Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Utah's evil adoption laws (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Utah's evil adoption laws
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I'm going to ask this question again: what harm is there to the mother for letting the father have the child if she doesn't want it when the father is shown to be of good character, and can care for the child? No one seems to be answering this.

One of the fascinating consequences of the circumstance you describe is that as a technical matter the father would be entitled to child support payments from the mother. Even though this directly parallels the power the mother has with respect to the father, many find it a gross imposition and unfairness. That leads to a a perverse incentive to cause the mother to choose to terminate a pregnancy rather than adopt.

I think the situation for abuse needs to be addressed, but I can think of no legitimate reason that a state should be able to extinguish the parent rights of a male without their consent. If a unmarried mother refuses to acknowledge a father, or if there is a dispute about the acknowledged father, that should entitle a male purporting to be the father to a genetic test.

I didn't even think of the child support factor, but you're right.

Well said, I agree, though I am certainly not one of those who would find support required of the mother in that kind of circumstance unfair. Unless she was raped, she chose to have sex and is just as responsible for the child's existence as the father is.

If you are more interested in what is "fair" between men and women generally than in seeing that the child gets looked after, than you have more in common with All Sharpton than you might be comfortable with.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I'm going to ask this question again: what harm is there to the mother for letting the father have the child if she doesn't want it when the father is shown to be of good character, and can care for the child? No one seems to be answering this.

One of the fascinating consequences of the circumstance you describe is that as a technical matter the father would be entitled to child support payments from the mother. Even though this directly parallels the power the mother has with respect to the father, many find it a gross imposition and unfairness. That leads to a a perverse incentive to cause the mother to choose to terminate a pregnancy rather than adopt.

I think the situation for abuse needs to be addressed, but I can think of no legitimate reason that a state should be able to extinguish the parent rights of a male without their consent. If a unmarried mother refuses to acknowledge a father, or if there is a dispute about the acknowledged father, that should entitle a male purporting to be the father to a genetic test.

I didn't even think of the child support factor, but you're right.

Well said, I agree, though I am certainly not one of those who would find support required of the mother in that kind of circumstance unfair. Unless she was raped, she chose to have sex and is just as responsible for the child's existence as the father is.

If you are more interested in what is "fair" between men and women generally than in seeing that the child gets looked after, than you have more in common with All Sharpton than you might be comfortable with.
No, I am just practical enough and compassionate enough where I am not willing to allow someone to secretly terminate a biological parent's rights without their knowledge or consent when said parent is doing everything they can to be positively involved in the child's life.

America has a real problem with deadbeat dads, so it seems absurd to me that we should be criticizing unwed fathers for trying to keep their kids and provide and care for them!

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete:I trust you are not saying that since some women can make ends meet by getting knocked up by a rich guy and soaking him for child support, that a man should be able to do the same by knocking up some rich girl
Of course not. I'm saying that I don't see any reason for the law to treat mothers different than fathers, regarding this issue.

Admittedly, I haven't thought about this particular issue a ton, so I am actually interested in reading your thoughts, which is why I've invited you to share them a few times. [Razz]

My instincts run the way I indicated for the reasons I indicated. I would very much like to read some counter arguments, though.

quote:
Pete:As for difference ad to parent gender, for most children both parents should have in principle equal rights, but as to a neonate, mom's already given him 9 months of pretty intense and personal care.
No argument. I also don't see it as very relevant in this case.

quote:
Pete:If dad can show comparable involvement up to that point, then bring on the facts.
Obviously there is nothing a father can do in the 9 months of pregnancy that is comparable to what a mother does during that time. Again, I don't see this is as relevant when we're talking about the mother giving away the child for adoption without the father's permission.

quote:
Pete:... but if you are going to say an unmarried mom and dad are equal in a neonate's life, let's not be obtuse.
I am saying that, in the general case, a father's right to be a father to his child outweighs the mother's right to give her child up for adoption.

Do you agree or disagree?

quote:
Pete: I'm open to factual arguments that would give genuine wannabe dads a chance.
Like I said, I think the burden is the other way.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not about involvement up to that point.

It is about a father having his newborn child stolen from him.

Whatever the mother has to go through leading up to and just after the birth is irrelevant. That does not affect the rights of the father.

Barring an obvious case of unfitness, parents have a right to raise their children. There may be more or less involvement in split parents, with one having custody, but in a case where one parent signs the kid away? First choice is the other parent.

