Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Adoption issues versus gender rights.

245

Posts

  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited January 2007
    I don't see by what logic having contributed half of a child's DNA (or, as it's normally phrased, the child "being yours") is any less 'arbitrary' a decider of rights to that child than having carried it around for nine months inside you. Seems perfectly obvious to me that neither of them are in the least arbitrary: both are necessary for the child to have ever come into existence, so both of them are perfectly valid things to consider when determining custody.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Paladin wrote:
    DNA is a pretty arbitrary value for determining personal rights

    Exactly.

    It is however the only factor we have at the point where the child is born. Oxygen is a pretty lousy gas to breathe, free radicals make you age and give you cancer, but its not like we have a choice! Would you really prefer all babies be adopted by the state at birth and distributed based on the moral calibre of the adoptive parents? I wont bring up any other regimes that have tried out this idea, but trust me, it doesnt work out well for anyone.

    Other factors can remove the rights given to you by the child being yours (rape, you consented to give up the child, you are an absolute phsychopath who couldnt raise a child), none of those factors have been mentioned in the case.

    The right of the woman to protect her own body by keeping an abortion secret, does not (or at least should not) extend to blocking the father from the entire process of being a parent if that is the way she decides to go.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    tbloxham wrote:
    Im so disgusted by this Im having difficulty forming a coherant post about it, so forgive me for this rather disjointed post.

    This is the most disgusting legal decision I have ever seen taken. The father wants to take care of the child! He wants to raise his son/daughter for gods sake, and the court says that he can't because the mother already put it up for adoption?? Without him knowing!! Did he rape the woman? Did he force her to have the baby?

    The courts can take children away from their parents now without the parents having done anything wrong! Based on the fact that other people might be better parents? Well, we'd better get out there and take all the babies away from mentally handicapped patients, and the poor. Those miserable scum wont be able to raise them properly.

    And to deny him the right to raise his kid based on the secure financial situation of the adoptive parents, and then force him to pay child support and prevent him seeing the child for a year? Thats just vindictive.

    "No sir, you are too poor to care for a child, even if you want to. However you must pay crippling child support payments for a child you arent even allowed to see."

    This is horrifying. Social engineering at its worst and a step backwards in the rights of fathers everywhere. Imagine if this had been the mother somehow wanting a baby back that had been adopted against her will, the country would be up in arms.

    I agree with you in spirit, but there has to be some sort of "what's done is done" sensibility nevertheless. The point about forming bonds and such is very valid. The child has two parents who have been raising it for months. The rights of the father, unfortunately, aren't the primary consideration. Which means, yeah, a parent can get totally screwed now and then. The decision acknowledges that. You comparison to taking babies from poor people or whatever is the exact opposite of that.

    If you're going to fuck a girl without a condom, you are, by the very nature of performing the act, accepting the risk that she'll get pregnant and not tell you and give up the baby and you won't be able to get the baby. As long as you know that, then really no one is getting screwed here.

    But child support, yeah that's stupid. If the court isn't recognizing him as ever legally being the father, then the question of child support has already been answered.

    Yar on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    if men don't have legal rights I don't think they should have legal obligations

    nexuscrawler on
  • fjafjanfjafjan Registered User
    edited January 2007
    If you're going to fuck a girl without a condom, you are, by the very nature of performing the act, accepting the risk that she'll get pregnant and not tell you and give up the baby and you won't be able to get the baby. As long as you know that, then really no one is getting screwed here.

    Why exactly so?
    The way I see it the baby, once decided by the mother to be born, as much the fathers as the mother. If the mother wants to in this case give it up, then the father should still be able to keep it. If the father doesn't want it, then the mother should be able to keep it. I don't see why the mother has the right to remove the fathers right to be a father. It assumes that mothers somehow have monopoly on kids, which is completely unfair. What if they had been married, would that change the situation for you, or can the mother simply do whatever and father has no say?

    fjafjan on
    Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
    - "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
  • itylusitylus Registered User
    edited January 2007
    The guardians had already given the baby their surname and were seeking child-support payments from the father.

    Note that they're seeking them, they haven't actually been awarded them.

