we CAN prevent the other. We always have.
Traditionally, men who knocked a girl up might be given the choice to marry her or not, but they weren't offered the baby to raise as a single parent! This is a profound change, and not a good one, in my opinion.
There are many great single dads out there, but the vast majority of men who will take a baby under these circumstances - stepping in to prevent a stable, two-parent family from adopting it - are already proving themselves unable to consider their child's best interest. It just doesn't bode well for long-term success, and the odds are already stacked high enough against them.
lovelysoul at August 24, 2011 7:43 PM
Sigh... I get more discouraged with every post I read here. Only lug and MBerg have pointed out what the real, long-term issue is here, and no one else has addressed it at all.
Here's the deal: As many are arguing for here, the standard that is set in pretty much all legal issues concerning reproduction in the U.S. today is that the father bears all of the responsibility, and has no rights whatsoever. It doesn't really matter if you're married or not; that's a red herring. (As Glenn Sacks has documented -- he's been on this Utah issue for a couple of years -- married women are using this Utah law to give children born into the marriage up for adoption without the consent of the legal fathers. Being married has nothing to do with it.)
When stuff like this happens, young men hear about it. Especially young men who are smart and pay attention to the world around them. And what those young men are noticing is that fatherhood is a bad deal. There are far too many risks to offset the possible rewards. They read about things like the LW in Amy's column last week whose wife has unilaterally taken all authority over parenting decisions, and there's not a damn thing the husband can do about it; he has neither legal nor moral standing in the marriage.
So these young men are getting put off of relationships with women. And because of that, they have no motivation to do any of the things that men traditionally do to attract women, such as striking out on their own, getting an education, aiming for career advancement, or stocking the fridge with anything other than beer. They just aren't that interested in women. And that leaves the field to the guys who will in fact be bad fathers -- the narcissists, scofflaws, and other n'er-do-well types who tend to think of women and children as possessions.
And those will be the choices available to young women in the future. The guys who could have made good fathers will have no interest in reproducing. So most children will be raised by single mothers. And the guys who should be making up a large percentage of our leaders, achievers, and smart guys? The kinds of guys who in the past built Standard Oil and the Hoover Dam, the guys who fought WWII, started IBM, and figured out the physical principles that led to semiconductors? They'll be content with video games.
Cousin Dave at August 24, 2011 7:49 PM
"the standard that is set in pretty much all legal issues concerning reproduction in the U.S. today is that the father bears all of the responsibility, and has no rights whatsoever."
That's just not true - "all the responsibity", like the mother has none? Yeah, paying child support sucks, but it hardly constitutes all the responsibility of parenthood. And, if anything, men have more legal rights than ever.
My son is 21, and I don't think that young men have lost interest in women, or that this has anything to do with our lack of innovation. Blame overregulation and ineffective educational system for that.
Still, Bill Gates is married and has several kids. He wasn't scared off, even with his billions. He just chose his partner carefully. The state can't absolve people of the need to make wise choices. It can't go around cleaning up every messy situation or making everything totally fair. Life isn't fair, particularly to those who make poor choices.
lovelysoul at August 24, 2011 8:11 PM
> married women are using this Utah law to give
> children born into the marriage up for adoption
> without the consent of the legal fathers. Being
> married has nothing to do with it.
Whose feelings are we talking about, then? Mine? I think people oughta get their ducks in a row...
There are things I feel bad about that have happened on my watch (born '59). The growing incompetence of family law is not high on the list... It's only law. Being patient (for a few foolish years in youth) with people who bungle their responsibilities is in the top ten.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 24, 2011 8:13 PM
They'll be content with video games.
Posted by: Cousin Dave
And hookers, yeah hookers!!
lujlp at August 24, 2011 9:36 PM
Finally got to watch the video. So much wrong here.
On one hand, you have an adoption agency shipping babies off to Utah, knowing that Utah's tight deadline leaves the bio dad with the fewest options. Most disturbing was the guy who DID file the paperwork by Utah's deadline -- but those on the receiving end made sure not to open the envelope until precisely one day past the deadline.
On the other, you've got a birth father who says, on camera, that he has no problem uprooting "his" child from the only home she has known for two years. Sue the adoption agency. Punish it financially if you can. But the child needs to stay where she is. What happened to this dad may not have been fair. Tough noogies. What the child NEEDS matters more than what he WANTS.
That said: if I were 20 years old and accidentally pregnant, I'd have done exactly what this girl did -- gotten that kid adopted as fast as possible no matter what the dad said. The thought of the guy I was dating at age 20 raising a child -- *shudder*.
sofar at August 24, 2011 9:55 PM
Props, Sofy
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 25, 2011 12:36 AM
1. Crid as always you amuse me but you're completely and utterly living in fantasy land. Yes I'd love to see more folks get married and make stable families. Get back to me when the state(s) have laws that promote that instead of venerating the immortal single mommy and offering her endless golden parachutes and safety nets.
2. LS, you continue to prove misogyny is the wise path for a sane man living in an insane "matriarchal world". Keep on truckin darlin.
A modern love story for you Crid, that I just heard the other day. Man and woman, living together for almost 10 years, 2 kids but they're not married. He's a mechanic, asks her to marry him a few years ago and make it official. She turns him down, "I just don't want to go that far". Long story short, he's dumped her now tired of her controlling ways, moved on and is taking the kids 50% of the time. Even the women who told me this story don't have sympathy for her. I'm sure the state will "do whats best" and make him pay her though. This is a man who brought her homemade lunches when she forgot hers in the morning. This is a guy who bought into the whole white picket fence, stand up and take responsibility deal.
I also find the whole notion of "What the child NEEDS matters more than what he WANTS." most amusing. Be careful sofar, that could lead to lots of problems down the road once nanny government gets more involved, say with national healthcare. Your uterine freedom isn't as so sacrosanct as you think.
Sio at August 25, 2011 12:47 AM
The men may not even have known the women were pregnant. Perhaps they had just broken up. 20 days isn't a lot of time.
Perhaps many of the guys are douches, but the way the law is written plenty of non-douches could be getting screwed.
And while being a single parent is less than ideal I am sure there are plenty of single men out there perfectly capable of providing a home.
And Crid... the guys cant force the women to marry them, she has to want to, too.
NicoleK at August 25, 2011 1:09 AM
> you're completely and utterly living in
> fantasy land.
And I think you're being unspeakably cruel and cynical here in real life.
I just can't imagine what would make people say these kinds of things... Golly. Here are a couple guesses:
#1. You need some rhetorical space in your own life. You, or your brother, or your best beer buddy, or your boss, has been involved in exactly this kind of thing. And you know it's fucking reprehensible, that the pain it causes to innocent children is entirely gratuitous, but you don't want to have to say so out loud because it would put your relationships at risk.
#1a. You're thinking that you yourself might do something like that in the future, so you're saving up some dialectical wiggle room.
#2. You enjoy pretending to be wizened and grim and worldly, which makes the execution of #1 and #1a even more fun.
Thing is though, society moves forward with stuff all the time... Germ theory comes to mind. I read about this in a book last year. A very few guys figured out why all those women were dying in childbirth. And when they told people how to make it stop, they heard precisely your argument: You don't seriously expect a doctor, a man of science, to wash his hands EVERY time he touches a new patient after an autopsy, do you? That's preposterous! You're being naive. You just don't understand....
See also: Drunk driving, seat belt usage, condoms, slavery, women's suffrage and on and on. Culture changes people's behavior all the time.
Your cynicism isn't thoughtful... It's just dark.
> the guys cant force the women to marry them
Sincere question... WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE READING IN WHAT I'M WRITING to suggest that women should be forced to do anything? Because I think if you review my text, y'know, reread it, you'll see that I said nothing of the kind. So, like, I can't understand why you'd say that.
Golly, my thinking would go like this: If a man isn't certain that a woman who might bear his child is going to want to build a family with him, he shouldn't put his dork inside her...
...Because if he does, and things don't work out, I am NOT GOING TO WANT TO LISTEN to childish accusations about who did what to whom. You're old enough to fuck, you're old enough to anticipate. I'm just a taxpayer with shit of my own to deal with, y'know? I'm not your friend, not your Dad, and I don't love you enough to listen to you squealing about how that woman was a such a see you en tee, or how that man was such a despicable cad.
We have better things to do with our tax dollars nowadays than spend them on family courts in which weasels can pretend it's all a TV game show.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 25, 2011 2:54 AM
Coulda woulda shoulda. Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it?
A guy could be sure that it is the girl of his dreams, but SHE could decide, once pregnant, that SHE doesn't want to marry him. He could have been wrong.
We can sit around wishing they'd behaved differently, but that doesn't help us move forward.
Personally, I'm not so into the government stepping in and taking away people's biological children unless there's been some sort of gross neglect or abuse. I don't think being a single parent qualifies. The idea of the government reassigning families is a bit spooky to me.
Children belong to their parents, both parents. No one is disagreeing that they should get married. No one is disagreeing that they should work it out. But if they don't, the decision to give a kid up for adoption needs to be the decision of BOTH parents, barring exceptions such as violent criminals.
I mean, can you imagine if the Dad was watching the newborn while mom was still in the hospital, and just decided to give the baby up for adoption to some couple? Or if the Dad made all the arrangements before birth, and just shows up after the birth with the new parents?
No, BOTH parents need to be involved.
If the guy doesn't know the girl is pregnant until the baby is born, how the hell is he supposed to know to propose to her?