This law is evil. And I am not one to use that word lightly.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In a custody battle where an unmarried mother and father both want sole custody of a neonate, I'd normally lean toward the mother because of her investment and the likelihood that she starts out with a stronger bond which will help ensure the child is well cared for.

However, I think it's perverse to hold biological fathers responsible for child support if they don't have any corresponding parental rights.

The child's interests matter more than the father's rights, but it's not a foregone conclusion that any given couple will give the kid a better life than the biological father. He might even be married (to someone else), and if not, certainly has a good chance of being married in the future.

It's only a fraction of knocker-uppers that care enough to WANT to take care of their own offspring instead of being relieved (via adoption) of their child support obligation. This biases the sample enough to make me suspect that they will provide outcomes just as good as married couples.

He shouldn't have to make a case. The state or mother should have to make a case against him to deprive him of his right to give it a shot. The standard should be roughly the same that the state would use to deprive the mother of custody, if she wanted it.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You just did use it lightly, DJQuag, without even attempting to articulate an alternative.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
quote:
Seri:Even though this directly parallels the power the mother has with respect to the father, many find it a gross imposition and unfairness.
Do you find it to be unfair? If so, could you articulate why?
I don't find it unfair, though I do find it to encourage undesirable outcomes.

I'm kind of radical on this. I don't think there ought to be state enforcement of child support payments by the males at all, absent either a pre-existing arrangement (marriage, contract) or an affirmation by the father opting in. Given that, I would prefer in an adoption context if the biological father wanted to take the child that the mother would be as economically free as she would be in an adoption scenario.
quote:
I highlighted this issue above and it seems fine to me. We're right to impose child support on a father. If you think it's different in the case of a woman, could you explain why?
Well I think my prior answer moots this, but I would like to point out, that absent a pre-existing arrangement or opt in, the biological father should have neither obligations nor any kind of rights in my view.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seri: That's an interesting position to take and one I'd like to hear more about (although, I can't promise a very high chance of you changing my mind to your views). Mind posting your thoughts on that topic as a starter of a new thread? I think discussing it here would derail things and prevent either discussion from happening.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If you are more interested in what is "fair" between men and women generally than in seeing that the child gets looked after, than you have more in common with All Sharpton than you might be comfortable with.

That's hardly a fair criticism Pete. I am very concerned with how children get looked after, does that mean I should be able to get a law implemented to take children away from parents who let them stay up later than is deemed medically beneficial?

Parental rights involve a vast array of complexities, and I don't see where you can make an assumption that termination of a biological parent's right for no reason is a benefit to a child. If there is a reason (eg abuse) let it be stated, but the cases posited here are literally "without cause" cases, and that can not inherently be defined as in the best interst of a child.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
In a custody battle where an unmarried mother and father both want sole custody of a neonate, I'd normally lean toward the mother because of her investment and the likelihood that she starts out with a stronger bond which will help ensure the child is well cared for.

However, I think it's perverse to hold biological fathers responsible for child support if they don't have any corresponding parental rights.

The child's interests matter more than the father's rights, but it's not a foregone conclusion that any given couple will give the kid a better life than the biological father. He might even be married (to someone else), and if not, certainly has a good chance of being married in the future.

It's only a fraction of knocker-uppers that care enough to WANT to take care of their own offspring instead of being relieved (via adoption) of their child support obligation. This biases the sample enough to make me suspect that they will provide outcomes just as good as married couples.

He shouldn't have to make a case. The state or mother should have to make a case against him to deprive him of his right to give it a shot. The standard should be roughly the same that the state would use to deprive the mother of custody, if she wanted it.

You say it's only a fraction of dads that want to keep the kid. But the system you propose would cost the state 10k in legal fees per child adopted, building their case against dads that don't even want the kid. Not to mention time that goes by until the neonate grows to something less adoptable. How many dozens of kids you willing to condemn to a lifetime of foster care per daddy you give a chance to?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
You just did use it lightly, DJQuag, without even attempting to articulate an alternative.

I feel like the alternative provided by me and Scifi (and implicitly provided by DJ, if I read his post right) is being ignored.

We are proposing that the father has the right to take his child rather than have the mother give it up for adoption without the father's consent or even awareness.

