Posted on 03/19/2006 10:41:42 PM PST by Giant Conservative
Jeremiah Clayton Jones discovered that his former fiancée was pregnant just three weeks before the baby was due, when an adoption-agency lawyer called and asked if he would consent to have his baby adopted.
"I said absolutely not," said Mr. Jones, a 23-year-old Arizona man who met his ex-fiancée at Pensacola Christian College in Florida. "It was an awkward moment, hearing for the first time that I would be a father, and then right away being told, 'We want to take your kid away.' But I knew that if I was having a baby, I wanted that baby."
Mr. Jones has never seen his son, now 18 months old. Instead, he lost his parental rights because of his failure to file with a state registry for unwed fathers — something he learned of only after it was too late.
Under Florida law, and that of other states, an unmarried father has no right to withhold consent for adoption unless he has registered with the state putative father registry before an adoption petition is filed. Mr. Jones missed the deadline.
Although one in every three American babies has unwed parents, birth fathers' rights remain an unsettled area, a delicate balancing act between the importance of biological ties and the undisrupted placement of babies whose mothers relinquish them for adoption.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
He should have thought about that before he had his fifteen minutes under the yum-yum tree.
How sad. The baby has a father that wants him but can't have him. Why did they even bother to call him?
He and the mother were both together of their own volition: there is no justification there for one having lesser rights than the other.
tough situation if he didn't know until 3 weeks before due date.
Aren't conservatives supposed to be doing everything possible to encourage fathers to raise and take care of their sons and daughters?
To hell with the baby, it's all about "me".
He should have been told.
The selfless thing to do with bastards is to allow them to be adopted into loving, two parent (male+female) families. It's called LOVE.
The father cares about his baby, and wants to raise his baby. Conservatives should support all such men with everything they've got!
Otherwise, they're as responsible for the degeneration of the nation as liberals are.
(...a delicate balancing act between the importance of biological ties and the undisrupted placement of babies whose mothers relinquish them for adoption.)
What balancing act would that be? The mother doesn't want the babies, so what would be a reason why the biological father wouldn't get the kids if they want them? Has this world gone mad?
Babies happen. He is willing to accept his responsibility. Not much more you can do.
A father who loves his child should keep and raise his child, not toss the kid off to some unknown couple. Why do you value actual fatherhood less than having any couple raise the kid?
He is thinking about himself. A real man puts the good of his child above his own feelings.
Adoption is not "tossing the kid off", it is a loving, selfless act.
Given that most biological fathers are good people, there is no valid reason to not leave their own children in their care to raise.
Has this world gone mad?
Some parts of it unquestionably have.
Agreed.
Not in view of the fact that the baby is better off with their own natural father as opposed to some unrelated couple.
Children deserve to have a mommy AND a daddy. That's why it is almost always better to put bastards up for adoption.
No the best thing to do is give your child a name and love and raise them yourself.
The good of the child is to be raised by their own father.
I agree with what you are saying JC.
Why do you think he can't do just as good , if not a better job? I agree it is best to have a Mommy and a Daddy but life isn't always fair but families manage.
A child needs a mommy AND a daddy.
And a child born out of wedlock is not a "bastard", an undeniably negative term, but rather is a child, who deserves the care of their real father.
"He should have been told."
Yeah there is really no way he could win on this one, clearly he had no ongoing relationship with the mother.
You seem anxious to get the biological father out of his child's life as quickly as you can...
Single parenthood is a fallback position. Why on earth would a so-called "father" deprive his bastard of a normal family? Because of pride. "That's MY bastard, and I ain't gonna let it have a normal family life because it's MINE. MINE MINE MINE!"
Give me a break.
Wonder how long it would take him to desert his child the same way.
No, I know that children need daddies AND mommies. BTW, have you never heard of open adoptions?
Second, the father wants to keep his child because he loves his child, and knows that his child belongs with their natural father. Why do you insist upon artificially projecting ill motivations that don't exist?
Yes it is. Look it up.
A baby is a baby. No baby should be called a "bastard". Shame on you.
The loving thing to do is to think of the child first.
Not necessarily and probalby in situations like this unlikely. Married couples looking to adopt are in a better situation to give a child a home, as firstly they are married and secondly have made the necessary preparations for children. Years ago, children born out of wedlock were routinely given up for adoption for the reasons I stated. Not today, more often then not and unfortunately to the great detriment of children.
The word is "with", as in "belongs with": the best interests of the baby is to be with their father.
No, shame on those who have removed the concept of shame for irresponsible behavior, resulting in more bastards and more abortions.
Agreed. The loving, married adoptive father.
He is thinking about himself. A real man puts the good of his child above his own feelings.
Screwing a woman does not make a man a real father. It makes him a sperm donor.
He deserted her?
The right of the bastard to be raised not as a bastard but as a normal adopted child in a loving married (man+wife) family.
If she has a right to raise the baby though it was born out of wedlock, so does he. Fathers should not be treated under the law as having any lesser right to custody of their children than mothers have. No child is put up for adoption over the bio-moms objections unless she's proven unfit; no child should be put up for adoption over the bio-dads objections unless he's proven unfit. And since conceiving a child out of wedlock isn't considered sufficient grounds to hold the bio-mom as unfit, it isn't sufficient grounds to hold the bio-dad unfit either!
Sure the woman has loose morals, but at least she is thinking about the child at this point. Adopted children are lucky. They have adoptive parents who love them, and biological parents who love them enough to give them up for adoption so they won't be raised as bastards.
What is the source of your strange need to denigrate men who do want to raise their own children? Shouldn't you spend your time going after those women and men who don't care about their children?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.