There is no biological bond from the father that the father himself does not create, and therefore there is no loss when the father does not ever find out he has fathered the child.
Also, for all of you who keep coming up with the anecdotes, I'm still not convinced that these scenarios are so widespread that it constitutes compelling interest to create a federal program which will be forced -- because we cannot trust the mother's judgment, and the father's rights must be attended to -- to discern to the best of the state's ability the biological father of every child where it is an unknown variable.
Do you know how much this will cost, and how small a subset will likely fall into the subsets you guys bring up, and also be capable parents that will provide a better life for themselves and the child, and also how will the government stop the fact women will just start reporting known parties as the father so that they can illegitimately 'bow out' of fatherhood so the child can be put up for adoption?
First person to say, "Well, we'll also mandate DNA tests for the person claiming to be the father!" loses.
By, the father himself creates it, I assume you mean the unconscious process which says in his mind "hey, I'm going to be a father!" and if he's a pretty decent kind of guy, and is ready for fatherhood, he'll have every right to be a part of that child's life, ESPECIALLY if the mother doesn't want it!
And who cares whether the father creates it, or how weak the biological bond between a father and child is (I'm still not totally sold on that idea)? Its still going to be stronger than anything an adoptive father will feel, because really, he's still going to know he's not the real father.
So, being told that you are the real father creates a bond which is in all situations stronger than someone who has gone through a rigorous state-mandated process in order to become an approved adoptive father?
Do people not understand what I am saying here? Is there some sort of unseen noise in my posts that is obscuring my signal? Do I need a better broadcasting array?
No, but,
good father + biological bond (however weak) is going to be stronger than just the fact of being a good father.
Prove it. I've yet to see any evidence that a "biological bond" actually matters outside of (very weak to begin with) bullshit social stigma.
Fine. Biological bonds don't matter?
If Woman X gets pregnant, pick some random drunk hobo woman off the street to decide what gets done with Woman X's baby.
If you think it's worth it, feel free to subsidize the cost personally or develop the methods by which it becomes financially feasible. Please, stop riddling the messenger full of bullets.
See, this is why I feel, in this situation, sentimentality overrules economics. Allowing logic to bow out for a while so that some kids can know their fathers doesn't sound all that bad, does it? Yes, taxpayers pay a bit more, but it's so that some children get the chance to know their fathers, and some fathers get the chance to know their children.
The most cost-effective option - which is to do nothing toward bringing parent and child together - doesn't have to be the right one, Oboro. Wouldn't you want a tiny fraction of your tax money to go towards bringing a kid closer to his dad?
Wait, why are people letting adoption somehow be the universally most cost effective solution without any proof? Adoption costs are certainly non-trivial, and run into the several thousands per child (within the US, if we're talking international it's several tens of thousands). Contacting a known father, as is the case in certainly a non-insignificant percent of cases and I'd say the majority, is free and transferring custody between biological parents is a nominal fee, certainly not in the thousands.
So, explain to me again how it's more financially responsible to support adoption over a known but uninformed father?
If you think it's worth it, feel free to subsidize the cost personally or develop the methods by which it becomes financially feasible. Please, stop riddling the messenger full of bullets.
See, this is why I feel, in this situation, sentimentality overrules economics. Allowing logic to bow out for a while so that some kids can know their fathers doesn't sound all that bad, does it? Yes, taxpayers pay a bit more, but it's so that some children get the chance to know their fathers, and some fathers get the chance to know their children.
The most cost-effective option - which is to do nothing toward bringing parent and child together - doesn't have to be the right one, Oboro. Wouldn't you want a tiny fraction of your tax money to go towards bringing a kid closer to his dad?
Wait, why are people letting adoption somehow be the universally most cost effective solution without any proof? Adoption costs are certainly non-trivial, and run into the several thousands per child (within the US, if we're talking international it's several tens of thousands). Contacting a known father, as is the case in certainly a non-insignificant percent of cases and I'd say the majority, is free and transferring custody between biological parents is a nominal fee, certainly not in the thousands.
So, explain to me again how it's more financially responsible to support adoption over a known but uninformed father?
I NEVER FUCKING SAID THIS READ MY FUCKING POSTS JESUS CHRIST
A bond between a father and his child is a stigma?
I think the bond of the child to the father is the greater issue here. The father knows why his child doesn't live with him, the kid on the other hand is completely in the dark.
I disagree with your claim that contacting the father when they are known as is the situation in the court case here is somehow more costly that the entire adoption process because we already have an adoption process and I'M the one appealing to magic?
And you're right, contacting a known individual in the 6 months between clear signs of pregnancy and delivery (the legal period up to which adoption proceedings can be terminated by the biological parents) is an unfair constraint. And then you wonder why people are claiming you are advocating complete abrogation of the parental rights of the father.
Okay, in light of this specific example at odds with everything I have been talking about in the past several pages, sure. And, in all instances like it, sure. When you have the father's identity in those six intervening months and it's as simple as picking up a telephone, alright. This is fine.