Could you express your position in one post for me? I feel like I don't have a full handle on what you believe and why, and I would like to read that.

If you think the alternative proposed above doesn't satisfy your question, could you say why?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete: You say it's only a fraction of dads that want to keep the kid. But the system you propose would cost the state 10k in legal fees per child adopted, building their case against dads that don't even want the kid. Not to mention time that goes by until the neonate grows to something less adoptable. How many dozens of kids you willing to condemn to a lifetime of foster care per daddy you give a chance to?
Why would they have to build their case? If dad says "I don't want it." then it can be adopted and there's no need to build a case or spend a ton on legal fees (just like there is no need to build a legal case against the mother when she volunteers to give up her child for adoption.)

They only need to build a case when dad says "I want it." and mom says "dad's not fit to be a dad and I want to give it up for adoption."

I am totally fine with some money being spent in that pretty rare case. It's a damn important question.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nh and I have repeatedly asked the evil-sayers on this thread to articulate an alternative, and the crickets still chirp, so I will hereby articulate an alternative:

BABY response: put an EKG and brainscan on the neonate, and gauge it's response to daddy's voice, as opposed to response to a male stranger's voice.

Ask father to demonstrate what life changes and financial preparations he has made in preparation for the child's arrival.

FYI, while brainwashees berate Utah's "eevil" law, consider that a number of states will throw a man in jail for a year for failure to pay child support: (translation: paying in cash and failing to get a receipt from mom) and then use 12 months abandonment to deprive dad of all parental rights despite his having been a great dad up to that point.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joshua, in your proposal, how does dad come forward to tell state he wants it?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
If you are more interested in what is "fair" between men and women generally than in seeing that the child gets looked after, than you have more in common with All Sharpton than you might be comfortable with.

That's hardly a fair criticism Pete. I am very concerned with how children get looked after, does that mean I should be able to get a law implemented to take children away from parents who let them stay up later than is deemed medically beneficial?

Parental rights involve a vast array of complexities, and I don't see where you can make an assumption that termination of a biological parent's right for no reason is a benefit to a child. If there is a reason (eg abuse) let it be stated, but the cases posited here are literally "without cause" cases, and that can not inherently be defined as in the best interst of a child.

I don't think that it's fair to discuss this issue in a way that fails to distinguish ACTUAL parents who have invested time and energy into a child's life and have a due facto relationship with that child, than mere bio parents that have invested nothing but a bit of genetic material.

I also think it's perverse and nihilistic, if not evil, that most laws value the rights of an egg mother over the rights of the birth mother.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete: Joshua, in your proposal, how does dad come forward to tell state he wants it?
He tells someone. The doctor, the adoption agency, the mother, or the local police. Are there logistic issues? Sure, some. I don't mind that.

I am being really sincere when I ask my question: could you outline clearly what problems you're seeing with the position I've put forward, and why you think your position is the best on whole? I imagine there's something you're thinking about that I haven't considered yet, but I have no idea what it is.

By your most recent post, it sounds like you're concerned about the burden of being sure a dad doesn't want the baby when he's difficult to contact, maybe.

Could you just articulate your position so I can think about it whole cloth?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete: I don't think that it's fair to discuss this issue in a way that fails to distinguish ACTUAL parents who have invested time and energy into a child's life and have a due facto relationship with that child, than mere bio parents that have invested nothing but a bit of genetic material.
The guys want to be dads and the moms are stopping them. The guys want to invest time, and the moms aren't allowing them. They did the physical part, and they are literally suing to be able to do the emotional part, and they're not being allowed. Your argument is a catch-22.

I can't talk about the issue a piece at a time, though. I went back and read your posts in this thread, and I can't find your position. I have some sense of what you believe, but no sense of the underlying reasoning. I have a bunch of argument but no ideas. I can't have a productive conversation under those conditions. [Frown]

Please post your thoughts as a coherent position. It only has to be a paragraph of two. I would really like to read it. Without that, I don't see that we can have any sort of productive conversation. I've put forward my position and the reasoning for it. I have been literally begging you to do to same, and I'm getting crickets. It's frustrating. <3

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure. I want to make sure dad really has a personal investment in the kid rather than just trying to use it as a foot in the door of mom's life. Mom has an investment: voluntarily carrying baby to term.

I don't think that sperm donation in itself should give him rights.

