Posted on 05/13/2010 12:26:33 PM PDT by fathers1
If the baby was older I’d say yes but since she is 2yo making a quick transition and a new life might be the better way to go. After a week she will begin to forget instead of haing “Aunt” and “Uncle” show up every week or two and remind her.
The adoption contract needs to be consensual.
No, the child has a father who stepped up. That is the biological father.
No adoption without the consent of the father and mother.
He took that chance when he put his pen into an inkwell that wasn't his. He made his choice, the child didn't have a choice.
Where in the Bible does it say to do that? The fact that people can and do act that way doesn't make it right.
You really think the dad’s the victim here? I don’t think so.
“in older times you had sex before marriage to make CERTAIN the future bride could be pregnant.”
Just curious, in what era are referring to? Never heard of such a thing.
but does this signal a change?...maybe....
it does mean that now fathers will pay no matter what...which maybe is a good thing....they will not be able to shirk their duties even if they fall out of love or find a new bimbo, they will pay for their children all the time....
so we don't need to hear anymore about how oppressive the courts are in handing out child support to the daddys....
another point....maybe next time instead of carrying the baby for 9 months mommy will simply abort........
consequences to having sexual relations before committment and marriage..
SHE LOVED THE CHILD AND DID NOT DO THE CONVENIENT THING AND ABORT HER....
SHE WANTED A GOOD TOGETHER FAMILY FOR THIS CHILD....
this will certainly make young women think more and more about abortion instead of saving the baby....
daddy is not thinking of this little girl...for all we know, she's a creep and mom couldn't stand the though of him being in this little girl's life....
Actually, I think that unless father is married to mom, he has no rights. Sperm donor only. Men who are not married to moms should never have parental rights, instead the woman should be pressured to give up custody of the child to adoption.
Are adoptive parents not as good as bio parents?
Not until bio rights are terminated, which did not happen.
I have four adopted within two weeks of birth children. Until parental rights are terminated, and the adoption is finalized , the kid is not yours.
I am an adult adoptee. I love my adopted parents and I had a good life. But my biological father didn’t know about me because my biological mother simply didn’t want him to. revenge for not loving her? who knows. Either way because they weren’t married she was allowed to give me away to strangers without him being contacted.
Now, as a middle aged woman who has met my biological (who would have kept me had he known)father I can say that it would have been wonderful to have been raised in a family in which I had so much in common. Looks, behavior, etc...
Being adopted comes with its own set of problems. It is a wonderful institution and it serves a purpose. To give homes to children that no one wants. NOT to give homes to children that are stolen from their parents.
Well you have to give her some credit. She didn’t abort the child which would have been far easier.
So much for that idea.
And to think that people actually asked my wife and I why we traveled thousands of miles to Russia to adopt a child who'd had his parents' rights terminated almost two years earlier, instead of adopting in the US.
My wife and I lived in Ann Arbor during the Baby Jessica case, and we took it as a shot across the bow when we decided to adopt. Undoubtedly many more people will see this case in a similar light.
As much as any parent whose child is kidnapped, yes.
A kidnapped child is also a victim.
The people the child is living with are NOT his parents.
The mother is a parent (who doesn't want the child) and the father is a parent (who does want the child). A child belongs with his parents. In this case, with his father.
(I seem to have missed if it's a girl or a boy child. I hate using "It's" to refer to a child and yet "his or her" is so clumsy. From this point on I'll have to stay with classical English where the masculine includes the feminine case)
Read the article. The father was thrilled to be a daddy and wanted to do the right thing (raise his child). The mother and the "adoptive parents" tried to steal that from him.
If a father does not have the right to raise his child, that is, to take custody if the mother doesn't want the child, then a father should NEVER be forced to pay support for a child he doesn't want.
Either he has rights and responsibilities, or he has neither.
Yeah, the couple in question bought a kidnapped baby. You want an extreme case? I’ll give you one.
A man rapes a woman he used to date and with whom he is obsessed, but convinces the jury that the sex was consensual. The woman got pregnant, and decided to give the baby up for adoption. The rapist tries to make contact with the woman and sends her money, but she avoids him, gives birth secretly and places the baby for adoption. A married couple that had been waiting for years for a chance to adopt a baby finally get the call from the adoption agency telling them that a woman has given custody of her newborn to the adoption agency, and the agency brings the three-day-old baby to their doortep. They raise the baby as any married couple would, and 6-9 months later are eligible to adopt him. When the rapist sees the notice of termination of paternal rights in the newspaper, he immediately sues, saying that he is the father and the baby “belongs to him.” The married couple does what any parents would do, and seek to protect their child, but receive a letter from a FReeper named Jewbacca saying that they are “evil” for trying to deny the sperm donor’s property rights.
I recall reading a SCOTUS case about 15 years ago (the case was likely older than that) in which the Court gave parental rights to a biological father who had never married the mother or lived with her and their daughter, but had, years later, met and spoken with the girl a few times in her neighborhood and sued for visitation rights. Justice Scalia wrote a superb dissent in which he warned that under the rule adopted by the Court, which completely ignored the relationship between the biological father and the mother, a rapist would have parental rights if he later established some kind of relationship with the child. This ruling in Tennessee makes clear that Justice Scalia was prescient about how the law would go.
But she didn't love the child enough to let the child know his father. She'd rather he lived his entire life not knowing who he really was than to live his live with his dad. Seems cruel to me.
SHE WANTED A GOOD TOGETHER FAMILY FOR THIS CHILD....
She could have given her child a good together family but she chose to kidnap him from his father instead.
this will certainly make young women think more and more about abortion instead of saving the baby....
Why? if the woman doesn't want the baby and the father does, just sign custody over to him. No big deal.
daddy is not thinking of this little girl...for all we know, she's a creep and mom couldn't stand the though of him being in this little girl's life...
(I missed in the article where the sex of the child was mentioned. Do we know it's a girl?)
As a single father I can tell you that he was thinking only of his child. Being with me is the absolute best situation for my daughter even if we don't have a mommy at the time (My daughter is 9. Her mommy passed on almost 5 years ago).
The biological father is a guy who knocked up a woman he had known for a month, and he had no relationship whatsoever with the child. The adoptive parents went through legal channels to welcome the baby to a loving home. What the biological mother did was wrong, and she should go to prison for it, but neither the child nor his (or her, but “the masculine embraces the feminine”) adoptive parents should be punished just so that a sperm donor can get back his chattel.
Please see my post #78 and let me know if you would still give the biological father an unabridgeable property right over a child just because it was his sperm that fertilized the egg.
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.