NicoleK at August 25, 2011 5:19 AM
"Personally, I'm not so into the government stepping in and taking away people's biological children unless there's been some sort of gross neglect or abuse. I don't think being a single parent qualifies. The idea of the government reassigning families is a bit spooky to me."
The government isn’t stepping in to take away biological children, just like it isn't stepping in and forcefully aborting babies. The government is giving mothers the option to make these choices. The mother, who presumably knows the father, or has some inkling who he might be, and therefore is in a much better position than the state to assess his readiness for fatherhood.
My birth mother did that. She was pregnant and unwed, and fortunately, assessed the situation as less than ideal for me (and her). But I guarantee you that had the state hunted up my loser birth father (druggie, petty criminal), he would've gotten involved. Just to be in the mix of things.
When he showed up on her doorstep around the time I should've been born (I was premature), he tried to get her to contact the agency to get me back, but it was too late, thank God.
I am not "his" child. My dad is the man who rocked me to sleep when I was sick, who was there for me no matter what I needed, and who provided me with a mature, responsible, role model and secure foundation. And, whether you like it or not, that starts with a couple being stable enough to marry first. My parents had already been married 10 years before they adopted me.
If you want legal rights, you need to do things legally. For instance, I don't expect the state to acknowledge my ownership of a piece of property just because I camp out there. I need a deed, tax records, a title...all the right legal paperwork. If it were otherwise - if the state had to contend with all kinds of back stories about how I once loved this land, but so-and-so supposedly stole it from me, and now I'm sad because I never got around to making it legal, but I still think I should have rights...blah, blah, blah...the system would be in total chaos.
What's wrong with having a simple legal standard? Why shouldn't taxpayers expect that, at the very least? Why should my money be used to track your ass down to "notify" you of impending fatherhood when the woman you slept with doesn't think highly enough of you to be there telling you herself or planning a life with you?
lovelysoul at August 25, 2011 6:40 AM
Your mother may have properly assessed your father, the problem is the law also allows malicious women to not notify the father.
I agree that the state shouldn't be the default tracker-downer. Make the mother find out who the father and find him. I bet if she needed his signature to give up the baby she'd find him pretty quick.
The mother is not the only parent. Dads can't unilaterally take the baby away from the mom and give it up for adoption either. Your argument works both ways, the Dad is also in a better position to know than the state whether or not the Mom is any good.
Here's a simple legal standard: If you're the bio parent, you're the parent, unless you both give the child up for adoption. It's pretty straightforward.
I mean, what if my mother-in-law (we have very different parenting styles) had shown up, taken the baby, and said, "This woman isn't fit to raise this baby, I'm giving the baby to someone else". She can't. Because the baby was born to me. That makes me the mom, that's the default. It's a pretty simple legal standard.
Once you start getting into parenting styles and all that it gets complicated.
Oh well, this guy's story has one bright side. When his daughter grows up and tracks down her birth parents and finds him, and asks him "Why did you give me up", he can honestly say, "I didn't. I fought and fought for you, I never gave up, I always loved you." And that will probably cheer her up.
NicoleK at August 25, 2011 7:03 AM
"Here's a simple legal standard: If you're the bio parent, you're the parent, unless you both give the child up for adoption. It's pretty straightforward."
Okay, so we want to make adoption - the selfless act of giving a child the best shot at life - HARDER. Let's have women trying to track down guys they met once in a bar, to get a signature, or else they can't place their children for adoption.
And what about overseas adoptions? Is it fair that some poor single mom in Cambodia can give up her baby to an American family without getting the bio-dad to sign off?
No, it's not "fair", but it's right, isn't it?Things don't always have to be fair to be right.
lovelysoul at August 25, 2011 7:16 AM
"I mean, what if my mother-in-law (we have very different parenting styles) had shown up, taken the baby, and said, "This woman isn't fit to raise this baby, I'm giving the baby to someone else". She can't. Because the baby was born to me. That makes me the mom, that's the default. It's a pretty simple legal standard."
Yes, it's the most simple legal standard! That's why it works. We know it's your baby.
And for most of history, it was the only standard as far as proving lineage. That's why you can't be a Jew unless your mother is Jewish. Is that "unfair" to those with Jewish fathers? Yes, but it's a simple and understandable standard that works.
Adoption has always worked on this standard. It would be too complicated and burdensome to change it. Why should we make the already painful process of adoption more difficult? So, that these mothers will be forced to give up acquiring a signature and keep the child they don't really want and/or can't afford...and probably burden the taxpayers? Or give the baby to the bio-father to raise as a single dad...and probably burden the taxpayers? Where is the logic in that?
Adoption doesn't burden the taxpayers. That's why we want to encourage adoption, not discourage it.
I don't believe there are many women out there "maliciously" choosing adoption, any more than women are out there "maliciously" choosing abortion ("I hate that bastard! I'm going kill his child!"). No, these are extremely personal and painful decisions, best made by the one most personally effected and in the position to properly weigh all the alternatives - the mother.
lovelysoul at August 25, 2011 7:50 AM
I also find the whole notion of "What the child NEEDS matters more than what he WANTS." most amusing. Be careful sofar, that could lead to lots of problems down the road once nanny government gets more involved, say with national healthcare. Your uterine freedom isn't as so sacrosanct as you think.
By "uterine freedom" do you mean a woman's freedom of choice? Not snarking, just a bit confused.
If that's the case (and, again, I may have misread your post), I don't see how it applies here. I used the term "child," not "fetus." Abortion affects the unborn, while adoption affects the born. This child has been born (and is about 2 years old). So, yeah, the needs of a toddler who knows only her adoptive parents trump the wants of this bio dad (however unfairly he may have originally been treated).
sofar at August 25, 2011 9:01 AM
I am confused why this is not inter-state kidnapping? Particularly where the guy had been awarded custody.
This also sounds like a lack of due process though I didn't look close enough to say for sure.
And just because something is not the best idea, doesn't mean people should lose their rights.
Last I heard, there was significantly more kids in need of adoption then there were adopters. (especially for older kids, but younger ones too.) Why create more€? Is this causing another child not to be adopted?
The Former Banker at August 25, 2011 9:03 AM
Babies are always in demand. There are more than enough adoptive couples who want infants. The reason we have so many children in need of adoption is because we're encouraging irresponsible parenthood, and many of those kids are ultimately removed and put into the foster care system when they're too old to be truly adoptable.
This will only happen more frequently if we follow a policy of giving bio-fathers first shot at raising infants that would normally go to stable two-parent adoptive homes.
lovelysoul at August 25, 2011 9:46 AM
> If the guy doesn't know the girl is pregnant
> until the baby is born, how the hell is he
> supposed to know
For Christ's sake, Child...
Human life offers no greater moment of attentiveness. Head's up!
How goddamn bright would you need to be?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 25, 2011 11:22 AM
And yes, that was the 69th comment.
Seriously, Nic, you're pissing me off.
How could any sane person come to think that the rest of civilization is built for the purpose of helping them recklessly, casually, forgetfully and incompetently fuck around?
Who EVER convinced you that other people could love you that much?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 25, 2011 11:51 AM
Thats amazing crid, I did not realise that every sexual encouter always gaurenteed a pregnacy
lujlp at August 25, 2011 11:56 AM
But the child needs to stay where she is. What happened to this dad may not have been fair. Tough noogies. What the child NEEDS matters more than what he WANTS. - sofar
By that logic I could kidnap your newborn baby out of the hospital and so long as the law didnt catch upto me within a certian amount of time it would be beter for your child to contine remaining with me in the only home she has ever know - right?
lujlp at August 25, 2011 11:57 AM
How old are you?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 25, 2011 11:58 AM
So according to lovelysoul,
women should be the sole deciders on wether or not men get to be parents.
Men will always make poor single parnets and therefore shouldnt even be allowed to raise kids, for some reason this need not apply to single mothers
that cases like this where the father knew about and planned for the pregnacy did everything that the law and morality asked of him and still got screwed over should be ignored on the off chance that
somewhere someday somewoman might somehow get pregnant by someguy she doesnt know from someone night stand and becuase she cant track him down she'll be somehow forced, FORCED, to keep a baby she doesnt want.
lujlp at August 25, 2011 12:07 PM
Old enough to realise you aint as smart and brilliant as you like to think you are
lujlp at August 25, 2011 12:09 PM
There have been hospital mixups, Luj, where the children have grown up in the wrong households, but they don't rip the children away from the only homes and families they've ever known. The families usually have to work it out with visitations.
It's a really traumatic thing to remove a child from the parents that have raised him/her. Even if a crime has been committed, and it must be done, such as with a kidnapping or child abuse, it's never something you want a child to go through, as it's almost always psychologically damaging.
If a biological parent really loves the child and knows that he/she is in a safe, secure, loving, adoptive home, they wouldn't fight for custody, especially after 2 years.
lovelysoul at August 25, 2011 12:13 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2441490">comment from lovelysoulThere have been hospital mixups, Luj, where the children have grown up in the wrong households, but they don't rip the children away from the only homes and families they've ever known.
Actually, it depends. Twins researcher Nancy Segal just wrote an amazing book on this, "Someone Else's Twin," that I recommend. It centers around the story of identical twins separated at birth in the Canary Islands, and the sister raised as the fraternal twin of one of the twins -- who was actually biologically unrelated and belonged with another family. Tragic outcome.
Amy Alkon at August 25, 2011 12:20 PM
How many children will continue to be 'legally' kidnapped with such an attitude? If you continue to reward such behavior it will continue.