Here's the procedure I recommend:

Dad gets 15 days notice to contest the adoption. If he contests he gets told that if found pundit then not only does he lose kid but he's on hook for child support. If he sticks to his guns, THEN he's invested to my satisfaction by risk, and I'm OK with scifi's proposal of putting burden on state to show unfitness.

I think my proposal also screens out most of the leeches.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
he guys want to be dads and the moms are stopping them."

So you say. So some of them say. But I've seen pimps say that, in order to keep leverage on their baby mommas, who they continue to pimp out. So I think it's fair to ask biodaddies for evidence of their investment in the child's life and well being.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The guys want to invest time, and the moms aren't allowing them. They did the physical part, and they are literally suing to be able to do the emotional part, and they're not being allowed. Your argument is a catch-22."

I'm saying that a real dad should have been invested before the child was born. If not through marriage, then through some other way. Genetic contribution is inadequate basis for appeal to 14th Amendment protection. Sperm donation is neither life nor liberty nor property. So what's your argument for the basis of biodaddy's rights?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joshua, my position is that a good (as opposed to eevil) law re child placement should be based on the child's well being so long as the law does not infringe on fundamental rights of the father or mother.

In other words, it's stupid pompous wind blowing to criticize this law as evil without showing their her that (1) law is against child's best interests, or.(2) that said law infringes on biodaddy's life, liberty or property.

Now Monsanto's wet dream would be that we say that genetic contribution equals a vested "property" right in the child, but I hope you agree that position is bladerunnerishly horrid.

So I ask that biodaddy's right involve some sort of vesting efforts to establish a right.

I agree that the lawsuits described above may create such a beating of rights, if that's what you're arguing. And federal courts will probably take that position on appeal, creating a good exception to what is on the whole, a very good law.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete: Genetic contribution is inadequate basis for appeal to 14th Amendment protection. Sperm donation is neither life nor liberty nor property....
I haven't made a constitutional argument. I'm not sure if this is an issue protected by the constitution, but I imagine it's not. Maybe the 10th amendment.

In either case, I haven't brought up the federal constitution as justification for my position, so you're not arguing with my position when you say that the 14th amendment doesn't offer this protection.

quote:
Pete: So what's your argument for the basis of biodaddy's rights?
The fact that he is the biological father.

I believe that we have the fundamental right to raise our children. I don't think we have to prove to the government that we are entitled to raise our children; I think the government needs to prove, on a case-by-case basis, that this particular parent has forfeited their rights to parenthood.

I tend to think the mother's right to raise her children is a little stronger than the father's, given the biological realities. I don't think that weight is strong enough to say that she has the right to give their child away to a third-party over his expressed intent to raise the child himself.

quote:
Pete: I'm saying that a real dad should have been invested before the child was born. If not through marriage, then through some other way.
I'm saying that it should be legally assumed that the father is invested unless he shows otherwise. It seems to me that saying "I want to take responsibility for and raise the child" and no one actively producing clear evidence that he is lying is enough.

quote:
Pete:So I ask that biodaddy's right involve some sort of vesting efforts to establish a right.
It seems to me that coming forward and saying you want to be a father is enough of a vesting effort. If someone can show that you're not serious, or that you're not qualified, sure, we can talk about that on a case-by-case basis. But the burden should be on the naysayers, not on the father.

quote:
Pete: Joshua, my position is that a good (as opposed to eevil) law re child placement should be based on the child's well being so long as the law does not infringe on fundamental rights of the father or mother.
I do think that we have a fundamental right to raise our children. Do you disagree with this?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
In a custody battle where an unmarried mother and father both want sole custody of a neonate, I'd normally lean toward the mother because of her investment and the likelihood that she starts out with a stronger bond which will help ensure the child is well cared for.

However, I think it's perverse to hold biological fathers responsible for child support if they don't have any corresponding parental rights.

The child's interests matter more than the father's rights, but it's not a foregone conclusion that any given couple will give the kid a better life than the biological father. He might even be married (to someone else), and if not, certainly has a good chance of being married in the future.

It's only a fraction of knocker-uppers that care enough to WANT to take care of their own offspring instead of being relieved (via adoption) of their child support obligation. This biases the sample enough to make me suspect that they will provide outcomes just as good as married couples.

He shouldn't have to make a case. The state or mother should have to make a case against him to deprive him of his right to give it a shot. The standard should be roughly the same that the state would use to deprive the mother of custody, if she wanted it.