    I think probably the judge might have been more inclined to rule in the biological father's favour if it weren't for the fact that he has a history of breaking the law, being an alcoholic, and also, he has other children by other women... although we don't know much about the details there.


    Ultimately I think you just have to do what's best for the baby, but other things being equal, then, yeah, I do think the biological father ought to have some kind of priority over some random couple.

    itylus on
  • RedShellRedShell Registered User
    edited January 2007
    If the best interests of the child were really being considered, the child would end up with the biological father by the end of the day. Because children want to live with their biological parents. If this guy is remotely capable of raising a kid (and the fact that he wants to seems good enough for me), his child will be infinitely happier with one biological parent instead of none.

    RedShell on
    Homing In Imperfectly?
    Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    If she didn't decide to put the baby up for adoption would he still have been denied joint or full custody? It sucks, but some people aren't fit to be parents, and the mother knew that she wasn't fit, and the courts determined that the father wasn't fit. It seems that its the timing that makes this an issue.

    But it seems ridiculous to me that someone could potentially hide a pregnancy and birth from the father/spouse and put the baby up for adoption and de facto give up the other person's rights. I'd probably go nuts if something like this happened to me.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Paladin wrote:
    DNA is a pretty arbitrary value for determining personal rights

    I disagree. Owning that which you create (or at least having rights regarding it (and yes, I realize it's a human being, but that's not the point here) is one of the most fundamental principles of basic property rights.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    If the best interests of the child were really being considered, the child would end up with the biological father by the end of the day. Because children want to live with their biological parents. If this guy is remotely capable of raising a kid (and the fact that he wants to seems good enough for me), his child will be infinitely happier with one biological parent instead of none.

    In the long run, I'd say it's likely the kid will be better off with two parents than one, regardless of biology. Especially given that apparently the adoptive parents are financially secure, and not alcoholics.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2007
    Paladin wrote:
    DNA is a pretty arbitrary value for determining personal rights

    Exactly.

    I move we take away the children of everyone under the poverty line and redistribute them.

    Which is to say, DNA may be arbitrary, but how much to we want to expand the power of the government over who is raised by who?

    Shinto on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Shinto wrote:
    Paladin wrote:
    DNA is a pretty arbitrary value for determining personal rights

    Exactly.

    I move we take away the children of everyone under the poverty line and redistribute them.

    Last week on 20/20 Diane Sawyer followed around 3 or so kids in Camden, NJ that were stuck with parents who couldn't or wouldn't get their lives together. DYFUS(?) should probably have taken those kids away and given them a better life, but we live in America so you have the right to ruin your kids' lives with drugs and alcohol as you see fit unless they catch you.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    We should also take into account that the baby had been with the adoptive parents for months at that point. If the judge had ruled for the father, he would in effect had taken a kid out of one family and given him to another. Should this be allowed? Up to when? If the judge can move a kid a few months old between families, what about a 1 year old? What about a 5 year old?

    Note that this question is in regard to the case where both families provide a healthy growing-up environment. I'm all for taking kids out of the care of druged-up, alcoholic, abusive parents.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • RedShellRedShell Registered User
    edited January 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    If the best interests of the child were really being considered, the child would end up with the biological father by the end of the day. Because children want to live with their biological parents. If this guy is remotely capable of raising a kid (and the fact that he wants to seems good enough for me), his child will be infinitely happier with one biological parent instead of none.

    In the long run, I'd say it's likely the kid will be better off with two parents than one, regardless of biology. Especially given that apparently the adoptive parents are financially secure, and not alcoholics.

    I really, really, really disagree.

    Adoption, in many ways, does not work. We've been sold on it because of abortion politics and because it's certainly a lot better than someone ending up in an orphanage. Someone is calling someone else an alcoholic, but there's no real reason to believe it. Those are the kinds of charges that always get thrown around in custody battles because most adults drink.

    There is no substitute for biology. None. Adopted children frequently feel too guilty to say this out loud, but they overwhelmingly wish they could have grown up with their real families. It's not the adoptive family's fault, of course, but that's how people are. We want our real families.

