A ‘Scarlet Letter’ Law Fla. Adoption Statute Pits Fathers’ Rights Against Women’s Privacy

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I think a man needs to know if he impregnated someone. I don't think it's fair right now, some men might want their child.

You're right, but the whole world doesn't need to know he might have. The addiction certain elements of the moralista crowd have to "shame" suggests that their motivations are busybodyism, not the welfare of the child or the rights of the father.

I'd say that acting in such an irresponsible manner, he largely forfeited his rights. How many such men are likely to come forward in such circumstances anyway.

-Eric

I agree. From the article: More Shame, Fewer Adoptions?

More importantly; more shame, fewer abortions. There is no right to murder. The right to choose is BS, and should also be published and punished. With rights comes responsibilities. If you "choose" to murder a child, you, and anyone who assisted should be held accountable.

Another useful measure might be to deny child support collection services to those who refuse to marry the father. If the father refuses to marry, he should pay to offset public support, or raise his child himself (I guess this is his "right to choose"), but he should have to pay no more than the government would expend on public assistance, and no more than he could afford of that amount, in any case (the proper application of guidelines).

Some might think this would give government control over a woman's sexuality. That's the point. The incentives marriage offers and father custody is what kept families together. The government is only enforcing God's laws. That's what makes a civilization civilized.

Colleran said she'd have to disclose "basically everything about my sexual history, within the time that I conceived. And I think this is disgusting, it makes me feel very ashamed."

Not to be cruel here, I honestly am not, but if what you did makes you ashamed of it because it is being possibly brought out publicly, don't you think you should be ashamed of it anyway?

On a more relevant note, it is absolutely imperative that every and all effort be made to find the biological father in an adoption case. The reason is not to ashame a pregnant mother, it is to prevent another baby Jessica. (Nutshell of Jessica case... mother put child up for adoption, did not inform father. Child legally adopted by family, father showed up and wanted child, court gave child to father.) To adopt a child with an unknown or absentee father, the courts must involuntarily terminate a fathers rights. This involves basically running some ads in papers saying you are looking for them, if they don't show up in a given amount of time court will involuntarily terminate their parental rights, clearing the way for adoption and protecting the adoptive family from the father showing up years later and trying to take the child.

Now I don't know about Florida law, but where I live this is the way it is, and I am getting ready to go through this process (we are adopting a child where father is nowhere to be found). Now in our case the father is known but nowhere to be found. When father is unknown, I am not sure what the courts have to do.

Now as to the practicality of this law, reality is is the birth mother will not likely have to pay a pennie out of her pocket, this is just flat out lie... adoption agencies and parents who are adopting will I am sure cover the fees of a few hundred dollars to run the neccessary ads. So, idea the fees will make it more difficult I doubt. This is more about the mothers not wanting to reveal their sexual histories... which I can understand from a privacy standpoint. However, I cannot imagine any person who is thinking about the welfare of their child, which face it any person putting their child up for adoption nearly has to do.. only the most callous of human being can make this sort of decision easily.. when push comes to shove will not be able to deal with their shame in order to give their child a better opportunity.

As I understand it, if the father is unfit, the natural right to guardianship succeeds to the mother. If the mother is likewise unfit, the state can acquire guardianship. Loosing the natural right requires some act of the parent (neglect, abuse, abandonment), and the burden of proof is on the accusor. Since the juvenile court act, neglect has been interpreted to include a condition resulting in a child becoming dependent on the state for it's support (needy), and was meant to be a broad enough definition to allow latitude for the benefit of the family.

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.