And do you really belive they love this child? They knew there was a father who wanted her before they signed adoption papers. They knew the local courts had given the father custody before they fled back to Utah. They knew this guy wanst going away - they dont love that baby the way parents love their kids, they love that baby as an extention of themselves and their identity. If they turly, unconditionally loved that baby they never would have stolen her from a parent that loved her and wanted to keep her
This guy was given custody by the birth state before they absonded with his child - why was an arrest warrnet not isued?
This guy filed all the proper forms only to be screwed over by peple whos jobs DEPEND on such shady adoptions continueing - why was that allowed to stand?
Why did it take more than three yrs to reach a decision? Could it be so that most of the people who read about it would say "we cant pull the child from the only home shes ever known"?
This wasnt an accident or a mistake this was deliberate every step of the way. Somehow I doubt if one of your children or grandchildren where stolen, and it was a theft make no mistake, that you would be so calm and dismissive about it
lujlp at August 25, 2011 12:26 PM
If a biological parent really loves the child and knows that he/she is in a safe, secure, loving, adoptive home, they wouldn't fight for custody, especially after 2 years.
To open up a completely different issue, this is why I get cranky when parents go on about how selfless parenthood had made them, when in fact too many parents are just selfish in a wholly different way.
I can feel bad for people who don't get to raise children they wanted. But I look at my own bio mom as a guiding light on this. She put me in foster care for a few years because she really wanted me, but she knew she couldn't do it, so she put my needs first. She was a good mother when she needed to be. She could have been a better mother had she not been sleeping around with several men without protection, but she didn't compound her mistakes.
Parents expecting to rip their children out of stable homes are looking at these kids like property, not people. Trust me: A kid in a happy home doesn't want to live with his biological father just because they share DNA. He wants to live with the people he has formed an attachment with already. And that's where too many people fail: in not seeing these kids as people with their own needs.
MonicaP at August 25, 2011 12:26 PM
"women should be the sole deciders on wether or not men get to be parents."
No, I think men have an equal part in the decision to unzip. I don't think that alone makes either of them "parents".
But the woman is obviously going to learn of her condition, feel the real, literal weight of it, and have 8 months or so to consider what's best for the child she's carrying. If she goes forward with the pregnancy, she'll be putting her own life at risk just to give that child life. As such, she is the best one to weigh the options.
If he's not committed to her legally, I don't think she owes him a say. I really don't. My son is 21, and he could be in this position, but I still believe that his girlfriend should have the autonomy to decide if either or neither of them is ready to be a parent.
I would never presume to tell her that she *must* make my son a father if he never even made her his wife before this occurred. By virtue of that, he hasn't shown the proper maturity and commitment to her.
As for married couples, I'm not sure how I feel. That's different, but my impulse is to say that the husband should be included in the decision.
lovelysoul at August 25, 2011 12:34 PM
Why did it take more than three yrs to reach a decision? Could it be so that most of the people who read about it would say "we cant pull the child from the only home shes ever known"?
Never attribute to malice what you can pin on incompetence. When you introduce the legal system into your life, everything takes forever, even over the most mundane things. I've been in probate now for 8 months, with what will likely be another year or so ahead of me, and this does not have nearly the importance of a person's life.
Our legal system isn't well equipped to deal with the consequences when people who make babies don't stay together. It's messy, and it will never be done well. It's unreasonable to expect that the legal system is going to turn something as emotionally charged as family life into something neat and tidy, all wrapped with a bow. It'll never happen, and we will forever be frustrated by attempts to do so. Which is why people need to be more careful about such things.
MonicaP at August 25, 2011 12:37 PM
> Old enough to realise you aint as smart
Great... A seventh-grade spitballer who can't handle spellcheck. And this is your perfect argument!
You wanna argue that people can't be expected to know where they've left their CHILDREN... That life is so overwhelming that they need support from everyone else to execute this fundamental responsibility.
But I just don't love you enough. I don't care if you get laid; I don't care if you get pregnant; I don't care if you change your mind about how attractive someone is. And get this: I don't care about your idiot children... Not enough to assume financial responsibility for them, and not enough to answer them when the grow up to ask "How come I never met my Daddy?" or "How come my Mommy was such a shrew-bitch stresscase?"
Are you disabled, "lujlp"? Besides the spelling thing, I mean? (These are rhetorical questions, OK? Don't answer them: We GET it.) Seriously, who out here in Taxpayerland is supposed to love you so much as to make all this stuff go great for you? Ever kiss a girl?
How old are you?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 25, 2011 12:50 PM
If he's not committed to her legally, I don't think she owes him a say. I really don't.
BY that logic a man never owes her child support
As for married couples, I'm not sure how I feel. That's different, but my impulse is to say that the husband should be included in the decision.
Why? how does a peice of paper from the government magically transform a guy from a immature deadbeat wholey incapable and unworthy of being part of the decision to someone on par with a woman who "is obviously going to learn of her condition, feel the real, literal weight of it, and have 8 months or so to consider what's best for the child she's carrying. If she goes forward with the pregnancy, she'll be putting her own life at risk just to give that child life. As such, she is the best one to weigh the options."
lujlp at August 25, 2011 1:19 PM
Great... A seventh-grade spitballer who can't handle spellcheck. And this is your perfect argument!
an argument on spelling? against a dyslexic no less? I accept your surreder, though your massive degredation in reason and logic durring your hiatus both perplexes and sadden me. You used to be a far more worthy opponent
You wanna argue that people can't be expected to know where they've left their CHILDREN... That life is so overwhelming that they need support from everyone else to execute this fundamental responsibility.
Acctually I was arguing that you are a moron for suggesting that every sex act causes a pregency and triggers a knowledge of that pregnacy deep inside the soul of the man, as opposed to sex having the POTENTIAL to cause a pregnacy - you used to be able to handle sublte nuances, what happened to you?
Not sure where your third paragraph ame from or what it was trying to point out
Are you disabled, "lujlp"?
Define disabled
Besides the spelling thing, I mean?
Dont really see not being able to spell the occasional word correctly as a defect,
These are rhetorical questions, OK? Don't answer them: We GET it.)
If there rhetorical then why bother asking them? Seriously man you used to be sharper at this. You're like a fencer who developed full blown parkinsons between the second and third match
Seriously, who out here in Taxpayerland is supposed to love you so much as to make all this stuff go great for you?
????
Ever kiss a girl?
Yes, were you hoping I was saving myself for you?
How old are you?
Turthfully I dont know off the top of my head, I dont consider it that important, 32 I think this november. But even at 16 I'd have been able to run circles around the pisspoor arguments you've been throwing out lately. As I asid, old enought to know you aint as smrt as you pretend to be
lujlp at August 25, 2011 1:38 PM
> ????
Right.
This is essentially the Tea Party phenomenon. You just can't believe that the rest of the world doesn't want to make your life go great in return for receiving nothing for you. You can't even hear the question.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 25, 2011 1:42 PM
"BY that logic a man never owes her child support"
He doesn't owe HER child support. He owes the child. Unless some loving, stable adoptive couple wants to support it, then he's off the hook. But the taxpayers shouldn't owe anybody because of the mess that THEY made.
Look boys and girls are different. As the mother of both, I understand and accept taht the rules and expectations are different. If my son knocks up his girlfriend, I concede that it's HER call. She can abort the baby, keep it, or give it away.
I would assume that she'd go home to consult with her mother (as I would want my daughter to do), and they would figure it out together while we waited.
That's our role in this little domestic drama, as it's always been for the boy and his family. And as it's always been for the girl and her family. We all know the rules. My son knows full-well what could happen. As the physical carrier of the child, the girl gets to make the call.
I would probably offer to adopt the baby myself, but she's under no obligation to agree. I might try to dissuade her from abortion, but it's her body, her choice, and ultimately her conscience to live with.
I certainly wouldn't SUE her or get the courts involved. I have a friend whose 19 yr old son got a girl pregnant, and they did, ultimately, go to court, but only after she decided to keep the baby and they wanted to work out a reasonable visitation schedule, support, etc.
But early on, they waited while she weighed the choices of abortion or adoption. Those are the rules. They themselves are adoptive parents, so they understood. It's the mother's choice. Just as some poor, unwed mother made the choice to bless them with their son 19 years before.
Ironic and bittersweet, yes, but that's just how life goes. None of this should come as a profound shock or revelation of unfairness. It is what it is.
lovelysoul at August 25, 2011 1:50 PM
You can't even hear the question.
God you really have gone down hill havent you?
Go back for a couple of seconds and read what you wrote in your third paragraph. Please note there is not one question put forth by you. Just a buch of statments about how you dont care
(a)about me,
(b)my getting laid, or
(c)any quetions, comments, or problems any children I might have may have might have
There was no question crid.
lujlp at August 25, 2011 2:07 PM
Why? how does a peice of paper from the government magically transform ...
There's nothing magical here. We have a system in place to protect a father's rights to his children. It's called marriage. We don't need another system for people who want the benefits of marriage but don't want to take the risks. The only requirement here is that a man take the time to vet his partner and marry her before having children with her.
And before anyone says it: No, married men in divorces are not routinely denied all access to their children. Just because people talk about it in blogs doesn't mean it's an epidemic.
LS, I think you made a good point here:
He doesn't owe HER child support. He owes the child. Unless some loving, stable adoptive couple wants to support it, then he's off the hook.
In the end, these kinds of fights seem very much like a domestic pissing contest. "I'll show HER! She can't have MY child! Or MY money!" It's easy to forget that there's another real person in there, not a first place ribbon for the winner in the domestic clusterfuck contest.
