As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Adoption issues versus gender rights.
EmperorSeth
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
In another forum I normally go to, there's been a bit of a debate about a recent ruling in Canada
The tl:dr version is this: Guy gets girl pregnant, guy doesn't know about it, girl puts child up for adoption, guy learns about it a few weeks before birth, guy sues to get child custody, guy fails to get it, as the baby was already with the adopted parents for months now. Apparently, the adoptive parents also intend to sue for child care payments, which according to the OP was a legal Canadian practice.
Save for that last bit, which nearly everyone had a problem with, there was a bit of a debate about the rights of the man in question, and in general regarding adoption. In other words, what rights does the man have pre-birth regarding a child's adoption, should he ethically be told about the pregnancy, and what legal actions can or should be taken if the woman doesn't reveal this information or puts the baby up for adoption without this awareness or consent.
Now, normally I wouldn't be interested in extending a debate like this to another forum entirely, but given the debate went from "spirited" to "another poster compared me to the guy posting rape fantasies," it understandably was starting to get to me. Granted, he is one of the worst posters on said forum, but still...rape fantasies. You don't just make claims like that.
Anyway, I was hoping to hear some opinions on the subject before posting my own to avoid any bias on the subject. But if that's too much to ask for an original post, I understand. I lurked here for a bit now, but I'm still relatively new, and this is an odd situation.
Biological father loses custody case
January 29, 2007
Canadian Press
SASKATOON – A baby boy at the centre of a case that pitted the rights of adoptive parents against those of a biological father will stay with the couple who have raised him since birth.
And the Saskatoon man who launched a legal battle to get his nine-month-old son returned to him will not be allowed to visit the child for one year unless all those involved agree.
In a Court of Queen's Bench ruling released today, Justice Shawn Smith said it was in the best interest of the boy to stay with the couple, who live in Prince Albert.
The decision, made public on the Law Society of Saskatchewan's website, said the biological father is "capable of providing a positive adult presence in the baby's life, but not in a parental role."
The judge also ordered a one-year period of "familial calm" to give the couple a chance to bond with the child. It is during that time that the biological father is not to visit his son. Such visits had been ordered by the court before the lawsuit went to trial last December.
Smith said in his ruling that the child's welfare must always be the most important consideration.
"While blood ties are one factor, they must be considered from the point of view of the significance to the child, rather than the significance to the biological parent," Smith wrote.
"The court must also consider the uncertainties associated with transferring a child from a known situation of security and stability to a situation with many unknowns. In the case of an infant, the court must consider the potential harm to a child in disrupting attachments (that) have developed or are almost formed."
The biological mother arranged for the couple, whom her family had known for 14 years, to take the child. But the father found out the woman was pregnant a few weeks before the baby was born.
The mother stated in guardianship documents that she didn't know who the father was, but a DNA test confirmed the paternity.
However, the contract between the mother and the couple was recognized as law. The guardians had already given the baby their surname and were seeking child-support payments from the father.
A publication ban was imposed on all names to protect the baby's identity.
During the trial, the biological mother testified she chose the couple to raise her son because she already knew them and they couldn't have children of their own.
The biological father pointed out he wasn't even aware he was the child's father and social services officials did nothing to help him once he found out. He testified he was willing and able to raise the boy.
His lawyer cautioned the judge to be wary of setting a precedent ``that deprives fathers of knowing and caring for their children."
But a lawyer for the couple urged Smith to put biology aside and consider the level of care his clients could provide. He pointed out 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.
The judge said at the time he would not give any weight to whether the child had bonded with the couple. He said determining when that happens "is an art as much as a science."
The father's lawyer also suggested during the trial that the agreement between the mother and the couple should be nullified because of the mother's "dishonesty."
But her lawyer disagreed, saying the mother made a difficult decision with a view to the best interest of the child.
The tl:dr version is this: Guy gets girl pregnant, guy doesn't know about it, girl puts child up for adoption, guy learns about it a few weeks before birth, guy sues to get child custody, guy fails to get it, as the baby was already with the adopted parents for months now. Apparently, the adoptive parents also intend to sue for child care payments, which according to the OP was a legal Canadian practice.
Save for that last bit, which nearly everyone had a problem with, there was a bit of a debate about the rights of the man in question, and in general regarding adoption. In other words, what rights does the man have pre-birth regarding a child's adoption, should he ethically be told about the pregnancy, and what legal actions can or should be taken if the woman doesn't reveal this information or puts the baby up for adoption without this awareness or consent.
Now, normally I wouldn't be interested in extending a debate like this to another forum entirely, but given the debate went from "spirited" to "another poster compared me to the guy posting rape fantasies," it understandably was starting to get to me. Granted, he is one of the worst posters on said forum, but still...rape fantasies. You don't just make claims like that.
Anyway, I was hoping to hear some opinions on the subject before posting my own to avoid any bias on the subject. But if that's too much to ask for an original post, I understand. I lurked here for a bit now, but I'm still relatively new, and this is an odd situation.