    In some cases that obviously isn't going to be possible. But in every case where it is possible (and this one obviously fits), it's a lie to say that anyone here is working in the best interest of the child -- they're working in the best interests of the adoptive parents, who want guarantees that the child is theirs. I don't blame them. But let's not be confused about who the state is protecting here.

    Most adopted kids make contact with their biologicals. Most desperately need to. There are real, hardwired, human being issues here that don't go away.

    RedShell on
    Homing In Imperfectly?
    Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    If the best interests of the child were really being considered, the child would end up with the biological father by the end of the day. Because children want to live with their biological parents. If this guy is remotely capable of raising a kid (and the fact that he wants to seems good enough for me), his child will be infinitely happier with one biological parent instead of none.

    In the long run, I'd say it's likely the kid will be better off with two parents than one, regardless of biology. Especially given that apparently the adoptive parents are financially secure, and not alcoholics.

    I really, really, really disagree.

    Adoption, in many ways, does not work. We've been sold on it because of abortion politics and because it's certainly a lot better than someone ending up in an orphanage. Someone is calling someone else an alcoholic, but there's no real reason to believe it. Those are the kinds of charges that always get thrown around in custody battles because most adults drink.

    There is no substitute for biology. None. Adopted children frequently feel too guilty to say this out loud, but they overwhelmingly wish they could have grown up with their real families. It's not the adoptive family's fault, of course, but that's how people are. We want our real families.

    In some cases that obviously isn't going to be possible. But in every case where it is possible (and this one obviously fits), it's a lie to say that anyone here is working in the best interest of the child -- they're working in the best interests of the adoptive parents, who want guarantees that the child is theirs. I don't blame them. But let's not be confused about who the state is protecting here.

    Most adopted kids make contact with their biologicals. Most desperately need to. There are real, hardwired, human being issues here that don't go away.

    Whether there's that need, later in life, or not, I don't think you can categorically say that someone would have had the same quality of life with a single, potentially shitty parent, rather than two parents who (at least as far as this article suggests) are well-suited to parenthood.

    I don't deny that the biological connection is important, I just don't believe it trumps the importance of a healthy home life while growing up.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Surely they could at least allow the father to go through the same screening process as potential adoptive parents have to? Then they'd know the father was a responsible parent with at least the same degree of confidence they know this about adoptive parents?

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote:
    Surely they could at least allow the father to go through the same screening process as potential adoptive parents have to? Then they'd know the father was a responsible parent with at least the same degree of confidence they know this about adoptive parents?

    Yeah, that'd be a nice thought. I think this situation is ten kinds of fucked up, I'm only arguing in favor of not simply going with biology with no questions, as it seemed some were suggesting.

    This case in particular, I'd argue, has been decided incorrectly at just about every level.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote:
    Surely they could at least allow the father to go through the same screening process as potential adoptive parents have to? Then they'd know the father was a responsible parent with at least the same degree of confidence they know this about adoptive parents?

    Yeah, that'd be a nice thought. I think this situation is ten kinds of fucked up, I'm only arguing in favor of not simply going with biology with no questions, as it seemed some were suggesting.

    This case in particular, I'd argue, has been decided incorrectly at just about every level.

    But there was a court case, and presumable they found him unfit. Its just that in this case the other party is the adoptive parents as opposed to the birth mother. No doubt it was underhanded on the biological mother's part and the adoptive parents shouldn't be able to sue for child support, it sounds like the judge used SOP for a case that it totally out of the norm.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    There is no substitute for biology. None. Adopted children frequently feel too guilty to say this out loud, but they overwhelmingly wish they could have grown up with their real families. It's not the adoptive family's fault, of course, but that's how people are. We want our real families.

    This is your opinion and that of how many other adopted children that you have spoken to?

    Shinto on
  • Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Malkor wrote:
    Paul_IQ164 wrote:
    Surely they could at least allow the father to go through the same screening process as potential adoptive parents have to? Then they'd know the father was a responsible parent with at least the same degree of confidence they know this about adoptive parents?

    Yeah, that'd be a nice thought. I think this situation is ten kinds of fucked up, I'm only arguing in favor of not simply going with biology with no questions, as it seemed some were suggesting.