MonicaP at August 25, 2011 2:49 PM
> There was no question
Here then, for the fourth time.... And this will be it, OK, "lujlp"? After this, you must learn to read and use spellcheck, or ignore my blog comments, though they distress you so terribly. Because someday someone's going to ask why I used to torment enfeebled people on this website, and I won't have a good excuse. The last indulgence:
Who, in the shimmering constellation of responsible American taxpayers and citizens, is supposed to care about the barstool idiot you fucked in your car on a Saturday night last October? When you think of those people –the people who you imagine will listen to you as you tell your throat-chokingly bitter tales of resentment and incompetence– what do you imagine their lives are like?
Do you think they have troubles of their own?
No? Do you imagine that they're all busy building loving, deeply-nurtured families, but are going to take time out to listen to your complaint that 'Bitch didn't even text me when she stopped spotting!' ?
Yes? They have troubles of their own, but they've lead similarly incompetent social lives, and have time to set aside for a court hearing (or whatever), where they can be relied upon to pass clear judgement on the other "parent" as you'd want them to?
Do you really think Planet Grownup works that way?
Good luck out there. Please don't bother me anymore... It's clear you have better things to do with your time than worry about my "downhill" comments.
> In the end, these kinds of fights seem very
> much like a domestic pissing contest.
Exactly, exactly. The people who've made these hideous mistakes want us to ask about everything except the children they've put at risk.
"But she's MEAN!" "But he's a LIAR!"
Do you care?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 25, 2011 4:08 PM
"We have a system in place to protect a father's rights to his children. It's called marriage."
It's not working. As I pointed out in my previous post here yesterday, Glenn Sacks has been documenting cases in which married women successfully gave their children up for adoption without the father's consent. It's not illegal and there is no punishment for women who do it. The system is supposed to prevent it, but if it fails, them's the breaks. So sorry Dad.
"My birth mother did that. She was pregnant and unwed, and fortunately, assessed the situation as less than ideal for me (and her). But I guarantee you that had the state hunted up my loser birth father (druggie, petty criminal), he would've gotten involved. Just to be in the mix of things."
LS, I appreciate your situation, and I agree with you that in your case it worked out for the best. But I still think you're generalizing based on a sample size of one. I can match your example: As I've written here before, we have a grandson who is severely disabled. The boy is taken care of almost entirely by the father -- the mother has fried her brain on meth and can barely take care of herself, much less a disabled child. Should the state take the boy away because his mom isn't his primary caregiver? If that happens, the boy will be a ward of the state for the rest of his life; with his condition he's un-adoptable. The father has done a yeoman's job, with keeping the kid in school until his condition reached the point where it became impossible, and keeping up with his oxygen and medical treatments. Being with the father is the best possible situation for the boy.
(Incidentally, the mother is still collecting SSI and AFDC and state payments for the boy. Which she spends on drugs and junk food. The father doesn't get a dime.)
Cousin Dave at August 25, 2011 4:50 PM
> It's not working
When thoughtfully applied, it can't be beat.
You're looking for a cheap guarantee... Success cases are looking for a sincere opportunity.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 25, 2011 4:52 PM
Seriously crid did someone piss in your cheerios? When did you get so thin skinned? And what the fuck is up with the quotation marks?
1. If you dont want someone commenting on your blog items perhaps you shouldnt address them to the very people you dont want commenting on them. Or perhaps you shouldnt make them at all.
2. As to who should care about children being stolen by government buracracy from parents with no history of criminal or neglegent behavior? I would hazard that EVERYONE should. Afterall a few simple strokes of a pen on the right desk, coupled with an antiquated legal system which allows these types of cases to carry on for years, EVERYONE could have their children taken away just as easily.
Utah does this to married fathers as well. So pretending marriage is a magical soultion to legal problems isnt a solution.
3. And finally pretending some unknown hypothetical guy, who had a hypothetical one night stand, with a hypothetical woman, which resulted in a hypothetical baby, given away to a hypothetical adoptive familly and the situation in this new story are simillar in any way . . .
Thats like pretending your shit is solid gold.
And it wasnt a rhetorical question when I asked what happened to you. I dont know, maybe it was nothing more than nostalgia on my part, but I could have sworrn you used to be sharper than this
lujlp at August 25, 2011 4:52 PM
"As to who should care about children being stolen by government buracracy from parents with no history of criminal or neglegent behavior?"
Face this fact: They aren't being "stolen". There is an obligation upon the father to create a loving, stable environment in which to bring a child into the world, which means he needs to convince the mother of this environment...so much so that she'll say, "I want to marry you and raise this child together!"
Otherwise, she is free to choose the best environment available for this child, and having her do so is a cause for celebration!
My birth father had his chance to show that competence - to prove to my birth mother that they could make it work long-term - that they were mature enough, at 21 and 23, to weather the challenges of parenthood together for the many years ahead. But he FAILED.
In the face of that failure, my birth mother, like many others, made the right choice to place me for adoption, and it was a good thing that the choice was theirs to make.
lovelysoul at August 25, 2011 5:15 PM
SO LS the fact that this guy was told by his girlfreind they'd get married means nothing to you?
That he was lied t by hospital staff and threatened with arrest if he came back means nothing?
That he bought all teh baby supplies and transformed a room in his house into a nursery means nothing?
That he was awarded custody by the state before the adoption papers were signed means nothing?
That the adoptive parents and agency kept the mother hidden away where she had no contact with anyone other than the adoption agency personel and adoptive family for nearly a week means nothing?
That knowing of the custody order the adoptive parents kidnapped the child across state lines means nothing?
The blatant hypocracy of of calling the guy a deadbeat for not being a deadbeat means nothing?
That the birth mother now claims the adoption agency forced her to give up the baby by making her sign papers in seclusion, still on medication and with no conact with anyone other then agency personel means nothing?
lujlp at August 25, 2011 5:24 PM
"That he was awarded custody by the state before the adoption papers were signed means nothing?"
No, that means something, and I'm not sure why it was done, and perhaps, in this one case, the guy is entitled to custody, but what I stated above is true. In general, the guy has the obligation to create an environment in which the mother of his child feels it's a good idea to bring a child into the world with him.
If he does that, there's no issue. No thought of adoption. So, why isn't the burden on him to assure this environemnt? Why must the taxpayers get involved - forcing the mother to "share" a child with him that she doesn't feel he's capable of raising?
Her objection is a HUGE warning sign that the state would do well to heed, as my birth mother's objection was. There are reasons that a woman who has carried a pregnancy for 9 months, and has given it serious thought, decides that the father in question isn't fit to be a parent. This insight is like a gift to the state - like social workers have been there checking out the household. She has an interest and her natural inclination would be to have him be the father, but he isn't ready.
lovelysoul at August 25, 2011 5:44 PM
She doesn’t have to share, she can tell the father I want nothing to do with the kid. As you have pointed out men do it all the time.
Also I could just as easily make the argument that being pregnant for nine months her judgment is not sound due to the abnormal levels of hormones affecting her body, brain, and therefore her judgments
lujlp at August 25, 2011 6:15 PM
CRID WROTE:
How could any sane person come to think that the rest of civilization is built for the purpose of helping them recklessly, casually, forgetfully and incompetently fuck around?
Who EVER convinced you that other people could love you that much?
***
Not quite sure what this has to do with me being loveable. I'm feeling quite loved... I'm married to my kid's dad and we have enough to live on without asking for charity from anyone.
Crid, in these cases the people did not forgetfully fuck around. They remembered and wanted their child, and the man in the video thought he and the mother were going to raise the child together.
Lovelysoul, get what you are saying the problem is the reverse is equally true, there are situations where the dad would make a great parent but the mom wouldn't. And there are psycjo malicious women out there. They are NOT like social workers.
Lujip I've been arguinng the same side as you but your last comment is alienating.
NicoleK at August 26, 2011 1:59 AM
"She doesn’t have to share, she can tell the father I want nothing to do with the kid. As you have pointed out men do it all the time."
Yeah, that sounds really great for the kid. Much better than having two parents that want you.
lovelysoul at August 26, 2011 5:42 AM
And having TWO parents that didn't want you is always better?
LS, I'm really happy it worked out for you, and it sounds like you had a wonderful family situation. That doesn't mean we can always take kids from their parents, especially if they have a parent who loves them, wants them, and can take care of them
NicoleK at August 26, 2011 6:17 AM
She doesn’t have to share, she can tell the father I want nothing to do with the kid.
Until he sues for child support, which is the next step.
MonicaP at August 26, 2011 6:22 AM
"Lovelysoul, get what you are saying the problem is the reverse is equally true, there are situations where the dad would make a great parent but the mom wouldn't. And there are psycjo malicious women out there. They are NOT like social workers."
Yes, but to determine the fitness of either the father or the mother involves the state in a situation from which the child has already been blessedly released, where his/her best interests have already been made more certain - adoption into a stable two parent household!
The state doesn't NEED to sort that one out. The taxpayers don't NEED to pay for it. The mother made the call, and she chose a married couple already vetted and pre-qualified.
Life isn't fair. It isn't fair for the thousands of babies who are aborted. They get the unlucky call. But, in these instances, the babies win the jackpot!
Either way, mother makes the call. That is our established rule, and everybody who plays knows it. There are lots of silly rules to football that I don't really understand, but apparently those who play it do.
What if somebody said, "Hey it's not fair that we have a coin toss and winners get to choose. Why don't we make it so that losers get to chose? Or do away with the coin toss altogether because somebody's going to lose, and that's not fair!"
Everybody would be like, "Why? That's the way we've always played football. Yes, it's unfair that somebody will win and somebody will lose, but the coin toss is the way it's always been decided, and if you play football, you should know this."