Go ahead and protect those rights, but your legislation better have a stipulation that only known fathers will be contacted because otherwise, again, you run into nigh-insurmountable issues of logistics.
And I would argue that there needs to be some effort when the father is unknown but findable with a nominal amount of effort, but if this is where you are we're basically in agreement.
Basically, once we move beyond "Fuck the dad, momma knows best" which no few people have supported, I'm basically ok. It's just the people that blightly write off the father that make my skin crawl, perhaps leading to a too vehement rebuttal.
werehippy on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited November 2007
I think its very interesting to see the lack of response after the idiocy of this comment by Daedalus was shot down.
Prove it. I've yet to see any evidence that a "biological bond" actually matters outside of (very weak to begin with) bullshit social stigma.
What's that sound? thats your credibility, and its running like fuck
Eh, I thought Daedalus' comment was pretty reasonable. I've seen biological parents abandon their babies and I've seen biological parents who abuse their children. And I've known adoptive parents who come in and for all intents and purposes clean up the sperm/egg donor's mess for no better reason than they love the child in question. I don't see how some intangible, capricious "biological bond" should have any social or legal sway, except when it happens to express itself in tangible, consistent nurturing behavior.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Slight tangent: At what age is a person mature enough to realize their birth parents are scum and it doesn't matter that their birth parents don't love them?
good father + biological bond (however weak) is going to be stronger than just the fact of being a good father.
Let me get this straight. What you're saying here is that, all other circumstances being equal, an adoptive parent, a foster parent, or a step-parent doesn't love their child as much as a real parent does. Right?
And what makes the biological mother automatically fit to decide whether the biological father or a state-approved foster home is superior?
Whoops, nothing!
Funny that.
Someone has to do it and the state's financial integrity has to be preserved. Find a cost-effective solution which takes the power out of the biological mother's hands and puts it elsewhere and I'll have no objections.
We already have this in place. Biological relationships are given higher status in the law for a reason.
Nevermind the fact that its bullshit that biological mothers are given greater rights and authority over a child than the biological father.
She admittedly does agree that the father shouldn't pay child support if they have no contact, but she also advocates the father having no rights whatsoever unless the mother wants them to.
You'll be able to find a psycho to cover any nightmare scenario you care to construct. What you will fail to do is prove that there's anywhere near enough of them to justify screwing over the vast, vast majority of folk who discharge their familial duties perfectly well.
Nightmare scenario? She's one of the three Court of Appeals judge who issued the verdict that started the entire thread, and this thread is full of people talking about how right she is. Not exactly a statistically rigorous sampling method, but I think we're well past the "this is some crazy fringe thing no one REALLY needs to worry about." An odd position, since this is exactly what you've been arguing for, but mot either way so screw it.
I didn't actually bother reading the link, actually, just assumed Quid had dug up an article on some random child abusing welfare queen. My bad.
good father + biological bond (however weak) is going to be stronger than just the fact of being a good father.
Let me get this straight. What you're saying here is that, all other circumstances being equal, an adoptive parent, a foster parent, or a step-parent doesn't love their child as much as a real parent does. Right?
Exactly. Its basically an appeal to The Magic of Sperm, and an insult to all the adoptive parents, grandparents caring for grandkids, and other non-standard families out there. I don't believe the biological bond trumps, you know, actual care in any case, whether we're talking about dad or mum. If we want to follow Dhalphir's appeal to WA examples there, lets talk about that guy who drowned his three sons on the basis of 'if I can't have them no-one can'. Yeah, he was obviously a superior father to any other male.
good father + biological bond (however weak) is going to be stronger than just the fact of being a good father.
Let me get this straight. What you're saying here is that, all other circumstances being equal, an adoptive parent, a foster parent, or a step-parent doesn't love their child as much as a real parent does. Right?
Exactly. Its basically an appeal to The Magic of Sperm, and an insult to all the adoptive parents, grandparents caring for grandkids, and other non-standard families out there. I don't believe the biological bond trumps, you know, actual care in any case, whether we're talking about dad or mum. If we want to follow Dhalphir's appeal to WA examples there, lets talk about that guy who drowned his three sons on the basis of 'if I can't have them no-one can'. Yeah, he was obviously a superior father to any other male.
All this anecdotal bullshit about biological fathers being bad is irrelevant. Of course there are some bad fathers, there's bad adoptive parents as well as bad mothers. That's not the point. The point is that this decision is defaulting fathers to having no rights, including no right to even the knowledge of the existence of their child except if the mother decides to grant them.
There are definitely cases where the father should be cut out of the situation, but defaulting to the biological father having no rights is ridiculous. Of course there is trouble when the biological father isn't readily apparent, but this ruling doesn't make distinctions based on that.
There are definitely cases where the father should be cut out of the situation, but defaulting to the biological father having no rights is ridiculous. Of course there is trouble when the biological father isn't readily apparent, but this ruling doesn't make distinctions based on that.
This case did not 'default' to the father having no rights! The woman had to pursue a court case to establish that, and it only applies to her situation! I'm no more happy with that one sentence from the judge's decision than anyone else, but where is the horde of angry lawmakers coming to steal your unborn children? I don't see them...