    This case in particular, I'd argue, has been decided incorrectly at just about every level.

    But there was a court case, and presumable they found him unfit. Its just that in this case the other party is the adoptive parents as opposed to the birth mother. No doubt it was underhanded on the biological mother's part and the adoptive parents shouldn't be able to sue for child support, it sounds like the judge used SOP for a case that it totally out of the norm.
    The article doesn't seem to imply that the father was found to be unfit to be a parent at all. If that were the case, there wouldn't really be much to discuss.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Shinto wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    There is no substitute for biology. None. Adopted children frequently feel too guilty to say this out loud, but they overwhelmingly wish they could have grown up with their real families. It's not the adoptive family's fault, of course, but that's how people are. We want our real families.

    This is your opinion and that of how many other adopted children that you have spoken to?

    I slightly more intrested in why. Honestly, it seems like an artifical standard. Adopted kids, like everyone else, just want to be normal. Being adopted makes them feel diffrent, but if it was more... socially acceptable? I doubt that feeling would be so prevalent.

    Really, I don't see much value in looking like your parents. It is not like they will love you any more or less, or raise you less well, it is just that there are a few thousand years of social precident of folks raising thier own kids.

    We can't even get over gender roles, and that is shit everyone has to deal with, but objectively it really seems pretty silly to me.

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote:
    Malkor wrote:
    Paul_IQ164 wrote:
    Surely they could at least allow the father to go through the same screening process as potential adoptive parents have to? Then they'd know the father was a responsible parent with at least the same degree of confidence they know this about adoptive parents?

    Yeah, that'd be a nice thought. I think this situation is ten kinds of fucked up, I'm only arguing in favor of not simply going with biology with no questions, as it seemed some were suggesting.

    This case in particular, I'd argue, has been decided incorrectly at just about every level.

    But there was a court case, and presumable they found him unfit. Its just that in this case the other party is the adoptive parents as opposed to the birth mother. No doubt it was underhanded on the biological mother's part and the adoptive parents shouldn't be able to sue for child support, it sounds like the judge used SOP for a case that it totally out of the norm.
    The article doesn't seem to imply that the father was found to be unfit to be a parent at all. If that were the case, there wouldn't really be much to discuss.
    ..the two are financially secure and educated, and could offer the baby better opportunities.

    He also reminded the court about some of the negative aspects raised against the father and his fiancee during the trial. Both have experienced alcoholism, several failed relationships and unlawful conduct. The man also has other children by previous relationships, court heard.

    Maybe not unfit, but they looked at his life and looked at their life and decided thay the baby should be with the adoptive couple.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • ZekZek Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    RedShell wrote:
    If the best interests of the child were really being considered, the child would end up with the biological father by the end of the day. Because children want to live with their biological parents. If this guy is remotely capable of raising a kid (and the fact that he wants to seems good enough for me), his child will be infinitely happier with one biological parent instead of none.

    In the long run, I'd say it's likely the kid will be better off with two parents than one, regardless of biology. Especially given that apparently the adoptive parents are financially secure, and not alcoholics.

    I really, really, really disagree.

    Adoption, in many ways, does not work. We've been sold on it because of abortion politics and because it's certainly a lot better than someone ending up in an orphanage. Someone is calling someone else an alcoholic, but there's no real reason to believe it. Those are the kinds of charges that always get thrown around in custody battles because most adults drink.

    There is no substitute for biology. None. Adopted children frequently feel too guilty to say this out loud, but they overwhelmingly wish they could have grown up with their real families. It's not the adoptive family's fault, of course, but that's how people are. We want our real families.

    In some cases that obviously isn't going to be possible. But in every case where it is possible (and this one obviously fits), it's a lie to say that anyone here is working in the best interest of the child -- they're working in the best interests of the adoptive parents, who want guarantees that the child is theirs. I don't blame them. But let's not be confused about who the state is protecting here.