That may be a bad analogy, but the good news for men is that this situation is almost entirely preventable if they take steps to decrease their risks. Here are some tips:
1) Don't sleep around with random women.
2) Get to know the women you do sleep with. Ask questions beforehand to determine whether she's on birth control, as well as her general feelings about having kids. If she says, "I want to have 6 kids and live on welfare," that's a BIG CLUE that she's a risky bedmate. If she says, "I want to wait a few years before GETTING MARRIED and starting a family, while I finish my PHd," that's a good sign!
3) No matter what she says, wear a condom. Don't take it off until the wedding, or until you can be reasonably sure she's a decent person, and not a psycho or a liar.
4) If you take off the condom, accept that you are making the choice to put your faith in this woman's integrity and judgement, and that there could be unfortunate consequences to this - broken heart, messy drama, or unplanned pregnancy...over which she will get to choose bcecause, as you know, those are the rules.
But you've already exponentially decreased the odds of this happening by following rules 1-3!
lovelysoul at August 26, 2011 6:37 AM
"And having TWO parents that didn't want you is always better?"
It's not a matter of being unwanted. My birth parents wanted me. They were just too screwed up to properly care for me.
My brothers' birth mom wanted them too, but she was a single mom, on a limited income. She knew she couldn't raise twins. So, she kept one of them for a few months before realizing she couldn't even do that.
These are the hard choices that mothers make, and it's almost always the better choice for the child than the life they or the father can provide.
lovelysoul at August 26, 2011 6:47 AM
Lujip I've been arguinng the same side as you but your last comment is alienating.
Posted by: NicoleK
It was meant to be. Its not somehing I believe in, FYI, most humans are capable of reasoning beyond the stressors of naturally altered brain chemistry, my point was to highlight that while mothers, may know the father 'best' it could just as easily be argued that their judgement could be considered suspect if you wanted to consider it suspect. the same sense of logic that allows a mother to knows 'what is best' based on biology can just as quickly be turned against her - that was my point.
Until he sues for child support, which is the next step.
Posted by: MonicaP
Whats good for the gander is good for the goose, esides its for the child
lujlp at August 26, 2011 8:42 AM
Yes, but to determine the fitness of either the father or the mother involves the state in a situation from which the child has already been blessedly released, where his/her best interests have already been made more certain - adoption into a stable two parent household!
The state doesn't NEED to sort that one out. The taxpayers don't NEED to pay for it. The mother made the call, and she chose a married couple already vetted and pre-qualified.
Not for nothing lovelysoul, but most adoption agencys get tax money to run their programs and vet teir applicants, which means the taxpayer are already paying for it. Also, in case you havent noticed single people are allowed to adopt and do so all the time
lujlp at August 26, 2011 8:45 AM
And finally LS, he was in a realtionship with her for yrs, got back together with her to acording to one news article I read,
The pregancy was an accident
She told him they would raise it together
He bought everything the baby would need
He got custody from the courts
She now claims she was coerced into giving her baby up by being held for over a week in seculsion with no contact to the outside world
This wasnt some one night stand like crid seems to wnat to believe. hi isnt like your situation where your birth father didnt show up util after his marriage fell part despite dening your and your birth mothers existance.
This guy did everything required of him by law and public opionin, including proposing to the girl. And somehw he is just as bad a gy as the asshle who has a kid but refuses to pay child support.
How? how is it the guy who did everything RIGHT is just as big an ass as the deadbeats who do everything wrong?
lujlp at August 26, 2011 8:52 AM
On another subject, check out "Conception by Deception" - from 1998 - it's about women who DO trick men into fatherhood:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/1998/09/cov_23feature.html
For some reason, I can't find the letters that followed (I have a printout at home) but here's what Brenda said at alt support childfree:
"I have two teenage grand-nephews who show promise, and I've been thinking for quite a while now that I should take them to dinner and clue them in. Reading this article gave me the impetus to do it. Their fathers and uncle, my nephews, *all* got oopsed; maybe I can help the next generation avoid it."
And, on another subject, some may want to check out Katha Pollitt's 2002 "Shotgun Weddings" column, which starts with these lines:
"What would the government have to do to convince you to get married when you otherwise wouldn't? More than pay you $80 a month, I'll bet, the amount Wisconsin's much-ballyhooed "Bridefare" pilot program offered unwed teen welfare mothers beginning in the early nineties, which is perhaps why then-Governor Tommy Thompson, now Health and Human Services Secretary, was uninterested in having it properly evaluated and why you don't hear much about Bridefare today....."
And later:
"There's nothing wrong with programs that aim to raise people's marital IQ--I love that journalistic evergreen about the engaged couple who take a quiz in order to qualify for a church wedding and call it off when they discover he wants seven kids and she wants to live in a tree. But remember when it was conservatives who argued against social engineering and micromanaging people's private lives and 'throwing money at the problem'?............The very fact that welfare reformers are reduced to bribing, cajoling and guilt-tripping people into marriage should tell us something. Or have they just not hit on the right incentive? As a divorced single mother, I've given some thought to what it would take for me to marry against my own inclination in order to make America great again. Here's my offer: If the government brings Otis Redding back to life and books him to sing at my wedding, I will marry the Devil himself. And if the Devil is unavailable, my ex-husband says he's ready."
lenona at August 26, 2011 9:16 AM
"How? how is it the guy who did everything RIGHT is just as big an ass as the deadbeats who do everything wrong?"
I didn't say that, nor do I think it. I feel bad for him, but it doesn't matter what policy we have, there will always be some percentage of people who fall through the cracks.
The question is whether we want this to be our policy - tracking down bio-dads and saying, "The mother is considering adoption. Do you want a put a bid in? Want to become a LITIGANT?" Let's actively promote them obstructing a process that's designed to give disadvantaged chidren a better shot at life.
Then, maybe, we'll hand the infant over to this single guy to attempt to raise. Maybe he'll do ok, but statistically, we KNOW the majority of them will not. We alread know the statistics of single mothers. Too bad we can't prevent those outcomes more easily...but we CAN prevent these!
Social policy shouldn't be based on exceptions. When we know we already have a costly problem, we shouldn't advocate making it bigger.
And I really take exception to the idea that there are mothers out there choosing adoption out of spite or vengeance. That's absurd! If some woman wants to get back at her ex, she'd KEEP the baby - so she could maintain control over him and make him pay support - not put it for adoption.
Think about it. Would a woman really go through 9 months of pregnancy, get ugly stretch marks, loose skin, and weight gain, give birth at great risk to herself and quite possibly undergo major surgery, leaving an ugly scar across her belly, only to "get" at him?
"Aha! I gave your child away! Gotcha!"
Please! That doesn't even make sense. Nobody wants to give their own flesh and blood away. My birth mom cried and cried in the hospital because she couldn't even see me. I've never met a woman who has chosen adoption who didn't AGONIZE over that choice.
Leave them be. It's a tough enough choice without having to battle the father in court.
lovelysoul at August 26, 2011 11:26 AM
"How? how is it the guy who did everything RIGHT is just as big an ass as the deadbeats who do everything wrong?"
I didn't say that, nor do I think it.
So you dont think it(and I never said you said it) but your still fine with him being treated as such.
The rights of fathers should not be left in the hands of women - do you want 'equality' or not, its as simple as that
lujlp at August 26, 2011 1:02 PM
Also technically it wouldnt be a battle, it be just like any other adoption she surrenders her parental rights and the beby goes to the father if he wants the child.
After all how many men are going to take care of their own child just to have a 'gotcha' moment over the mother?
And given you seem to think most men wouldnt want to do it anyway what is the harm in asking the guy if he wants his own child?
lujlp at August 26, 2011 1:06 PM
"And given you seem to think most men wouldn't want to do it anyway what is the harm in asking the guy if he wants his own child?"
As I've explained, it obstructs the process and makes it harder if the mother must get his approval. Many of these fathers aren't even known, or can't be easily found, and some of them, like my birth father, are married to other people.
Imagine your wife opening that letter!
It sounds good, and might work in cases like this one young guy's, but, in general, it's too complex, expensive, and discourages women from placing their children for adoption when the circumstances warrant it.
If your daughter was raped, or in an abusive relationship with some guy, or just picked up a guy in a bar, you wouldn't want her to have to track him down to get his stamp of approval on the adoption.
lovelysoul at August 26, 2011 1:39 PM
Lovelysoul said:
The question is whether we want this to be our policy - tracking down bio-dads and saying, "The mother is considering adoption. Do you want a put a bid in? Want to become a LITIGANT?" Let's actively promote them obstructing a process that's designed to give disadvantaged chidren a better shot at life.
Then, maybe, we'll hand the infant over to this single guy to attempt to raise. Maybe he'll do ok, but statistically, we KNOW the majority of them will not.
_______________________
Define "majority."
_______________________
lujlp said:
After all how many men are going to take care of their own child just to have a 'gotcha' moment over the mother?
And given you seem to think most men wouldnt want to do it anyway what is the harm in asking the guy if he wants his own child?
_______________________
As he pointed out, we're not really talking about the majority of fathers of out-of-wedlock children, we're only talking about the majority of those who really WANT to raise the child, with or without the mother's help. Can we ever really know whether THOSE fathers will do a bad job, if we don't even let them try?
lenona at August 26, 2011 1:43 PM
What's wong with leaving it the way it's always been? Hasn't it worked?
It seems to me that the push for change is being fueled mainly by birth fathers, and MRAs, but the adoptees themselves are notably absent.
I think most adoptees realize, as I do, that our birth mothers wouldn't have made the choice they did if our fathers were mature, responsible, stable guys.