You say it's only a fraction of dads that want to keep the kid. But the system you propose would cost the state 10k in legal fees per child adopted, building their case against dads that don't even want the kid. Not to mention time that goes by until the neonate grows to something less adoptable. How many dozens of kids you willing to condemn to a lifetime of foster care per daddy you give a chance to?
I am not saying that they have to build a case against every unmarried father of children whose mother wants to give them up for adoption. I'm saying if the dad doesn't agree to the adoption and wants to take custody himself, then he should be allowed to do so unless he's demonstrably unfit.

I'm okay with reasonable time and expense limits on notifying the biological dad and his opportunity to contest. If he's not around, can't be found, or doesn't respond to notifications, then it's fine by me if things move forward and his rights are terminated.

quote:
If he contests he gets told that if found [unfit] then not only does he lose kid but he's on hook for child support. If he sticks to his guns, THEN he's invested to my satisfaction by risk, and I'm OK with scifi's proposal of putting burden on state to show unfitness.
That's a pretty high bar. If there was any guarantee that the judgment would be just, then I'd agree with you. However, I think that courts are biased against men in family law, and spurious allegations meant to deprive him of the opportunity to take the child would have a very high chance of sticking. The chance of unjust results are too high, given that in this scenario no one has yet shown that he would be likely do a bad job.

Perhaps the case to stop a father from stopping an adoption shouldn't have to be as strong as the case would have to be to tear an infant away from a mother. But it should be there.

I'm relatively OK with the idea that he has neither rights NOR obligations if he is not cohabiting or married to the mother, IF the state steps up to provide *adequate* support to *every* child. But while this is not the case and we are saying fertilization can result in 18 years of financial obligation, there should be a presumption of parental privilege to go along with it.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I also agree with everything Scifi said.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am open to the argument that the 14th amendment does not suffice to protect rights here, but in my view you haven't even attempted to make such an argument. I don't think that mere sperm or egg donation, in itself, warrants sufficient rights to override the birth mother's designation of baby's best interests.

Does that sufficiently clarify my position?

Without demonstration of more investment, biological father is just fancy talk for sperm donor.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete:Without demonstration of more investment, biological father is just fancy talk for sperm donor.
This appears to be the crux of our disagreement.

I think it's a strange thing to say that a father is a sperm donor. It seems only a little less strange than saying a mother is a egg and womb donor.

I also don't know how you make this position jive with the idea that a father owes child support. Sperm donors do not, regular fathers do. Obviously, there is already different treatment of the two sorts of biological fathers under the law, and I think this is a proper reflection of the reality.

Why do you see it the way you do?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That's a pretty high bar. If there was any guarantee that the judgment would be just, then I'd agree with you. However, I think that courts are biased against men in family law,"

That's a valid point. I agree that if the court was biased against dad then my proposal would be abberant.

But what I said is already the law. If a man does not agree to adoption, and he is found unfit, then he IS on the hook for child support. That's my current position with thing two. Child taken into foster care without my consent because I live in a camper, and I am billed for child support to the state, more than for the two kids that are with my ex.

And I am not in Utah, plus I do have a previous 13 year relationship with my son.

So those frothing at the mouth over this law do not, in my view, have much familiarity as to how the law operates in other states.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
or. It seems only a little less strange than saying a mother is a egg and womb donor"

If it takes 9 months to donate sperm in your neck of the woods, that analogy might be in danger of making sense. [Smile]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hence it being "a little less strange".

You poked fun at an analogy that was included for illustrative purposes and wasn't central to my point but didn't answer my question.

I'll quote it again for you [Smile]

quote:
JoshuaD: I also don't know how you make this position [biological father is just fancy talk for sperm donor] jive with the idea that a father owes child support. Sperm donors do not, regular fathers do. Obviously, there is already different treatment of the two sorts of biological fathers under the law, and I think this is a proper reflection of the reality.

Why do you see it the way you do?


Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"That's a pretty high bar. If there was any guarantee that the judgment would be just, then I'd agree with you. However, I think that courts are biased against men in family law,"

That's a valid point. I agree that if the court was biased against dad then my proposal would be abberant.

But what I said is already the law. If a man does not agree to adoption, and he is found unfit, then he IS on the hook for child support. That's my current position with thing two. Child taken into foster care without my consent because I live in a camper, and I am billed for child support to the state, more than for the two kids that are with my ex.