    Most adopted kids make contact with their biologicals. Most desperately need to. There are real, hardwired, human being issues here that don't go away.
    I think this is absolutely absurd. On what basis are you making this claim? Is there a scientific study supporting your assertion that humans derive such happiness simply from being raised by biological parents that it overrules any and all concerns about how good they may actually be at parenting? I will acknowledge that many adopted children feel a desire to learn about their biological parents upon learning that they don't know them, though I'm dubious of your claim that this desire is "hardwired" and not societal, but to stretch this to claim that adopted families are so completely ineffective that a child is better off with a biological parent in the most unstable of situations than a happy adopted home is ridiculous. I don't know if you have a personal interest in this issue or what, but your position is way too extreme. Do you really believe that the quality of a child's upbringing is of absolutely no importance compared to the "Yes" or "No" answer to the question of whether or not they're with their biological parents?

    Zek on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2007
    The baby would not have been seriously adversely affected by being transplanted to the father's custody after a few months. Kids are ridiculously resilient, and he (she? whatever) would've been pissy for a couple weeks and then gotten over it, and would've begun bonding with the father. This was a stupid, stupid decision that seriously violated the rights of the biological father.

    In general, though, I wouldn't go about crafting a bunch of laws to protect against it. Issues surrounding child care are so varied that the most sensible thing to do is create a system in which each case can be decided upon individually by a competent judge. Which is more or less what happened here, except for the part about the judge being competent.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. I hope the kid grows up demanding that his father reclaim custody.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Finding out you're adopted 16+ years into life will definitely have a dentrimental effect on your well being, but people who know they are adopted from an early age usually deal with it well. Being curious about your family happens to kids even if they're not adopted.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Shinto wrote:
    Paladin wrote:
    DNA is a pretty arbitrary value for determining personal rights

    Exactly.

    I move we take away the children of everyone under the poverty line and redistribute them.

    Which is to say, DNA may be arbitrary, but how much to we want to expand the power of the government over who is raised by who?

    I'm not talking about the government. I'm saying that the mother should be the arbiter of who the kid is raised by.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • BallmanBallman Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I'm curious about something. I don't mean to derail, but I don't think it needs a topic of its own. For those of you that might have had experiences with adoption/foster families/division of family services in the US, what did you think of it? It doesn't have to be you involved personally, but maybe you know someone who dealt with them, adopted children, or took foster kids.

    I know it's just anecdotal evidence, but I want to get a feel for people's attitudes toward this system in general.

    Ballman on
    JC of DI wrote:
    Mr. G wrote: »
    So, there's a video of Kurt Cobain in [Guitar Hero 5] out. I feel dirty watching this, he just looks wrong.

    Well Cobain's mo-cap session was completely useless, so you can't blame them.
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    RedShell wrote:
    Most adopted kids make contact with their biologicals. Most desperately need to. There are real, hardwired, human being issues here that don't go away.

    Like everybody else said you need to back that shit up. My own experiences have indicated the exact opposite of what you state. A good friend of mine is adopted and doesn't give a shit about his biological parents in the slightest. Once his parents got their medical records his interest in them ended.

    He has the amazing idea that it's the people who raised and loved you that matter. Even if you disagree with those who raised you the random people who created you then gave you away will not magically bring joy to your life and quite likely have no where near the same level of understanding of you.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2007
    I'm not talking about the government. I'm saying that the mother should be the arbiter of who the kid is raised by.

    Is there a limitation on that? Can my wife decide that Maddie should be taken away from me and raised by carnies?