Talk to some adoptees and let them tell you about finding their birth parents. Sure, there are a few touching Hallmark-worthy stories, but the majority are like mine - a living testament to the benefits of adoption.
My birth dad has been in and out of jail all his life, and my birth mom (now deceased) was a chain-smoking southern racist, with the raspy voice of someone who'd spent way too much time in bars. She meant well, but she had a hard luck life.
Her 3 other children by 2 different men only WISH they'd been adopted. My half-sister by my father can only WISH she'd had a dad like mine growing up. She barely saw him, and when she did, he was usually drunk, high, or in prison.
These are usually not stand up guys with a lot to offer a child. If they were, the mothers would most likely not be considering adoption.
lovelysoul at August 26, 2011 2:01 PM
> Not quite sure what this has to
> do with me being loveable.
I meant to say "you" as being someone who demands more government intrusion into the most personal part of our lives. I'm sorry for the confusion....
...Except no I'm not, because:
> I'm married to my kid's dad and
> we have enough
So you did it right. And it's no big deal. Why can't we ask this of everyone? (I seriously regard this as the greatest failing of contemporary liberalism: Their failure to insist that others, less fortunate or not, observe exactly the boundaries and sacrifices by which they've achieved warmth and success. That ain't compassion. That's cruelty.)
"lujlp" wasn't kidding, you know...
> who should care about children being
> stolen by government buracracy from
> parents with no history of criminal
> or neglegent behavior
I trust you can see the threat in this thinking: OTHER PEOPLE, taxpayers, are responsible for the terrible things that happen to these babies, because these people who've made them aren't negligent. (Excuse me, "neglegent".) No matter what, no matter how easy it would have been, we're on the hook.
I don't like threats, though. And this one is easy to ignore: Other people's fucked-up children are not problem... Certain no more than are YOUR (Nicole's) well-loved ones. (When good, competent, sensible people need help in a crisis, I'll always answer the phone.)
> the people did not forgetfully fuck
> around. They remembered and
> wanted their child
But they didn't! They didn't "remember" their children, and how to bring them into a loving, supportive home. We're not talking about someone who went past the dry cleaners without pick up a suit.
These people had other things on their minds. Now they're asking me to pick sides in their petty little mind games.
And this is me not giving a shit. They've given evidence that they don't think their own children are an investment worth time and consideration. Who am I to argue? What would they want me to do?
No.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 26, 2011 2:58 PM
"Otherwise, she is free to choose the best environment available for this child, and having her do so is a cause for celebration!"
And who's to say she will do so? Believe me, LS, I can point to plenty of counter-examples. Including, to an extent, my own mother.
Cousin Dave at August 26, 2011 3:38 PM
Cuz, are you suggesting that women aren't to be trusted?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 26, 2011 4:15 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2444975">comment from lovelysoulI think most adoptees realize, as I do, that our birth mothers wouldn't have made the choice they did if our fathers were mature, responsible, stable guys.
Sometimes, a woman can be a vindictive bitch. There is an exceptionally decent guy who comments here who tried to help a woman only to have her accuse him of domestic violence (he merely gave her a place to live to help her get on her feet). Only because she had a history of such accusations is he not in jail right now, but he is still in trouble vis a vis this charge being put through the system.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2011 5:01 PM
Again with the quotation marks.
And were not asking you to care about peoples fucked up kids, were asking you to care that the governemnt is coluding in kidnapping children form parents guilty of no crimes, unless being born with a penis counts as a crime
lujlp at August 26, 2011 5:47 PM
So sometimes a man can be a vindictive violent asshole. What does your anecdote about false accusations of domestic violence by one woman have to do with this thread?
I also think it's important to keep in mind, at least in every case I've seen up close, that it wasn't the young father who wanted the baby, it was his mother. That's who financed the court fight, and that's who will end up raising it, sometime with very little input or help from the daddy who insisted he was in it for the long haul.
elementary at August 26, 2011 6:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2445245">comment from elementaryRead the italics and then read my response -- if you can see through your "men suck" bias that shines through so clearly in your comment.
I also think it's important to keep in mind, at least in every case I've seen up close,
How many cases would this be, and are you a caseworker, and do you assume that your personal experience gives an accurate reading of the whole of men in these circumstances?
Let's say that *most* men in such cases didn't want their child. Even if this were the case, it wouldn't give you the right to yank parental rights away from one who does.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2011 7:42 PM
I don't know why you're being so primitive about this. What is this, the middle ages? If a man hasn't married the mother, he has, and should have, NO rights. It isn't "having a penis" that causes these nightmares... It's improper deployment that causes problems. Most, perhaps EVERY man reading these words, have never had difficulty liek this. Again, when "lujlp" says he doesn't care about children, he means it. He thinks the world needs to rescue him from the consequences of his incompetent behavior, no matter what. (Whether or not he's ever been on a date.)
I can't imagine a position you could take that would be more contrary to feminist progress... HARD-WON feminist progress. You make me think the "pro-choice" zombies are correct for being so savagely monomaniacal.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 26, 2011 8:05 PM
I don't think men suck. I think your bias against women in almost every instance kinda sucks.
But adore the automatic insult you sling at anyone who dares question one of your comments.
And your pointless anecdote about a vindictive woman in a completely unrelated circumstance only underscores my point. It has nothing to do with this thread and was just another way to slam women.
A father who genuinely wants his child -- and is genuinely the one seeking custody -- should be given serious and thoughtful consideration. Then again, the single mother who is genuinely hardworking and doing well by her child ought to be applauded here, too.
You're right. My sample is small. Perhaps a dozen cases. But in most every instance it wasn't truly the father seeking custody and it wasn't truly concern over the child that motivated them.
elementary at August 26, 2011 8:21 PM
They say that when the Supreme Court of Illinois ripped Danny Warburton from his mother's arms, he scratched at her back until she bled, and promised her he'd be a good boy if they let him stay.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 26, 2011 8:21 PM
1. I don’t recall saying I never cared about children, pretty sure that was you, and there was something about fucking a barstool or something somewhere in there as well. Of course this inst the first time you've been confused about the things you have written.
2. You seem to have developed this bizarre fixation on me and my need to be rescued. I don’t, and quite frankly being the princess in your peculiar little fantasy is creepy as fuck.
3. Just because I disagree with you does not mean my life is full of "consequences of [my] incompetent behavior"
Repeat after me "people can disagree with me and not be total failures, assuming such makes me a narcissistic asshole"
4. I cant recall you being so childishly reactive for being schooled over your more obvious bouts of stupidity in the past, of course I don’t recall such a wide and plentiful array of such stupid notions being served up by you either.
5. Aside form you abnormal fascination with 'rescuing' me, what is this new found obsession with my sexual encounters?
6. And what is up with the quotes around my name?
Anyone else who remembers the crid of old getting a creepy pod person vibe?
lujlp at August 26, 2011 9:11 PM
"Let's say that *most* men in such cases didn't want their child. Even if this were the case, it wouldn't give you the right to yank parental rights away from one who does."
So, just to be clear, Amy, who I respect. You are suggesting that a single father - one that the mother carrying the child has already rejected - is the most competant to parent this child? Despite all the evidence of how bad single parenthood is for children?
Seriously? Does my personal story of adoption tell you nothing? Where are the adoptive kids pleading with you to change the current system? There aren't any because we appreciate the benefits of adoption and are grateful that our bio-father's approval wasn't needed before giving us a stable home. OUR FATHERS WERE NOT STABLE!
Adoption works, the way it is. Why should we change it?
lovelysoul at August 26, 2011 10:11 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2445483">comment from elementaryI don't think men suck. I think your bias against women in almost every instance kinda sucks.
Feel free to provide evidence of this.
But adore the automatic insult you sling at anyone who dares question one of your comments.
Plenty of people here criticize my opinion. If I had a problem with it, I wouldn't have blog comments.
The truth is, your comment was redolent with bias against men.
Single parents are not to be applauded -- unless they are widowed and making the best they can. Kids need to grow up in a family and stability is essential.
As for your small sample size, there's a line in science: "The plural of anecdote is not data."
Which is why your comment reflects your bias and not much else.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2011 10:33 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2445491">comment from lovelysoulYou are suggesting that a single father - one that the mother carrying the child has already rejected - is the most competant to parent this child?
Whether the mother has rejected a man does not necessarily speak to his ability to parent a child.
I am not for single parenthood, but until we start competence testing all parents and taking their children away from them based on their apparent competence or lack of it, we don't get to do it to single dads.
Amy Alkon at August 26, 2011 10:37 PM
Where are the adoptive kids pleading with you to change the current system? -- lovely soul
If I read the documents correctly, the laws creating the system in question were passed in 2006 (not all, just the combination). The kids you are looking for would at most be 5 years old.
Readying the one guy's story sounds scarily like the story of my ex-sister-in-law and her baby daddy after my brother. Everything is going great as far a daddy knows up til the day of the birth. They are going to get married, etc after her divorce is finalized. Suddenly she "feels threatened" doesn't tell him he she is going to labor, checks in under a false protective name. Then disappears for a few days only to appear for a protective order.
The Former Banker at August 26, 2011 11:35 PM
Actually, Amy, one of the reasons I read your blog is to see you insult virtually anyone who dares disagree. I mean, come on, you go check internet addresses and out anyone you don't approve.