There are definitely cases where the father should be cut out of the situation, but defaulting to the biological father having no rights is ridiculous. Of course there is trouble when the biological father isn't readily apparent, but this ruling doesn't make distinctions based on that.
This case did not 'default' to the father having no rights! The woman had to pursue a court case to establish that, and it only applies to her situation! I'm no more happy with that one sentence from the judge's decision than anyone else, but where is the horde of angry lawmakers coming to steal your unborn children? I don't see them...
As much as I'd like to be done with this topic, this is one last point worth mentioning. I think you are vastly underestimating the power of legal precedence, especially in murky areas like this.
I'd have to look at the full ruling, but the excerpt I read makes it pretty clear this was not a ruling based on any conditions specific exclusively to this case, but a general statement of the legal rights of the father in ALL cases where they are not aware of the pregnancy. There is no need for further legislation to create a condition where the father must now actively pursue the possibility they might have a child to get that information and have any rights at all with regards to the child.
Compounding all that is the state of putting the childs welfare above all other considerations (which is ABSOLUTELY a good thing, it just compounds the impact of this ruling). Once the child is placed with the adoptive family, there is extremely little chance of the father ever being able to regain custody at a later date. The child will have bonded with the adoptive parents, and since this ruling pretty explicitly lays out the fact the father now has no parental right to claim custody if they are unaware of the pregnancy, they would have no recourse in this case.
It's really a mess, and I'm immensely glad that this is UK law, not US. This would be call up my Senator and start spamming every major candidate time if the precedent directly applied to me (though there is the fact international precedent can occasionally apply domestically).
There are definitely cases where the father should be cut out of the situation, but defaulting to the biological father having no rights is ridiculous. Of course there is trouble when the biological father isn't readily apparent, but this ruling doesn't make distinctions based on that.
This case did not 'default' to the father having no rights! The woman had to pursue a court case to establish that, and it only applies to her situation! I'm no more happy with that one sentence from the judge's decision than anyone else, but where is the horde of angry lawmakers coming to steal your unborn children? I don't see them...
Well, unless there is a misunderstanding of this case, it blocked action which could identify other members of the family. Thus, since the father is not granted the right to know the existence of the child, all his other rights in regards to that child are ineffectual. It's not just the father who is cut out either:
The law improves the opportunity of the child of anonymous birth to search out its biological origin. However, the ultimate veto remains with the mother. Registers of information are in place to lead the searching child to the mother's door but the child has no right of entry if the mother, despite counselling, refuses to unlock it.
So unless this is wrong or misleading, the mother is the only member of the biological family with say in granting access to the rest of the family. How could they access their rights if they are blocked from having knowledge of the child?
There are definitely cases where the father should be cut out of the situation, but defaulting to the biological father having no rights is ridiculous. Of course there is trouble when the biological father isn't readily apparent, but this ruling doesn't make distinctions based on that.
This case did not 'default' to the father having no rights! The woman had to pursue a court case to establish that, and it only applies to her situation! I'm no more happy with that one sentence from the judge's decision than anyone else, but where is the horde of angry lawmakers coming to steal your unborn children? I don't see them...
As much as I'd like to be done with this topic, this is one last point worth mentioning. I think you are vastly underestimating the power of legal precedence, especially in murky areas like this.
I'd have to look at the full ruling, but the excerpt I read makes it pretty clear this was not a ruling based on any conditions specific exclusively to this case, but a general statement of the legal rights of the father in ALL cases where they are not aware of the pregnancy. There is no need for further legislation to create a condition where the father must now actively pursue the possibility they might have a child to get that information and have any rights at all with regards to the child.
Compounding all that is the state of putting the childs welfare above all other considerations (which is ABSOLUTELY a good thing, it just compounds the impact of this ruling). Once the child is placed with the adoptive family, there is extremely little chance of the father ever being able to regain custody at a later date. The child will have bonded with the adoptive parents, and since this ruling pretty explicitly lays out the fact the father now has no parental right to claim custody if they are unaware of the pregnancy, they would have no recourse in this case.
It's really a mess, and I'm immensely glad that this is UK law, not US. This would be call up my Senator and start spamming every major candidate time if the precedent directly applied to me (though there is the fact international precedent can occasionally apply domestically).
Frankly, I think you're misreading this case fundamentally. The father is blocked in this case to prevent him making trouble for the adopted family, because the child was already born and adopted out when the original court ordered the mother to tell her own family about it, including the father, if I'm reading the original article correctly. Its a stopgap to repair an already rather fucked situation (what right did the court have to order the woman to tell her own parents about it? She was over 18 when she got pregnant. That's just weird).
good father + biological bond (however weak) is going to be stronger than just the fact of being a good father.
Let me get this straight. What you're saying here is that, all other circumstances being equal, an adoptive parent, a foster parent, or a step-parent doesn't love their child as much as a real parent does. Right?