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    fjafjan wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    If you're going to fuck a girl without a condom, you are, by the very nature of performing the act, accepting the risk that she'll get pregnant and not tell you and give up the baby and you won't be able to get the baby.
    Why exactly so?
    Because of reality. Because doing so eliminates the problem. Because you have a choice at some point in this matter.
    fjafjan wrote:
    The way I see it the baby, once decided by the mother to be born, as much the fathers as the mother. If the mother wants to in this case give it up, then the father should still be able to keep it.
    That's all great. 1) I said you accept the risk. I didn't say the outcome is always going to be the best for you, I'm just saying that by sleeping with her you accept the risk. It's how reality operates. 2) If the baby is already with other parents, it's too late for the father to want it. Yes, even if he never knew about it. The risk he took turned out poorly for him.
    fjafjan wrote:
    I don't see why the mother has the right to remove the fathers right to be a father. It assumes that mothers somehow have monopoly on kids, which is completely unfair. What if they had been married, would that change the situation for you, or can the mother simply do whatever and father has no say?
    She doesn't have the right to do it, but it might happen. You don't screw over an innocent baby in order to acknowledge someone else's already-infringed rights. If he's married to her, and she does that, then his marriage is a serious clusterfuck and he his half responsible for that, too.
    RedShell wrote:
    If the best interests of the child were really being considered, the child would end up with the biological father by the end of the day. Because children want to live with their biological parents. If this guy is remotely capable of raising a kid (and the fact that he wants to seems good enough for me), his child will be infinitely happier with one biological parent instead of none.
    Your "bio is better" principle is a valid principle which the laws respects in spades. But you are utterly failing to convince anyone here that this principle must be followed absolutely without exception. There are exceptions. Many of them. This is one of them.
    I disagree. Owning that which you create (or at least having rights regarding it (and yes, I realize it's a human being, but that's not the point here) is one of the most fundamental principles of basic property rights.
    But not owning a human being is an even more fundamental moral concept than are property rights, so that is the point. I think it's fairly understandable that property rights are what is really not the point here.
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Can my wife decide that Maddie should be taken away from me and raised by carnies?
    I second her motion. Think of all the cool skills Maddie will learn.

    Yar on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    I'm not talking about the government. I'm saying that the mother should be the arbiter of who the kid is raised by.

    Is there a limitation on that? Can my wife decide that Maddie should be taken away from me and raised by carnies?

    Hence my original notion:
    Wouldn't some sort of legally binding contract be appropriate for fixing problems like this? Like, if two people don't have a marriage or civil union, while one of them is pregnant, they just legally establish that the non-pregnant person has responsibilities towards the pregnancy and/or future kid (or the person rejects the contract, and everyone knows where they stand)?

    Considering such an idea is not in place (I don't think), post birth, I'd suggest that whatever the situation was at the time of birth should be the defining factor. That is, if you were sharing custody at that time, the only way either of you could lose custody is via the courts. If you weren't there/were unaware in the first place, you have no responsibilities towards the kid. You should expect no unwanted bills in relation to the kid, and you have no right to have custody of the kid unless the mother agrees to it.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2007
    Yar wrote:
    But not owning a human being is an even more fundamental moral concept than are property rights, so that is the point. I think it's fairly understandable that property rights are what is really not the point here.

    The line becomes somewhat blurry when we're talking about infants, though. They aren't capable of caring for themselves, and so they need caregivers. While "ownership" may be a crass way of describing that relationship, it's not wholly inaccurate. I think it's pretty clear that there are criteria other than "what is best for the child", which is why we don't just snatch up all the babies born in the ghetto and give them to nice, upper-class families. There is an understanding that if you took part in creating that kid, you have some rights. They don't trump the rights of the child, no, but in many cases it doesn't much come down to what's best for the child, as in the specific case we're discussing here. There's no reason to believe the father wouldn't have been a good parent. The decision to award the kid to random people over the biological father was based on the fact that the mom signed a contract.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I'm not seeing anything that says how long the child was in the couple's custody before he sought custody, only that when he did, the contract for adoption between the mother and the couple was viewed as binding. I am not certain about Canadian contract law, but in the US, I am fairly certain that something like that would void the contract.

    Knuckle Dragger on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    The line becomes somewhat blurry when we're talking about infants, though. They aren't capable of caring for themselves, and so they need caregivers. While "ownership" may be a crass way of describing that relationship, it's not wholly inaccurate. I think it's pretty clear that there are criteria other than "what is best for the child", which is why we don't just snatch up all the babies born in the ghetto and give them to nice, upper-class families. There is an understanding that if you took part in creating that kid, you have some rights. They don't trump the rights of the child, no, but in many cases it doesn't much come down to what's best for the child, as in the specific case we're discussing here. There's no reason to believe the father wouldn't have been a good parent. The decision to award the kid to random people over the biological father was based on the fact that the mom signed a contract.
    I'm not disputing any of that. Vinnie was specifically appealing to property rights and a specific aspect of property rights. And I fully recognize (as do the courts) that biology is the default determination factor. The "what's best for the child" is only when there is serious and substantial challenge in a specific case to the value of the biology. It is not the blanket public strategy.

