Posted on 10/25/2014 11:56:33 AM PDT by Slings and Arrows
Oklahoma's Supreme Court has ruled that when it comes to informing a man that he is about to become a father, a Facebook post doesn't cut it, legally speaking.
In this case, a woman had a three-month fling with a man named Billy McCall in 2011, then realized she was pregnant after they broke things off, reports the Oklahoman.
She sent him a Facebook message informing of the big news, gave birth in 2012, then immediately put the baby up for adoption. McCall says he never saw the Facebook post and learned about the baby only after it was born, explains Courthouse News Service.
Lower courts declared that McCall's parental rights had been terminated, but the state Supreme Court disagreed. "This court is unwilling to declare notice via Facebook alone sufficient to meet the requirements of the due processes clauses of the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions," wrote a justice in the majority opinion, according to the Wall Street Journal.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This makes no sense. In order to adopt biodad has to sign off on the adoption and agree to loss of parental rights. The courts insist.
Not so astonishing, IMO - you don't go out of your way to hurt a stranger that badly.
Does a “stud” have to pay child support if she had decided to keep it?
Where does the woman get her right to have a baby without a mans input?
Is someone taking up a collection toward a box of shotgun shells? ;-)
Yes, we need to make sure Diana helps support the child I am bearing.
Umm
“The child is not a part of either of them. It is it’s own individual human.”
___I guess you are entitled to your opinion, as flawed as it is!__
That’s not opinion, it’s biology.
And understand you are propagating the abortioner’s lie that the baby is just part of a woman’s body and she has the right to do whatever she wants with her body.
“Where does the woman get her right to have a baby without a mans input?”
That doesn’t make any sense.
“Does a “stud” have to pay child support if she had decided to keep it?”
I think that is a different, but related, issue.
Currently under our legal practices he may have an obligation to pay child support, just like he may have some right to the child.
I disagree with both.
I think the dog has no rights, but also no responsibility.
I think this would hopefully help women who foolishly go with these dogs to mature and find a man who will love her and marry her and live as a family with her.
Problem is, today, the government support also works against that.
We are all messed up and have strayed from the basis of our civilization in the past decades.
I cant fault you for your consistency .
Good point.
And to think otherwise, is to undermine the institution of marriage.
How does he know who the father is?
Woman has sex outside of wedlock, and any resulting child should be her responsibility.
And not the responsibility of however many men she had sex out of wedlock with.
Nor should the child be the responsibility of the state.
Sounds harsh, but it’s the lesser evil.
“Laz. I’m pregnant.” “So am I.”
Hurray! I’ve always wanted twins!
But are you sure it’s MINE? (Old Blond joke...Ba-Dump-Dump!)
Re: Band for the wedding. Nailed it! :)
“Is someone taking up a collection toward a box of shotgun shells? ;-)”
Rock Salt, Please. Just enough to sting. Lord know you can’t find a .22 to save your LIFE (literally!) in Wisconsin!
“Yes, we need to make sure Diana helps support the child I am bearing.”
Sweetie! We can raise it as our own, but you know as well as I, that as soon as it has TEETH it will need to be released back into the wild.
Unless you’re still nursing...then it’s totally your call.
See? I am NOTHING but supportive! :)
Get crackin'.
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.