Exactly. Its basically an appeal to The Magic of Sperm, and an insult to all the adoptive parents, grandparents caring for grandkids, and other non-standard families out there. I don't believe the biological bond trumps, you know, actual care in any case, whether we're talking about dad or mum. If we want to follow Dhalphir's appeal to WA examples there, lets talk about that guy who drowned his three sons on the basis of 'if I can't have them no-one can'. Yeah, he was obviously a superior father to any other male.
Those 'non-standard' families are actually more the norm than they are the exception. Most every other time in recorded history, well, okay, past couple centuries, involved the extended family and/or village as a whole raising the children. The notion of a mom and a dad exclusively raising the kids with grandma and grandpa coming in periodically to dote on them is very much a contrivance of the nuclear age. Non-nuclear family households tend to outnumber the 'traditional' nuclear family structure today, as well. It was an inexplicable blip on the radar. A deviation that was mislabelled as the perfection to be strived for rather than a needlessly insular approach.
good father + biological bond (however weak) is going to be stronger than just the fact of being a good father.
Let me get this straight. What you're saying here is that, all other circumstances being equal, an adoptive parent, a foster parent, or a step-parent doesn't love their child as much as a real parent does. Right?
Exactly. Its basically an appeal to The Magic of Sperm, and an insult to all the adoptive parents, grandparents caring for grandkids, and other non-standard families out there. I don't believe the biological bond trumps, you know, actual care in any case, whether we're talking about dad or mum. If we want to follow Dhalphir's appeal to WA examples there, lets talk about that guy who drowned his three sons on the basis of 'if I can't have them no-one can'. Yeah, he was obviously a superior father to any other male.
Those 'non-standard' families are actually more the norm than they are the exception. Most every other time in recorded history, well, okay, past couple centuries, involved the extended family and/or village as a whole raising the children. The notion of a mom and a dad exclusively raising the kids with grandma and grandpa coming in periodically to dote on them is very much a contrivance of the nuclear age. Non-nuclear family households tend to outnumber the 'traditional' nuclear family structure today, as well. It was an inexplicable blip on the radar. A deviation that was mislabelled as the perfection to be strived for rather than a needlessly insular approach.
You're tellin' me. The rate of post-natal depression is horrible. Mind you, the historical argument has its flaws. The notion of fathers as having any greater involvement with their kids than as a meal-ticket and disciplinarian is also a very new thing, but its something I consider an improvement, and I think the guys in here would be inclined to agree.
This is the main reason why cloning and test tube babies should be the norm. We'd get less of the Man vs Woman wars when neither of them is so focused on creating them and we can propagate the species by developing our own kids. World hunger and Starvation would be eradicated.
And Men should either get equal of more rights than they do now, or they shouldn't have to pay. Regardless of the incubation period, its takes two.
I know you know, it's just a pet peeve of mine and I can't help myself. The 50's sucked and shouldn't be placed on a pedastal. Except for some of the fashion and art, I suppose.
This is the main reason why cloning and test tube babies should be the norm. We'd get less of the Man vs Woman wars when neither of them is so focused on creating them and we can propagate the species by developing our own kids. World hunger and Starvation would be eradicated.
And Men should either get equal of more rights than they do now, or they shouldn't have to pay. Regardless of the incubation period, its takes two.
Does the mother also get to abdicate paying for the diapers and food that the kid goes through like water off a duck's back?
Also, cloning and IVF still requires a woman to carry the fetus to term. It's not like there are artificial wombs sitting around collecting dust.
This is the main reason why cloning and test tube babies should be the norm. We'd get less of the Man vs Woman wars when neither of them is so focused on creating them and we can propagate the species by developing our own kids. World hunger and Starvation would be eradicated.
And Men should either get equal of more rights than they do now, or they shouldn't have to pay. Regardless of the incubation period, its takes two.
Or you could, you know, try working through those vagina dentata issues of yours. Just sayin', it'd probably be cheaper.
This is the main reason why cloning and test tube babies should be the norm. We'd get less of the Man vs Woman wars when neither of them is so focused on creating them and we can propagate the species by developing our own kids. World hunger and Starvation would be eradicated.
And Men should either get equal of more rights than they do now, or they shouldn't have to pay. Regardless of the incubation period, its takes two.
Or you could, you know, try working through those vagina dentata issues of yours. Just sayin', it'd probably be cheaper.
I know you know, it's just a pet peeve of mine and I can't help myself. The 50's sucked and shouldn't be placed on a pedastal. Except for some of the fashion and art, I suppose.
Have you, perchance, read The Way We Never Were? You should. It's about exactly that.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Frankly, I think you're misreading this case fundamentally. The father is blocked in this case to prevent him making trouble for the adopted family, because the child was already born and adopted out when the original court ordered the mother to tell her own family about it, including the father, if I'm reading the original article correctly. Its a stopgap to repair an already rather fucked situation (what right did the court have to order the woman to tell her own parents about it? She was over 18 when she got pregnant. That's just weird).