    Yar on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2007
    Considering such an idea is not in place (I don't think), post birth, I'd suggest that whatever the situation was at the time of birth should be the defining factor. That is, if you were sharing custody at that time, the only way either of you could lose custody is via the courts. If you weren't there/were unaware in the first place, you have no responsibilities towards the kid. You should expect no unwanted bills in relation to the kid, and you have no right to have custody of the kid unless the mother agrees to it.

    I appreciate the symmetry in that proposition, which is a damned sight better than the current status quo of "dad has no custody rights and also has to pay child support on demand", but I still feel the father should have some rights, here. Look at it from the parents' point of view for a second.

    Adoptive parents have no bond with this child, pre-birth. They may like the idea that there's going to be a kid running around, but that's about the extent of it. For a biological parent, either mother or father, there's the potential for a tremendous bond simply because that future being shares his genetic material. Denying a couple of random people off the street the right to adopt some kid they've never met will make them sad for a little while. Denying the biological father the right to raise his own child will affect him for his entire life. Isn't that, there, sufficient reason to err on the side of biology in cases like these? Sure, if one group can offer a dramatically superior life for the child, we might want to defer to them, but in cases like this one, where both parties could probably do a good job, why do we want to make one guy unhappy for life as opposed to making a couple people sad for a little while?

    And so I'd rather do more or less the opposite of what you propose. Make child support mandatory, even if the father doesn't know about the kid (but only if the child is being raise by a single parent), but make sure he's given the option to raise it or be a part of its life.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • FunkyWaltDoggFunkyWaltDogg Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    In general, though, I wouldn't go about crafting a bunch of laws to protect against it. Issues surrounding child care are so varied that the most sensible thing to do is create a system in which each case can be decided upon individually by a competent judge.

    I'm glad I read this before I posted my comment, because it would have been pretty much identical.

    FunkyWaltDogg on
    Burnage wrote:
    FWD is very good at this game.
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    I'm not talking about the government. I'm saying that the mother should be the arbiter of who the kid is raised by.

    Is there a limitation on that? Can my wife decide that Maddie should be taken away from me and raised by carnies?

    Hence my original notion:
    Wouldn't some sort of legally binding contract be appropriate for fixing problems like this? Like, if two people don't have a marriage or civil union, while one of them is pregnant, they just legally establish that the non-pregnant person has responsibilities towards the pregnancy and/or future kid (or the person rejects the contract, and everyone knows where they stand)?

    Considering such an idea is not in place (I don't think), post birth, I'd suggest that whatever the situation was at the time of birth should be the defining factor. That is, if you were sharing custody at that time, the only way either of you could lose custody is via the courts. If you weren't there/were unaware in the first place, you have no responsibilities towards the kid. You should expect no unwanted bills in relation to the kid, and you have no right to have custody of the kid unless the mother agrees to it.

    I more or less agreed with this situation back in the original debate. The problem is what happens if the two people ARE in a serious relationship, so you are both aware of the kid and actively supporting the pregnant mother with the assumption of raising the child post-birth, and the mother secretly puts the child up for adoption anyway? Barring marriage or some other pre-established legal contract, how would the adoption center even know the father existed? I mean, obviously some father existed, but even without the rape/abuse argument, the mother could simply say she doesn't know who the father is or have anyway way of contacting him. Since this will likely be true in many cases, if not the majority, they can't really legally bar all women from entering adoption proceedings until they find the father.

    Which brings up the other half of this dispute. What happens when the father learns about the adoption plans anyway and then sues for custody? Presumably, this shouldn't be a problem in most cases if a family hasn't been found yet, but what about when the adopting family is legally established, but the child isn't yet born and thus in their custody? And if we do extend to post-birth, as Jeffe suggests, when is the limit? I can see his point that a nine-month infant won't have any major problems with the change of custody, but what about a two year old? A five year old? A teenager?