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
EmperorSeth on
0
Posts
I can't see any way of protecting the rights of fathers in this situation without endangering women who are raped or abused and end up pregnant with the fucker's baby.
Child care payments? That's fucking ludicrous unless he's given joint custody.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
put in a clause saying "unless the women is a rape/abuse victim."
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree.
I dislike the lack of equal say, somewhat, but it ultimately comes down to the dude flinging some seed on the woman's garden, then wandering off and coming back expecting to have equal rights to the pumpkin that grew.
Both rape and abuse often go unreported due to fears of reprisal.
Now I am very unsettled when I compare the number of fathers whose rights are vacated in order to protect a vastly smaller number of victims.
I don't have any confidence that this would do anything except give the fathers something else to threaten the victims over.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
well damn. Let's not even present the option then.
Sounds good.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
ok.
The legal system is all kinds of fucked when it comes to paternity.
I haven't thought very much about this issue, but 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)?
I have no idea about the ramifications and I haven't really thought this through very much, but...
/shrug
Yeah, the binding contract pre-conception was one of the ideas I suggested. For the record, this was where someone started saying I had father issues and hated men. For the record, both people involved in this argument are men.
I agree on the child care thing, but pretty much everyone did.
You presented one problem to giving the guy control/custody over the child regarding adoption proceedings, but what if we assume that rape/abuse isn't the problem. Of course, in real life it's impossible to be certain on the subject, but still. Assuming that she puts the child up for adoption, can/should the woman be legally required to report who the father is? If so, how can it be enforced, given that the woman herself may not know? If not, how can he get custody in time?
Oh, and it may be a while before I reply again. I'm going to bed for now, so I'll have to rejoin the conversation tomorrow morning.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'd always hew towards giving the woman the authority. She can offer the contract or not. She's the one having the baby and I don't feel that she has any general obligation to tell the guy.
I mean seriously, you get blasted at a bar and you hook up with someone for a one night stand, how many people are going to be "oh yeah sign this before you go."
...In the context of a pregnancy, not just after any tappage.
I'm not sure what the problem is here. Why would you want to find that dude?
You could, like, not.
EDIT: (to set the cost of an abortion to the side)
The support payments are stupid, but I think we all agree on that.
Given that its a case in Canada, and you're in the states, I don't think it sets much precedent for the US.
You mean we haven't annexed them yet?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
:roll:
Just because I don't live in the country doesn't mean I can't worry about what goes on in their legal system, y'know.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
yes, lets just throw babies around all willy nilly to the best parents, regardless of the parentage.
"Each, raising as many as are able, to the best of their own abilities."
I like it.
- John Stuart Mill
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
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.
If he clearly wants the child, I imagine the only reason he didnt get involved earlier is because the mother didnt tell him he was going to be a father!
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.
DNA is the only standard for establishing parental rights, at birth (assuming neither party forfitted their right by raping the other etc). As a biological parent you have to give these rights up if you dont want the baby, the government should not be able to take them away if you have done nothing wrong other than being a man.
DNA is also a pretty arbitrary value for assigning responsibilities, too.
Sadly, I think rape is an easy allegation to make and a hard one to prove a lot of the time, so a law forcing equal custodianship with a rape opt-out would seem to provide an incentive for a woman to claim rape in situations where she doesn't want to share custody of the child. I think it would be rare, and in a just world the false accusations would be found out, but all manner of legal shenanigans seem to happen whenever children are involved, so I worry about these things.
Honestly I don't agree with child support at all really, I could see it if a couple divorced (or split up having raised the child for some time) where both parents had been raising the kid together anyway, but not under any other circumstances.
I think everyone here agrees that child support payments would in this case be ridiculous.
It sounds like you feel victimised. Care to expand?
If we dont let parents (either mother or father) have for want of a better word 'first refusal' on child custody then surely the government should take babies from the poor or ill educated. We cant just distribute children based on merit.
As for the father who went away, it depends whether he was informed or not. If he was informed, and said "I dont want no stinkin kid!" and ran off then the mother is free to take the actions she chooses based on what he says and just because he changes his mind later he cant then undo her actions.
However if the father isnt told then he doesnt forfit his right to raise his son/daughter. The mother has the right to protect herself from the risks to her own body inherant in pregnancy by having an abortion etc, thats why secrecy is allowed, but she shouldnt be allowed to hide the child if she does intend to have it.
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.
Im not saying I feel victimised, Im just disgusted by the double standards inherant in this case. The man is given responsibilities, but no rights. He is denied those rights because of some arbitrary factor of parenting skill which would never have been applied to the mother.
If it later turns out that the father is a drug dealing murderer then we have ourselves a logical case, but if he is just a working guy who wants to do his best to raise his son/daughter? How can you possibly say he doesnt have the right to do so?
Exactly.