Check out this NYT article on parental rights of bio fathers in adoption cases. I was surprised to read that in many states if a man wishes to claim his parental rights he must have put his name on a "don't take my parental rights" registry. That seems a highly problematic system to me.
So unless a man registers whenever and wherever he has sex (assuming that's an option in his state), there's no way he can ensure that any child born from said sex act won't be given up for adoption against his wishes.
I'm curious to see Sen. Landrieu's proposed legislation which would create a a national registry and at least introduce some flexibility into the system.
The whole US adoption system is in major need of overhaul. Countless women simply refuse the name the birthfather, or claim they don't know who it is, to avoid having to deal with these men for who knows what reason, and the men are left with no say so in anything. It's ridiculous.
I have been following and supporting Sen Landrieu's efforts, as they are the first comprehensive stab at reform I have seen.
It doesn't seem so outlandish to me. People have one-night stands. People graduate, or get new jobs, or lose old ones and leave town. People move in different circles and avoid each other.
Any of those situations could happen to a man who wants to know his child. I don't think there's something inherent in not knowing a sex partner is pregnant that would ensure it only happen to men who don't want parental rights.
That's a truly bizarre system. Of course, I don't know if it's any better here (though I do know adoption in Australia is fuckded-up in many ways).
It's upside-down, for the one thing.
Apparently, the putative father registries started because of a few well-publicized cases of adoptions that were contested by the fathers, and I do understand the motivation behind that. What I don't understand is why the states would keep the registries such a secret. I can't imagine why anyone (except maybe a vindictive mother, I guess) would want to prevent fathers from raising their own children.
I mean, usually at least when something is this stupid, I can understand why a little. I just don't get this, though.
Apparently, the putative father registries started because of a few well-publicized cases of adoptions that were contested by the fathers, and I do understand the motivation behind that.
I understand it in the same way I understand the Satanic cult scares: ie, I can see how it might make emotional sense to people, but how the hell could this be practiced as law? It's so bizarre to me that legislatures would respond to those cases (which involved both biological fathers and mothers) by basically making men's parental rights something they have to opt-in to receive.
Still no luck finding a text or even a decent summary of the Proud Father Act. Sick Maturin on it, wouldya?
I understand it in the same way I understand the Satanic cult scares: ie, I can see how it might make emotional sense to people, but how the hell could this be practiced as law? It's so bizarre to me that legislatures would respond to those cases (which involved both biological fathers and mothers) by basically making men's parental rights something they have to opt-in to receive.
Hell, yeah. Just in case there's any misunderstanding, I don't agree with the motivation. I can just see it is all--the fear that no adoption would ever be final just because you couldn't always find the bio father.
It's the actively discouraging fathers from even trying that has me completely flummoxed. I can't think of even a stupid reason for that.
Quote:
Still no luck finding a text or even a decent summary of the Proud Father Act. Sick Maturin on it, wouldya?
Still no luck finding a text or even a decent summary of the Proud Father Act. Sick Maturin on it, wouldya?
Your wish is my command.
There's no bill with that title or addressing that subject matter currently pending in Congress. So far as I can tell, there are no publicly available summaries or drafts. To get something like that you'd need a connection on Mary Landrieu's legislative staff, which I ain't got.
As the Times article indicates, some thirty states have these putative father registries. Trouble is, they vary widely in their terms and requirements. Landrieu's proposal, so far as I can tell, would establish uniformity by creating a national putative father registry. Uniformity is generally a good thing, but in this case the screwball requirement that unwed fathers jump through administrative hoops to protect their parental rights remains. In fact, a national law would impose that requirement on men in the twenty or so states that don't currently require registration.
Professor Mary Beck of the University of Missouri's law school is reportedly working with Senator Landrieu on this legislation. It's just a guess, but I suspect some clues about how the bill will look can be found in Professor Beck's 2002 article Toward a National Putative Father Registry, which appears at Vol. 25, Page 1031 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The article is available here, but I suspect it'll cost ya despite the site's "free 7-day trial" claim. If you've got a law library nearby, you'd probably do better finding it there.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
What kind of guy is it that has no clue as to whether or not a girl he fucked is expecting and then wants paternal rights to that child?
I think the problem is knowing that the girl is expecting. It usually takes a few weeks to show up, and then the girl has to tell him. He might just be an old-fashioned form of honourable: "I helped create this life, it is my duty to care for it"
NTM
__________________
A man only needs two tools in life. WD-40 and duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
It's upside-down, for the one thing.
Apparently, the putative father registries started because of a few well-publicized cases of adoptions that were contested by the fathers, and I do understand the motivation behind that. What I don't understand is why the states would keep the registries such a secret. I can't imagine why anyone (except maybe a vindictive mother, I guess) would want to prevent fathers from raising their own children.
Well, if I was feeling really whacked-out (yes, moreso than usual) I could say it helps preserve the status quo (women raise kids, men don't, etc) but I'm really too tired for that right now, and it still doesn't really make sense, even for this weird situation.
It might be a judicial-ease issue. They don't want the potential court cases that they might think would result if the registered fathers started disputing adoption cases. But then I don't think the number of those cases would really be that high, however someone else who thought it up might.
What kind of guy is it that has no clue as to whether or not a girl he fucked is expecting and then wants paternal rights to that child?
If she doesn't tell him, and they have split up, it was a one night stand, or any of the scenarios livius mentioned, how would he know?
On one of my adoption discussion boards, a couple is being presented to a pregnant woman who says she doesn't know who the father is, or even what race the baby might be. Now, I personally call bullshit...even in my sluttiest superslut days I would have known, down to two guys or so at least. But, for whatever reason, she is choosing not to involve the father.
Senator Landrieu's interests cover all of adoption and foster care, so the father registry is probably part of larger legislation.
Uniformity is generally a good thing, but in this case the screwball requirement that unwed fathers jump through administrative hoops to protect their parental rights remains. In fact, a national law would impose that requirement on men in the twenty or so states that don't currently require registration.
Bingomundo. That's a large part of my concern: the unspoken premise of all these registries is that unmarried men have no default parental rights. Instead they must sign up for them.
I went ahead and did the free trial thing (shall we take bets on whether I'll remember to cancel on time to avoid getting billed?) and Professor Beck points out:
In 1972, the Supreme Court first upheld and defined the constitutional rights of men who fathered children out of wedlock. (5) In Stanley v. Illinois, the Court held that equal protection requires state law to treat the unmarried mothers and fathers of children similarly.
How could any putative father registry meet this equal protection standard? I'm still on the background section, though. Perhaps this will make sense to me as I read on.
How could any putative father registry meet this equal protection standard? I'm still on the background section, though. Perhaps this will make sense to me as I read on.
Sooner or later (probably sooner), you'll no doubt run across an ugly bastard of a case known as Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983).
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Parental Rights of Unwed Fathers
Re: Parental Rights of Unwed Fathers
Linear Mode