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2007
    I'm not seeing anything that says how long the child was in the couple's custody before he sought custody, only that when he did, the contract for adoption between the mother and the couple was viewed as binding. I am not certain about Canadian contract law, but in the US, I am fairly certain that something like that would void the contract.

    The way it was all phrased made it sound like he found out about it prior to the birth, and sought custody, but by the time it was all resolved, the kid had been with the family for several months. Just my interpretation.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Considering such an idea is not in place (I don't think), post birth, I'd suggest that whatever the situation was at the time of birth should be the defining factor. That is, if you were sharing custody at that time, the only way either of you could lose custody is via the courts. If you weren't there/were unaware in the first place, you have no responsibilities towards the kid. You should expect no unwanted bills in relation to the kid, and you have no right to have custody of the kid unless the mother agrees to it.

    I appreciate the symmetry in that proposition, which is a damned sight better than the current status quo of "dad has no custody rights and also has to pay child support on demand", but I still feel the father should have some rights, here. Look at it from the parents' point of view for a second.

    Adoptive parents have no bond with this child, pre-birth. They may like the idea that there's going to be a kid running around, but that's about the extent of it. For a biological parent, either mother or father, there's the potential for a tremendous bond simply because that future being shares his genetic material. Denying a couple of random people off the street the right to adopt some kid they've never met will make them sad for a little while. Denying the biological father the right to raise his own child will affect him for his entire life. Isn't that, there, sufficient reason to err on the side of biology in cases like these? Sure, if one group can offer a dramatically superior life for the child, we might want to defer to them, but in cases like this one, where both parties could probably do a good job, why do we want to make one guy unhappy for life as opposed to making a couple people sad for a little while?

    And so I'd rather do more or less the opposite of what you propose. Make child support mandatory, even if the father doesn't know about the kid (but only if the child is being raise by a single parent), but make sure he's given the option to raise it or be a part of its life.

    I feel that the mother should be the determiner of what happens to the kid because she goes through the effort of having it in the first place. If the father is not there (not supportive, rather), or unaware, he has put in no effort towards having some claim to the kid.

    Similarly, if a man doesn't want to have kids and the woman does, I see no reason to force the issue on him. If the woman is irresponsible (or dispassionate towards the man's wishes) and doesn't take her birth control, the onus is on her to have the kid or not, and the man should not be at her mercy.

    I also feel that biological fathers, in all likelihood bearing some semblance to a mature adult, can get over not raising a kid that shares his DNA. Sperm banks are not fonts of male anguish. Rather, I think the stronger bond is with the mother who carries the kid to term. I feel she should have the preponderance of rights in this matter.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    (I'm a little late)
    tbloxham wrote:
    You cant have it both ways, demand that mothers have full rights to control over the pregnancy and give them total control over the rights of the child and force fathers to pay child support. If the father has no rights to the child, then he cannot morally be asked to support it. The concept of child support is an admission that after birth both parents have equal rights and responsibilities in the childs life, this case sets the precedent that fathers have only a financial responsibility, with no parental rights.

    Let's just state now, and get it out of the way (which I thought others had) that pretty much everyone agrees that the child support thing is bull. So please, stop acting like people who are for the adoptive parents' rights are also for the biological father paying child support. They aren't.
    tbloxham wrote:
    I dont understand how you cant see that someone who isnt allowed to raise their own child is going to suffer in this situation. He wont be less miserable because he is a man, noone would argue if a woman said "my baby is important to me" immediately after it was born. I mean, wheres the logic, she doesnt know the child. She's never interacted with it before, it doesnt know who she is. Yet noone would disagree with her, and rightly so. Whereas a man cant say the same, or at least this is what this case states.

    I think you greatly underestimate the bonding that occurs between a mother and a child in her womb. I've never been a mother, and it's not true for all mothers (clearly), but many women note an emotional bond with their child that forms from carrying it within their body for nine months. It's why women who have given their child up for adoption before birth sometimes decide to keep the child once it's been born (causing yet more troubles). Please, don't say that the mother and a non-present father have the same feelings towards newborn children.

    Sheri on
Sign In or Register to comment.