She would be an angel for giving up her child for adoption when aborting would have been "more convenient."
If the mother refused to tell the state who the father was, they should not have allowed the baby to be adopted; if she lied and said she was raped, then it's her fault not the state's. It IS possible, you know, that the father would have WANTED the baby, even if the mother had stopped being interested in the man.
NONE of this matters in my scenario, one that has come to pass several times in the US. A court should rule in the child's best interest. Whether the bio-father would have wanted to raise the child, and what reasons the bio-mother may have had for concealing that from the authorities at the time of adoption, are not important. The child has a loving mother and father now. You never should remove a child from loving, caring parents for a stupid genetic reason. A sperm donor who really cares for the child at all would NEVER dream of ripping him from his parents' arms. Period.
1) Sorry, I don't regard it as particularly saintly not to kill your baby.
2) In your scenario, a father's legal rights have been unfairly taken away. He has a legal claim. It may be true that the best interests of the child would, in a particular case, lie with the adoptive parents, but you can't simply say "tough luck" to the biological father and not even give him a day in court. If the judge then finds that the child would be best off staying with the adoptive parents, the biological father (assuming he is not unfit) still deserves both visitation rights and compensation from the state for improperly taking away his parental rights. (If he is indeed a "LOW LIFE" he can be found unfit and lose any rights, but they ought to have to PROVE that he is unfit in court.)