And I am not in Utah, plus I do have a previous 13 year relationship with my son.

So those frothing at the mouth over this law do not, in my view, have much familiarity as to how the law operates in other states.

I don't see how this is applicable, Pete. In the type of scenario we are talking about, if the mother is able to go forward with giving the child to an adoptive couple, then the biological father would no longer owe any child support. I understood your proposal to be different from the status quo in this way: even if he's unable to stop the adoption, he still owes the child support (and taking this gamble is evidence of his investment).
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah.

Because I see child support as a rsposibility that stems from willing causality (eg dperm donation) while custody comes from a vested relationship with the child.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*Note: While I don't think it's directly applicable to the situation, I do see the injustice of it. [Frown]

I don't think the Utah law is evil, per se. I think it's unjust in some situations. I think it reflects prejudices about gender and family roles that are becoming less accurate as time goes on.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"That's a pretty high bar. If there was any guarantee that the judgment would be just, then I'd agree with you. However, I think that courts are biased against men in family law,"

That's a valid point. I agree that if the court was biased against dad then my proposal would be abberant.

But what I said is already the law. If a man does not agree to adoption, and he is found unfit, then he IS on the hook for child support. That's my current position with thing two. Child taken into foster care without my consent because I live in a camper, and I am billed for child support to the state, more than for the two kids that are with my ex.

And I am not in Utah, plus I do have a previous 13 year relationship with my son.

So those frothing at the mouth over this law do not, in my view, have much familiarity as to how the law operates in other states.

I don't see how this is applicable, Pete. In the type of scenario we are talking about, if the mother is able to go forward with giving the child to an adoptive couple, then the biological father would no longer owe any child support. I understood your proposal to be different from the status quo in this way: even if he's unable to stop the adoption, he still owes the child support (and taking this gamble is evidence of his investment).
You missed that if dad does make his bid then mom IS on the hook for child support in all 50 states, SciFi. Does that put my test into context for you?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who is on the hook for child support is a matter of who the legal parents are.

Your proposal said he'd not be a legal parent and still pay child support.

You've highlighted some interesting tension between the financial interests of the mother and the adoption question. But just because it's financially hard for the mother NOT to give the child up for adoption doesn't seem to speak to the child's best interests.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's relatively common that a legal parent would like to give up their rights along with the child support obligation. Typically this is not possible unless someone else is willing to adopt. In the case of unmarried biological parents, I think the custodial parent would typically have to get a spouse, then get that spouse to agree to adopt, before the noncustodial parent would be let off the hook.

We don't let the noncustodial parent unilaterally give up their parental rights in exchange for no child support. I'm not sure it makes sense that we would let the custodial parent do so.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure why we can't take a page from the law pertaining to adoptions of tribal members, which if I understand it correctly as upheld by the Supreme Court says that if a tribal-member infant or child is up for adoption, any immediate family member who is a tribal member gets something like "right of first refusal" on the little one.

So then in the general case, it might be a good idea to have something similar. If an infant is placed for adoption, any immediate biological family member (specified to some degree - maybe including grandparents, aunts and uncles in addition to the biological mother and father) can have a certain amount of time in which a similar "right of first refusal" pertains.

There are probably a lot of problems with this idea, but maybe it's got some goodness too.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The tribal rule is a good one, allow blood relatives the right of first refusal.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Who is on the hook for child support is a matter of who the legal parents are.

Your proposal said he'd not be a legal parent and still pay child support.

You've highlighted some interesting tension between the financial interests of the mother and the adoption question.

Yes, I'd like to think that Seneca might at least reconsider his position if he realized that what he proposed was forcing women willing to adopt out, to instead opt to abort out of fear of the legal options that their abuslve boyfriend might exercise.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
But just because it's financially hard for the mother NOT to give the child up for adoption doesn't seem to speak to the child's best interests.

You are obviously WRONG!

Think about it. Are you really going to assert that abortion is at worst neutral to the child's interests? Because if you throw out this "evil" law complely, that's what you are forcing women to do on pain of 18 years of child support to the man they rejected as lover and husband.

[ February 14, 2014, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh please. If the father is abusive then PROVE IT IN COURT IF HE WANTS THE CHILD.

We live in a country where people are assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1