The problem is stare decisis, Cat. Now, IANAL, but if this was truly a one-off decision, I would think it would look a lot different - that it would focus more on that because of the unique situation, it is in the child's best interest that the father's rights be terminated, but that the decision is based on the scenario. From what I've read, the decision more or less declares the mother to be the ultimate arbiter of who gets to be involved in the child's life. So if there's another mother who wants to keep dad out of the picture, this ruling gives them precedent for doing so.
Frankly, I think you're misreading this case fundamentally. The father is blocked in this case to prevent him making trouble for the adopted family, because the child was already born and adopted out when the original court ordered the mother to tell her own family about it, including the father, if I'm reading the original article correctly. Its a stopgap to repair an already rather fucked situation (what right did the court have to order the woman to tell her own parents about it? She was over 18 when she got pregnant. That's just weird).
The problem is stare decisis, Cat. Now, IANAL, but if this was truly a one-off decision, I would think it would look a lot different - that it would focus more on that because of the unique situation, it is in the child's best interest that the father's rights be terminated, but that the decision is based on the scenario. From what I've read, the decision more or less declares the mother to be the ultimate arbiter of who gets to be involved in the child's life. So if there's another mother who wants to keep dad out of the picture, this ruling gives them precedent for doing so.
I still think its got more to do with hamfistedly amending the previous court decision, which is the one we don't have any info on. What's with ordering her to tell her own parent's she's spawned? Again, she's not a child, and if she's intellectually disabled or something I doubt they'd have ruled against the dad (unless he'd really taken advantage i guess, but I'm well beyond speculation at this point).
Frankly, I think you're misreading this case fundamentally. The father is blocked in this case to prevent him making trouble for the adopted family, because the child was already born and adopted out when the original court ordered the mother to tell her own family about it, including the father, if I'm reading the original article correctly. Its a stopgap to repair an already rather fucked situation (what right did the court have to order the woman to tell her own parents about it? She was over 18 when she got pregnant. That's just weird).
The problem is stare decisis, Cat. Now, IANAL, but if this was truly a one-off decision, I would think it would look a lot different - that it would focus more on that because of the unique situation, it is in the child's best interest that the father's rights be terminated, but that the decision is based on the scenario. From what I've read, the decision more or less declares the mother to be the ultimate arbiter of who gets to be involved in the child's life. So if there's another mother who wants to keep dad out of the picture, this ruling gives them precedent for doing so.
I still think its got more to do with hamfistedly amending the previous court decision, which is the one we don't have any info on. What's with ordering her to tell her own parent's she's spawned? Again, she's not a child, and if she's intellectually disabled or something I doubt they'd have ruled against the dad (unless he'd really taken advantage i guess, but I'm well beyond speculation at this point).
Well, from what I gleaned, it seems to be policy to try to place a child within the extended biological family in preference to adoption. So in that case, concealing the pregnancy was an attempt to forestall the evaluation of her parents as potential caregivers. From what I'm seeing, she was intent on adopting out the child, so she had to preclude local authorities from following their proceedure.
Frankly, I think you're misreading this case fundamentally. The father is blocked in this case to prevent him making trouble for the adopted family, because the child was already born and adopted out when the original court ordered the mother to tell her own family about it, including the father, if I'm reading the original article correctly. Its a stopgap to repair an already rather fucked situation (what right did the court have to order the woman to tell her own parents about it? She was over 18 when she got pregnant. That's just weird).
The problem is stare decisis, Cat. Now, IANAL, but if this was truly a one-off decision, I would think it would look a lot different - that it would focus more on that because of the unique situation, it is in the child's best interest that the father's rights be terminated, but that the decision is based on the scenario. From what I've read, the decision more or less declares the mother to be the ultimate arbiter of who gets to be involved in the child's life. So if there's another mother who wants to keep dad out of the picture, this ruling gives them precedent for doing so.
I still think its got more to do with hamfistedly amending the previous court decision, which is the one we don't have any info on. What's with ordering her to tell her own parent's she's spawned? Again, she's not a child, and if she's intellectually disabled or something I doubt they'd have ruled against the dad (unless he'd really taken advantage i guess, but I'm well beyond speculation at this point).
The law improves the opportunity of the child of anonymous birth to search out its biological origin.
However, the ultimate veto remains with the mother.
I wish I could find the other article I read about this with more information, but this right here is either taken completely out of context or it is explicitly stripping the father of all rights to be informed or claim any parental rights.
And if this was only about not interfering with an already existing adoption, there are laws and procedures in place for that, and this would be a ruling as to their application in this case. This ruling is designed to preempt to father, in cases where he is clearly known but as yet uninformed, from being given any consideration or recognition.
werehippy on
0
Options
DVGNo. 1 Honor StudentNether Institute, Evil AcademyRegistered Userregular
I dislike this case immensely. It's one thing to get an abortion without telling the father (the father really shouldn't have any say on that particular issue) but it is entirely different to have the baby and then not tell him. In this particular case, I think they should have told the father he could either take full custody or agree to allow it to be adopted.
I think this is bullshit, personally (Father has no say in abortion). I'm not saying that the father should be able to force the mother to carry a baby she doesn't want, but he should at least be able to say "hey, wait a second, let's think this though." to the extent of being able to force attendance at a therapy session of some sort.