I know you're not naive, and it seems to me you've got a great big heart. I know you know that awful or just unfortunate things happen beside being widowed. Not everything can be controlled for. Not everyone has the perfect organic game-making neighbor mom who'd better hope after forfeiting her career that her husband never leaves her (and he might), or the perfect cop friend whose kids you are so sure will take care of their autistic sibling no matter what (and they might not) or the perfect-in-every-way boyfriend who you can guarantee will never ever meet someone who offers him a carb-laden cracker and decides to take a nibble. . . (see your comment about anecdote and data and apply it to your own examples of infallible choices).
Like I said, a man who genuinely wants to raise his child and who will be the one raising his child deserves that opportunity. I don't think it's his right to front for his mother or his family and then pawn the child off on them. I also think even you'd have to admit far more men would happily wash their hands of the situation than would stand up for their newborn child.
elementary at August 26, 2011 11:56 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2445645">comment from elementaryActually, Amy, one of the reasons I read your blog is to see you insult virtually anyone who dares disagree.
So sorry to disappoint you so frequently. Even in this very thread.
I know you know that awful or just unfortunate things happen beside being widowed.
Yes, like all the people who write me that their sex life is boring or their marriage just doesn't have their oomph it used to so they've going to get a divorce, and never mind those three children whose lives will be screwed by it.
the perfect-in-every-way boyfriend who you can guarantee will never ever meet someone who offers him a carb-laden cracker and decides to take a nibble.
What's this supposed to mean? Other than the fact that you clearly can't win an argument based on the right to fuck up one's kids so you're going to pull in my boyfriend and make out like he's some caged animal doing my bidding?
I also think even you'd have to admit far more men would happily wash their hands of the situation than would stand up for their newborn child.
Back to the malebashing as well. Key to the argument of a girl who's lost the argument.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2011 12:59 AM
"If I read the documents correctly, the laws creating the system in question were passed in 2006 (not all, just the combination). The kids you are looking for would at most be 5 years old."
I wasn't talking about the kids who were placed under this law. I meant adoptees, such as myself. It doesn't seem that this cry for change is coming from people with the child's experience of adoption, just the bio-father's. That's significant.
Adoptees are not particularly upset over not being raised by their bio-fathers (I'm not!), it's the bio-fathers or men's rights activist pushing for the change that would allow them to lay claim to these babies prior to adoption - a situation that sends shudders down the spines of most of us who were adopted.
"I am not for single parenthood, but until we start competence testing all parents and taking their children away from them based on their apparent competence or lack of it, we don't get to do it to single dads."
I agree, but they aren't "dads" yet. They're just guys who messed up.
If my son's girlfriend gets pregnant, that doesn't make him a dad. He's still a 21 yr old kid. And if she assesses the situation appropriately, she'll conclude that he's not ready to be a dad yet.
As his mom, I even agree with her. As an adoptee, I agree with her. Please don't offer him that baby to raise! He might say yes, but he's NOT READY.
The birth mothers in these situations are in the best position to assess this competence, not the state. The state sees him all put together in his little blue suit and tie. The mother has seen him play video games all day and knows that he can't remember to feed the cat. Or that he's secretly a pot smoker or meth addict.
There's a reason these birth mothers choose adoption, and it's not maliciousness. They do it because, after weighing all the options, they honestly believe it is best for the child.
lovelysoul at August 27, 2011 6:29 AM
And the fact that in this case the bio mom is now claiming coersion via being held in seclusion by the adoption agency for over a week means what to you?
lujlp at August 27, 2011 8:59 AM
To me, it means she's very confused and conflicted about her choice, which is not unusual. If they kidnapped and isolated her, that, of course, would be wrong, but that's not how any adoption agency I've ever heard of does it.
People tend to cry "coercion" whenever they regret a decision...or feel guilty about it. Both are emotions that would be common in birth mothers.
My birth mom felt God "punished her" for the adoption by not giving her a daughter for years afterwards, but that doesn't make it true.
lovelysoul at August 27, 2011 9:14 AM
It was a joke Amy - because you are always saying how you stay on Gregg about his eating (out of love) and that one cracker and. . bam, he gains weight.
The point was you can't control for all outcomes. He could leave you for a woman holding a box of crackers. You can pick wisely, but you can't always pick what someone will suddenly desire 20 years down the road.
And stating the obvious isn't male bashing. I'm sure YOUR perfect male friends always beg their partners or their one-night stands to have the baby and raise it with them or turn over the baby to them, but in the real world where I live, i rarely see the former and never once the latter.
Still love men, though. Still always believe in the best.
And, again, I agree. THIS man should be allowed to raise HIS child.
elementary at August 27, 2011 10:10 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2446624">comment from elementaryIt was a joke Amy - because you are always saying how you stay on Gregg about his eating (out of love) and that one cracker and. . bam, he gains weight.
But, actually, he only jokes about eating a doughnut. He's followed what both Eades and I have told him about science-based eating, and he just went to the doctor and the doctor was truly impressed at how he's done.
Gregg is very disciplined once he sets his mind to something. I told him that I love him and it means a lot to me for him to be healthy, and asked him to try eating this way. He's far healthier and looks great, and as things a girlfriend nags a guy to do, "Please eat bacon every morning" isn't among the great horrors of a man's life.
Because you have such an apparent jones to show me up, you didn't get my point about my jokes about Gregg and a cracker: they're that some people can't even look at anything made of sugar or flour without gaining weight. There are other reasons to cut carbs -- and it's that sugar, flour, oats, etc., seem to have very negative effects on longterm health.
For anyone who wants to know more about that, go to Track Your Plaque blog by cardiologist Dr. William Davis, and look up "flour," "sugar," "whole grain," "oats," and anything else in that family and read up on the path to diabetes, cognitive diminishment, and other health problems.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2011 10:19 AM
Oh Amy, lighten up. I of course got your joke. Who hasn't said or heard a version of it 1,000 times before?
So I guess it's beware of a young babe bearing a box of donuts.
And I have no jones to show you up (not an actual argument by you but another. . .insult). I was making the case that you can't always predict/control what someone will want 20 years down the road -- and that sometimes you'll get left holding the. . .kids.
Anyway, when you start offering dietary advice on a thread about parental rights, I figure the discussion is done.
elementary at August 27, 2011 10:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2446716">comment from elementaryAnyway, when you start offering dietary advice on a thread about parental rights, I figure the discussion is done.
No, you just have a childish brat's desire to win and you have to say that.
I wrote that for anyone who's come to this without reading posts I've done on the evidence behind healthy eating.
I really don't like people who debate dirty, and you're a really dirty debater.
I was making the case that you can't always predict/control what someone will want 20 years down the road
Somebody might develop a love of sailing late in life, but if you are ethical and have empathy as part of who you are, you aren't going to suddenly become a sleazebag at 50.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2011 11:20 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2446718">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and on a side note, about people in a debate or disagreement who say "lighten up" or "calm down" (or other such things), is anyone of the experience that this works -- ever? (I mean, other than as a decoy way for the speaker to attempt to assert their superiority over the person they're speaking to?)
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2011 11:22 AM
Molly Ivin's challenges to Paglia were essentially nothing but insults, and people loved them.
And then Molly died of acute alcoholism.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 27, 2011 11:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2446777">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Well, I'm insulting but not a sot.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2011 12:11 PM
I assume then that you have no friends who ever left a relationship after 10 or 20 years where children were involved or ever divorced if there were children involved because you would never be friends with someone who is absolutely, unquestionably a sleazebag, by your definition. And of course all of your perfect friends would have only married the perfect partner who took up sailing and never another woman (or man).
And, yes, I think saying lighten up at the same time I am pointing out that I did get your joke and was joking back often makes a less defensive person realize that they should. . .lighten up.
On the other hand, I appreciate a smart put-down as much as the next person. But silly insults from you don't invalidate my basic point and don't make it male bashing.
elementary at August 27, 2011 1:12 PM
LS: "If my son's girlfriend gets pregnant, that doesn't make him a dad. He's still a 21 yr old kid."
He's plenty old enough to go to Afghanistan and die for his country. How much older does he have to be before he's allowed to be a dad?
Crid: "Cuz, are you suggesting that women aren't to be trusted?"
Some women aren't to be trusted. Some women are completely trustworthy. So are some men.
Cousin Dave at August 27, 2011 1:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2446882">comment from elementaryI think friends with children who've gotten divorced when there wasn't terrible fighting are, generally speaking, jerks who owed it to their kids to put them first. (If you're more of a me-first kinda person, as I am, you don't reproduce.)
As for people I don't agree with, I also have some friends who believe in astrology -- a belief I find ridiculous and childishly gullible. Being my friend doesn't mean I agree with everything you do. The thinking of the simplistic, need-to-win-at-all-costs commenter, I'm sure, varies greatly.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2011 1:33 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/24/birth_fathers_g.html#comment-2446886">comment from Cousin DaveThe thoughts of a rational man who doesn't have an ax to grind behind every comment (as elementary does). Cousin Dave:
Yes.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2011 1:37 PM
Like I said in my response to last week's column, neither sex has a monopoly on pathological behavior.
Cousin Dave at August 27, 2011 3:33 PM
> Some women aren't to be trusted.
Nonetheless, for matters of reproduction, they belong in the driver's seat. If this upsets you, pick another species... Or become a better student of feminine character.
In any case: No tears, big boy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 27, 2011 3:37 PM
(Should have said "planet" instead of "species".)
(Yes... I am concerned that some commenters here are that suggestible.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 27, 2011 6:47 PM
"He's plenty old enough to go to Afghanistan and die for his country. How much older does he have to be before he's allowed to be a dad?"
Being old enough and ready are two different things. Soldiers are put through plenty of training before they're deemed ready (and some are still not ready and booted out).