I dislike this case immensely. It's one thing to get an abortion without telling the father (the father really shouldn't have any say on that particular issue) but it is entirely different to have the baby and then not tell him. In this particular case, I think they should have told the father he could either take full custody or agree to allow it to be adopted.
I think this is bullshit, personally (Father has no say in abortion). I'm not saying that the father should be able to force the mother to carry a baby she doesn't want, but he should at least be able to say "hey, wait a second, let's think this though." to the extent of being able to force attendance at a therapy session of some sort.
But, in the case of abortions, if the man has no say ultimately on whether or not the mother carries it or not. Then there should be no obligation to tell the father if the mother wants to abort it without him knowing. We spit out a very large number of "potential lives" every time we have sex or masturbate and we don't seem to care what happens to them. So just because one of them got further along before it got cut off doesn't change anything.
To be even more insensitive about it: Why burden the father with something he has no say over? Ignorance is bliss in this case rather than be told by the mother. "You made a life, oh btw, I'm ending it before it comes to fruition and there is nothing you can do about it"
Once that kid comes out of the womb though, I believe the mother should lose her monopoly on what happens to that kid. Whether or not its 50/50 or the mother still retains the dominant voice is debatable. But at that point, the father needs to be allowed to have a say and given a chance.
This is the main reason why cloning and test tube babies should be the norm. We'd get less of the Man vs Woman wars when neither of them is so focused on creating them and we can propagate the species by developing our own kids. World hunger and Starvation would be eradicated.
And Men should either get equal of more rights than they do now, or they shouldn't have to pay. Regardless of the incubation period, its takes two.
Which part of "the judge prevented them being assessed" are you having trouble with? The very systems that are designed to assess if her choice is or is not fit have been blocked by the judge. The judge has made this ruling without looking at any assessments of what would be the best situation in which to raise the child.
No, no, see we don't live in a society where people get evaluated before they can raise kids. Maybe that should be the case, but it isn't. For the time being we're stuck with a system that lets the parent (or mother, in this case) say, yes I want to raise this thing growing inside me. If that's her choice, then we assume it's the right one until there's evidence to the contrary. I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary in this case. Maybe there is some, but it isn't given in the article.
I know this is about 6 or 7 pages too late but I wanted to respond to this and my connection died last night..
You say that we don't live in a society where people get evaluated before they can raise kids, but if someone wants to adopt or foster a child then they absolutely must be assessed before they are given a child. The mother does not choose the family, People are assessed as to their suitability and then go on a waiting list.
The standard procedure is to assess any family members who would be willing to take care of the child because it has been shown that, where possible, it is always preferable to have the child raised by a family member. The judge stopped this happening. You say that the mother's choice should be assumed to be correct until there is evidence to the contrary, but the judge's actions have prevented any evidence even being collected never mind being examined.
That's the crux of the problem. There is no evidence because the judge has blocked the collection of the evidence that would allow an assessment to be made about whether or not the mother's choice was best for the child.
This is not about mother vs. father, this is about what is best for the child being secondary to the wishes of the mother.
This is not about mother vs. father, this is about what is best for the child being secondary to the wishes of the mother.
This is why I feel that in this case, the court should have appointed a guardian ad litem for the child. Had a GAL been appointed, the mother would have been forced to argue her stance (I don't want the child's biological family to know) against the child's (I have the right to know my biological family).
Furthermore, there's an old saying - hard cases make for bad law. The problem is that the court as made some pretty broad statements, and those now become part of case law. This ruling is ripe for abuse, and it most likely will be abused.
I dislike this case immensely. It's one thing to get an abortion without telling the father (the father really shouldn't have any say on that particular issue) but it is entirely different to have the baby and then not tell him. In this particular case, I think they should have told the father he could either take full custody or agree to allow it to be adopted.
I think this is bullshit, personally (Father has no say in abortion). I'm not saying that the father should be able to force the mother to carry a baby she doesn't want, but he should at least be able to say "hey, wait a second, let's think this though." to the extent of being able to force attendance at a therapy session of some sort.
But, in the case of abortions, if the man has no say ultimately on whether or not the mother carries it or not. Then there should be no obligation to tell the father if the mother wants to abort it without him knowing. We spit out a very large number of "potential lives" every time we have sex or masturbate and we don't seem to care what happens to them. So just because one of them got further along before it got cut off doesn't change anything.
To be even more insensitive about it: Why burden the father with something he has no say over? Ignorance is bliss in this case rather than be told by the mother. "You made a life, oh btw, I'm ending it before it comes to fruition and there is nothing you can do about it"
Once that kid comes out of the womb though, I believe the mother should lose her monopoly on what happens to that kid. Whether or not its 50/50 or the mother still retains the dominant voice is debatable. But at that point, the father needs to be allowed to have a say and given a chance.
While I will agree it's not fair for the father to have NO SAY in the abortion, I think the mother should have the last word. It is her body, afterall.
Although, there is always the case that she can decide NOT to have an abortion and keep the child when the father did not want the child(and perhaps wore a condom that broke, or she lied about taking the pill, or one of many reasons), I don't think it's right to force him to pay support.
Posts
Fine. Biological bonds don't matter?
If Woman X gets pregnant, pick some random drunk hobo woman off the street to decide what gets done with Woman X's baby.
Hey, biological bonds don't matter anymore!
Wait, why are people letting adoption somehow be the universally most cost effective solution without any proof? Adoption costs are certainly non-trivial, and run into the several thousands per child (within the US, if we're talking international it's several tens of thousands). Contacting a known father, as is the case in certainly a non-insignificant percent of cases and I'd say the majority, is free and transferring custody between biological parents is a nominal fee, certainly not in the thousands.
So, explain to me again how it's more financially responsible to support adoption over a known but uninformed father?
I think the bond of the child to the father is the greater issue here. The father knows why his child doesn't live with him, the kid on the other hand is completely in the dark.
Only if it forms a cross shape.
And I would argue that there needs to be some effort when the father is unknown but findable with a nominal amount of effort, but if this is where you are we're basically in agreement.
Basically, once we move beyond "Fuck the dad, momma knows best" which no few people have supported, I'm basically ok. It's just the people that blightly write off the father that make my skin crawl, perhaps leading to a too vehement rebuttal.
What's that sound? thats your credibility, and its running like fuck
Eh, I thought Daedalus' comment was pretty reasonable. I've seen biological parents abandon their babies and I've seen biological parents who abuse their children. And I've known adoptive parents who come in and for all intents and purposes clean up the sperm/egg donor's mess for no better reason than they love the child in question. I don't see how some intangible, capricious "biological bond" should have any social or legal sway, except when it happens to express itself in tangible, consistent nurturing behavior.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Dude. Stop lying. They're not.
I didn't actually bother reading the link, actually, just assumed Quid had dug up an article on some random child abusing welfare queen. My bad.
All this anecdotal bullshit about biological fathers being bad is irrelevant. Of course there are some bad fathers, there's bad adoptive parents as well as bad mothers. That's not the point. The point is that this decision is defaulting fathers to having no rights, including no right to even the knowledge of the existence of their child except if the mother decides to grant them.
There are definitely cases where the father should be cut out of the situation, but defaulting to the biological father having no rights is ridiculous. Of course there is trouble when the biological father isn't readily apparent, but this ruling doesn't make distinctions based on that.
This case did not 'default' to the father having no rights! The woman had to pursue a court case to establish that, and it only applies to her situation! I'm no more happy with that one sentence from the judge's decision than anyone else, but where is the horde of angry lawmakers coming to steal your unborn children? I don't see them...
As much as I'd like to be done with this topic, this is one last point worth mentioning. I think you are vastly underestimating the power of legal precedence, especially in murky areas like this.
I'd have to look at the full ruling, but the excerpt I read makes it pretty clear this was not a ruling based on any conditions specific exclusively to this case, but a general statement of the legal rights of the father in ALL cases where they are not aware of the pregnancy. There is no need for further legislation to create a condition where the father must now actively pursue the possibility they might have a child to get that information and have any rights at all with regards to the child.
Compounding all that is the state of putting the childs welfare above all other considerations (which is ABSOLUTELY a good thing, it just compounds the impact of this ruling). Once the child is placed with the adoptive family, there is extremely little chance of the father ever being able to regain custody at a later date. The child will have bonded with the adoptive parents, and since this ruling pretty explicitly lays out the fact the father now has no parental right to claim custody if they are unaware of the pregnancy, they would have no recourse in this case.
It's really a mess, and I'm immensely glad that this is UK law, not US. This would be call up my Senator and start spamming every major candidate time if the precedent directly applied to me (though there is the fact international precedent can occasionally apply domestically).
Well, unless there is a misunderstanding of this case, it blocked action which could identify other members of the family. Thus, since the father is not granted the right to know the existence of the child, all his other rights in regards to that child are ineffectual. It's not just the father who is cut out either: So unless this is wrong or misleading, the mother is the only member of the biological family with say in granting access to the rest of the family. How could they access their rights if they are blocked from having knowledge of the child?
Frankly, I think you're misreading this case fundamentally. The father is blocked in this case to prevent him making trouble for the adopted family, because the child was already born and adopted out when the original court ordered the mother to tell her own family about it, including the father, if I'm reading the original article correctly. Its a stopgap to repair an already rather fucked situation (what right did the court have to order the woman to tell her own parents about it? She was over 18 when she got pregnant. That's just weird).
Those 'non-standard' families are actually more the norm than they are the exception. Most every other time in recorded history, well, okay, past couple centuries, involved the extended family and/or village as a whole raising the children. The notion of a mom and a dad exclusively raising the kids with grandma and grandpa coming in periodically to dote on them is very much a contrivance of the nuclear age. Non-nuclear family households tend to outnumber the 'traditional' nuclear family structure today, as well. It was an inexplicable blip on the radar. A deviation that was mislabelled as the perfection to be strived for rather than a needlessly insular approach.