My daughter is old enough to have a baby right now, and one of her schoolmates just had one at 15. Biologically, girls are ready as soon as puberty.
But is it a GOOD IDEA? Just like this one? Would it be smart for my son to try to raise a child as as a single parent? No.
He'd have me, of course, and you know darn well I'd be doing a lot of the parenting, which would be lucky for the baby, but still not a great plan.
My friend with the 19 yr old son does most of the childrearing of her grandbaby, while her son finishes college, and because the girl and her mother are pretty incompetent, though they have her half the time.
The little girl will probably do ok, despite being bounced around between two very young single parents and one stable grandma, but it would've been better if those involved had put her interests first by a) not getting pregnant in the first place, and b) being selfless enough to give her the more stable environment of a two parent home, even if that meant adoption.
lovelysoul at August 28, 2011 8:25 AM
"My friend with the 19 yr old son does most of the childrearing of her grandbaby, while her son finishes college, and because the girl and her mother are pretty incompetent, though they have her half the time. "
Okay, LS, I know I've been beating you up a bit on this thread, but I do appreciate your perspective. You bring up a good point here that doesn't often come up: children of single parents being raised, to one extent or another, by grandparents or other relatives. I agree with you that a child being bounced around between relatives is a bad situation. On the other hand, we definitely don't want the state having the power to take children away from parents solely because they are single parents -- that way lies madness.
The only thing I really disagree with you on is your assumption that the mother will always act in the best interest of the child. That simply doesn't fly; there are a certain number of women who will hold on to that baby for selfish reasons, or because they grossly over-estimate their own capabilities. I've known more than a few. I totally agree with you that if the father splits town as soon as he finds out that his GF is pregnant, he blew it and he has no further say. However, in a case where the couple is clearly together, and the father is in a good life situation, and the mother is clearly not competent, then I think he deserves a chance to plead his case.
The precedent that married women can give up children for adoption without the father's consent definitely needs to be nipped in the bud. If it isn't, that may be the final straw for marriage in America.
Cousin Dave at August 28, 2011 10:00 AM
"On the other hand, we definitely don't want the state having the power to take children away from parents solely because they are single parents -- that way lies madness."
But the adoption process has never lead to that, and it's been in place a long time, and there's absolutely no reason to assume that it will.
For one thing, the state doesn't swoop in and "take" these children. It allows for the child to be surrendered by the mothers, who have decided that the situation is not stable.
I agree that there are many women - actually, the majority - who won't do that, who won't consider their child's best interests. They'll keep the baby solely because it's "theirs" - a part of them - their little plaything - whether or not they can afford it or raise it properly.
My point is that it's bad enough that we have women who selfishly choose to become single parents, which, in itself, disadvantages the child. Why on earth should the state encourage single guys to do this?!
It's crazy policy. It's like the state is taking the same lame-brained stand that the single mothers are: "Nevermind you're not married, this is YOUR little plaything! We think you should keep it!"
Not when we have good, stable homes that these children could go to. That just makes no sense from the perspective of what's right for the child and society.
Plus, the whole thing is impractical to enforce anyway. If a woman wants to place her baby for adoption, she just won't name a father. How can the state know whether she slept with 1 or 50 men? All she has to say - as unwed mothers have long said on adoption forms - that the father is "unknown".
As Crid says, women are in the driver's seat on this one. They always have been, whether it was using coat hangers not to "allow" a man to be a daddy.
I don't see it hurting marriage any more than abortion. At some point, a guy must accept that he can't become father unless the woman wants him to be, so it's in his interest to create a loving, stable environment for her that will make her say, "He's the one I want to have a child with."
Despite whatever this guy, or any guy, thinks he did, the proof is in the pudding. If she's even considering adoption or abortion, then he somehow failed at this.
I don't know why he failed, but, as Crid would say, it's not my business to find out. That's their little drama, not ours.
lovelysoul at August 28, 2011 10:54 AM
"But the adoption process has never lead to that, and it's been in place a long time, and there's absolutely no reason to assume that it will."
Apologies for the confusion; I didn't mean to imply that it did. What I meant to say is that if one took this business of the state acting in "the best interest of the child" to its logical extreme, that's where it would lead.
Cousin Dave at August 28, 2011 1:19 PM
"On the other hand, we definitely don't want the state having the power to take children away from parents solely because they are single parents -- that way lies madness."
But the adoption process has never lead to that, and it's been in place a long time, and there's absolutely no reason to assume that it will.
Right, silly men, you arent real parents
lujlp at August 28, 2011 6:46 PM
Well, you aren't until you actually engage in raising a child. Neither is the woman. If she chooses adoption, she isn't a mother either.
That's one thing that was interesting when I found my birth parents. She was ok being called by her first name, but he kept wanting to be called "Daddy". He'd phone my work and announce he was my "father".
It was laughable. Donating sperm doesn't make you a father.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2011 5:06 AM
Oh, but I know...you should be able to raise the baby, dammit! It's YOURS. A little plaything you made from your loins.
lovelysoul at August 29, 2011 5:16 AM
LS writes:
Many of these fathers aren't even known, or can't be easily found, and some of them, like my birth father, are married to other people.
Imagine your wife opening that letter!
***
I -have- imagined opening that letter. I have a gruesome mind that often imagines worst-case scenarios, and then I think about what I would do in my case.
I think if my husband knocked up some floozy in a moment of insanity, the best outcome (for my family) would be for us to raise the child. I wouldn't want to let a child of my husband's and a sibling of my child's go live among strangers, where we would have no idea who they were and what they were like and what the kid's life would be like.
Obviously it would be hard, and I'd have to do attachment parenting in a big way to establish a bond and all that, but I think it would make the most sense.
Erm, I don't really think he would knock up some floozy. But this thread got my imagination going there.
NicoleK at August 29, 2011 6:13 AM
Lovelysoul, your logic for allowing women to decide whether or not men should be allowe to be parents is flawed.
There are any number of reasons her judgement of his 'suitability' might be comprimised
lujlp at August 29, 2011 11:11 AM
Okay, let's just take Nicole's example. He's MARRIED with another family, yet playing around with another woman. How is he "suitable".
lovelysoul at August 29, 2011 5:20 PM
He's in a stable enough finacial position to afford a mistress
lujlp at August 29, 2011 7:39 PM
LS, I think we've about run this thread into the ground. But I'd like to get some more perspective on where you're coming from on this. A couple of questions, if I may:
1. I assume from your description you were adopted as an infant. How old were you when you were told that you were adopted?
2. What led you to seek your birth parents? Or did they find you?
Cousin Dave at August 29, 2011 7:52 PM
How do you know the adoptive parents aren't screwing around?
If someone if your family messes up, you rally around the person to make it right. Raising and loving the kid would make it right.
People screw up sometimes. When you're family, you fix it, you don't dump new members simply because they are inconvenient. If you're in a very messed up situation involving drugs, crime, poverty its one thing to help them escape it. But if its a one-time crisis rather than a chronic condition you fix it.
Lujip, you don't need to be rich to cheat. He does have a steady job, though, yes, and he's a good father who finds time for his family, spends time with his kid, etc, is calm, patient, and loving. In the imaginary affair scenario I'm assuming all these factors are staying the same. The affair would be a negative yes, but the strangers are a wild card, you don't know what their faults may or may not be.
I guess I'm having a hard time imagining any couple being able to give a child from our family a much better life. Materially, sure, they could be richer. But I feel like if any one of us had a crisis the family is stable enough to absorb it. nd I think that counts, and needs to be considered.
This law affects the stable along with the messed up.
That said, LS I'm glad you found a good home. Not all adoptive homes turn out that well. Sounds like your parents are rather awesome and
NicoleK at August 29, 2011 11:28 PM
Nicole, I'm sure your hubby is a nice guy, and I didn't mean to suggest you'd be bad parents if he cheated on you, though, in the scenario you suggest, I think that should still depend on how the mistress felt he treated her, and whether she would want to give you the baby to raise because you had such a stable, loving home.
As a woman myself, it's rather hard to imagine feeling that way in that situation. If we just slipped up and had a one-night-stand, perhaps, but if this was a long-term affair, I personally would feel this spoke to his character and state of your marriage.
Which just proves my point that there are so many variables to these decisons, and the birth mother is in a much better position to weigh them than the state.
Also, a baby should ideally be placed in its permanent home at birth. That means that these arrangments need to be made during the pregnancy, when the baby is still inside the mother, just as abortion has a time urgency. Therefore, we shouldn't encourage legal fights over adoption, as a prolonged battle after birth will be negative for the child.
When I was adopted, there was a 5 month waiting period - not for the benefit of my birth parents to possibly change their minds (birth mom had 30 days, I believe), but for my adoptive parents to be assured that I was healthy and normal. So, I was placed in foster care for that period.
They've changed that now, knowing how important the early bonding phase is.
And I was always told that I was adopted, in age appropriate ways. My parents handled it very well because I don't remember a moment of being told. I just always knew.
As I got older, I was curious about where I came from, and was able to request that info from the adoption agency at age 18.
But I was told that it was up to my birth mom whether or not she wanted to be found...just as it was up to her to choose adoption. They informed her that I was looking, and she responded that she wanted a relationship, which we maintained until she passed about 3 years ago.
I found my bio-father through her, but after a few too many instances of him calling to ask for bail money, etc, I stopped communicating with him. However, I'm very close to his daughter - we have become very much like true sisters - but, as far as I'm concerned, he's her "Daddy" not mine. Unfortunate for her, but lucky for me. :)
lovelysoul at August 30, 2011 5:31 AM
Leave a comment