You're tellin' me. The rate of post-natal depression is horrible. Mind you, the historical argument has its flaws. The notion of fathers as having any greater involvement with their kids than as a meal-ticket and disciplinarian is also a very new thing, but its something I consider an improvement, and I think the guys in here would be inclined to agree.
And Men should either get equal of more rights than they do now, or they shouldn't have to pay. Regardless of the incubation period, its takes two.
Does the mother also get to abdicate paying for the diapers and food that the kid goes through like water off a duck's back?
Also, cloning and IVF still requires a woman to carry the fetus to term. It's not like there are artificial wombs sitting around collecting dust.
Or you could, you know, try working through those vagina dentata issues of yours. Just sayin', it'd probably be cheaper.
Katchem_ash is Fett_Boba.
Have you, perchance, read The Way We Never Were? You should. It's about exactly that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The problem is stare decisis, Cat. Now, IANAL, but if this was truly a one-off decision, I would think it would look a lot different - that it would focus more on that because of the unique situation, it is in the child's best interest that the father's rights be terminated, but that the decision is based on the scenario. From what I've read, the decision more or less declares the mother to be the ultimate arbiter of who gets to be involved in the child's life. So if there's another mother who wants to keep dad out of the picture, this ruling gives them precedent for doing so.
I still think its got more to do with hamfistedly amending the previous court decision, which is the one we don't have any info on. What's with ordering her to tell her own parent's she's spawned? Again, she's not a child, and if she's intellectually disabled or something I doubt they'd have ruled against the dad (unless he'd really taken advantage i guess, but I'm well beyond speculation at this point).
Well, from what I gleaned, it seems to be policy to try to place a child within the extended biological family in preference to adoption. So in that case, concealing the pregnancy was an attempt to forestall the evaluation of her parents as potential caregivers. From what I'm seeing, she was intent on adopting out the child, so she had to preclude local authorities from following their proceedure.
It really doesn't get any more explicit than:
I wish I could find the other article I read about this with more information, but this right here is either taken completely out of context or it is explicitly stripping the father of all rights to be informed or claim any parental rights.
And if this was only about not interfering with an already existing adoption, there are laws and procedures in place for that, and this would be a ruling as to their application in this case. This ruling is designed to preempt to father, in cases where he is clearly known but as yet uninformed, from being given any consideration or recognition.
I think this is bullshit, personally (Father has no say in abortion). I'm not saying that the father should be able to force the mother to carry a baby she doesn't want, but he should at least be able to say "hey, wait a second, let's think this though." to the extent of being able to force attendance at a therapy session of some sort.
But, in the case of abortions, if the man has no say ultimately on whether or not the mother carries it or not. Then there should be no obligation to tell the father if the mother wants to abort it without him knowing. We spit out a very large number of "potential lives" every time we have sex or masturbate and we don't seem to care what happens to them. So just because one of them got further along before it got cut off doesn't change anything.
To be even more insensitive about it: Why burden the father with something he has no say over? Ignorance is bliss in this case rather than be told by the mother. "You made a life, oh btw, I'm ending it before it comes to fruition and there is nothing you can do about it"
Once that kid comes out of the womb though, I believe the mother should lose her monopoly on what happens to that kid. Whether or not its 50/50 or the mother still retains the dominant voice is debatable. But at that point, the father needs to be allowed to have a say and given a chance.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Wait, how does this solve world hunger?
I know this is about 6 or 7 pages too late but I wanted to respond to this and my connection died last night..
You say that we don't live in a society where people get evaluated before they can raise kids, but if someone wants to adopt or foster a child then they absolutely must be assessed before they are given a child. The mother does not choose the family, People are assessed as to their suitability and then go on a waiting list.
The standard procedure is to assess any family members who would be willing to take care of the child because it has been shown that, where possible, it is always preferable to have the child raised by a family member. The judge stopped this happening. You say that the mother's choice should be assumed to be correct until there is evidence to the contrary, but the judge's actions have prevented any evidence even being collected never mind being examined.
That's the crux of the problem. There is no evidence because the judge has blocked the collection of the evidence that would allow an assessment to be made about whether or not the mother's choice was best for the child.
This is not about mother vs. father, this is about what is best for the child being secondary to the wishes of the mother.
This is why I feel that in this case, the court should have appointed a guardian ad litem for the child. Had a GAL been appointed, the mother would have been forced to argue her stance (I don't want the child's biological family to know) against the child's (I have the right to know my biological family).
Furthermore, there's an old saying - hard cases make for bad law. The problem is that the court as made some pretty broad statements, and those now become part of case law. This ruling is ripe for abuse, and it most likely will be abused.
While I will agree it's not fair for the father to have NO SAY in the abortion, I think the mother should have the last word. It is her body, afterall.
Although, there is always the case that she can decide NOT to have an abortion and keep the child when the father did not want the child(and perhaps wore a condom that broke, or she lied about taking the pill, or one of many reasons), I don't think it's right to force him to pay support.
That said, I think it's safe to say that in the case we've been discussing, the court really dropped the ball in a lot of ways.