Fathers' rights are ignored when moms abandon babies

Letter here.

'Re: "Calgary needs an Angel's Cradle," Editorial, Oct. 21.

Is creating an Angel's Cradle really going to solve the problem of abandoning infants? Or is it going to increase the number of children discarded? I believe it will increase the number of children left, and it will be allowing a parent to potentially get out of a situation when times get tough. And what parent is really going to go and drop her child off at a hospital, in front of other people, and then just walk away so easily? It is obvious that if they are ditching their child in the first place it is because they are trying to do it secretly, and discreetly, for some reason. Also, the father in this situation is given no chance to care for his child, because of the mother's actions. Isn't it the father's right to be able to care for his child if he wants to? This type of government involvement could potentially help, yet at this stage is giving the wrong message to unwilling parents. If a parent really does not want her child, there is something called adoption. That's a good place to start.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Fathers' rights are respected by the law, at least in the safe haven programs I am familiar with. Every time a baby is dropped off, the case is highly publicized and putative father's lists are checked for a possible match. This is done specifically to give time for a father to show up and claim the child. Of course improvements could be made (I would like to see the time extended). But there is some credit to the argument that if a guy isn't aware he got someone pregnant or if due date has passed and he has not contacted the mother or investigated, than he has already abandoned the baby, and his consent for the adoption is assumed.

And you never know if it was the father that carried the newborn to the safe haven as some reports claim that to be the case (caught on camera or witnesses perhaps). And lets not forget about the widowed father that legally dropped off his nine kids at a safehaven (prompting many states to implement age limits)

Safe havens work because they speed up the adoption process. Parental rights and responsibilities are transferred from the birth parents to the adoptive parents. So the children do not go without care. (Safe haven allows parents to transfer these anonymously without actually being present during the process)

Neither a mother nor father can legally abandon a child without transferring responsibilities to willing and able adoptive parents.

The letter posted suggests safe haven laws will increase the number of babies dropped off when times are tough. I don't know what evidence this is based on, or if it is just an assumption. Besides if parents can't handle tough times, then perhaps the child is better off being adopted.

Like0 Dislike0

How can a list of potential fathers be generated when a mother can drop off the kid anonymously?

Also I've heard this arguement before: "But there is some credit to the argument that if a guy isn't aware he got someone pregnant or if due date has passed and he has not contacted the mother or investigated, than he has already abandoned the baby, and his consent for the adoption is assumed." and frankly hate it. Should a mother who doesn't keep in touch with the father also automatically lose her parental rights? If not seriously think about what that means. A man should have to keep in touch and be cordial with any ex, fling, whatever just in case she got pregnant, and if he doesn't he's abandoned any potential child. On the other hand a woman who actually gets pregnant can completely ignore that there was another party with rights to know and raise that child and there's no negative consequences.

Like0 Dislike0

"But there is some credit to the argument that if a guy isn't aware he got someone pregnant or if due date has passed and he has not contacted the mother or investigated, than he has already abandoned the baby, and his consent for the adoption is assumed."

What?!?... not knowing if someone is pregnant has nothing to do with abandoning a child. A father is supposed to magically know When conception happens... all this only has to do with his relationship (or lack thereof) to the mother which is NOT necessary for him to be a father. It is his by right.

Hell there is even a show about dumb women who say "I didn't know I was pregnant".

"And you never know if it was the father that carried the newborn to the safe..."

All this tells me you don't respect father's rights.

Like0 Dislike0

"How can a list of potential fathers be generated when a mother can drop off the kid anonymously?"

With some (all?) putative fathers registries the potential fathers leave DNA results so it is just a matter of performing a paternity test and entering the info into a computer and seeing if there is a match (DNA is taken from all safe haven babies). If no paternal DNA is available, I assume when fathers register they include the mother's name, area and due date and race of child that would give some clues as to who the potential fathers might be or authorities could at least contact potential fathers in the area and gather that information and see if any fathers are concerned enough to investigate if it is their child or not. With today's technology this is just a click of a button to send an alert to registered fathers.

"A man should have to keep in touch and be cordial with any ex, fling, whatever just in case she got pregnant,"

Yes, that's right, if a man is concerned about potential children. He could also sign a putative fathers registry.

...Not necessarily keep in touch and cordial but contact information should be available to the mother. If a man does not provide contact information, say a one night stand, it is assumed the man does not want to be bothered. If a man acts unconcerned, he will be treated as if he is unconcerned. There are some risks associated with casual sex and not knowing if pregnancy occurs is one of them. Some men might consider this a benefit.

Like I said before safe haven cases are highly publicized any man that is concerned can investigate if it is his child or not. Most likely the woman does not know who the father is or how to contact him or the father has already abandoned the situation. If a safe haven is used, both the mother's and father's consent for adoption is assumed.

Due to biology of pregnancy woman and men have different risks. A woman knows for sure the child is hers but is left dealing with pregnancy, a father does not know for sure and must rely on the mother and/or DNA testing after birth but he is free to distance himself during pregnancy. If a child is unwanted fathers can emotionally and physically abandon at any time during pregnancy, mothers must wait until after birth.

This biology allows a mother more ways to trick the system but she does not have the law on her side to do so and I am an advocate for tightening any loopholes. With today's technology (internet and information sharing, putative fathers registries, and DNA testing) any concerned father should be able to block adoption of his child, but he does have to put in some effort.

A man must realize everytime he has sex w/o a condom that he has left his baby making material behind. If he is concerned about his offspring then he needs to not let his sperm get too far away from him. Don't leave it with strangers, in foreign countries, etc. and utilize the options I have mentioned such as putative fathers registries.

There is definitely room for improvement to protect father's rights, but really I think in most safe haven cases, the father abandons the baby long before the mother does, or the mother truly does not know who the father is. I think adoption is a reasonable solution to these types of situations.

And if the mother has just gone through labor, it is not out of line to assume the father may have dropped off the baby at a safe haven as has been reported in some cases. News reports usually focus on finding the mother because she is likely in need of potentially life saving medical care.

...And fondueguy, you really don't think I respect fathers rights? really? You and I have different opinions, but please don't ever question my resepct for fathers. My own father is probably the most influential person in my life and I completely respect and appreciate my husband's role and opinions as a father - even when they are different than mine.

Like0 Dislike0

Besides, I thought you guys were part of the "paper abortion" crowd. Doesn't the "logic" go something like this: If mother makes the sole decision to not abort, then she must take all responsibility? Well if she has all responsibility then she has all the rights, correct?

Which is it? In unplanned pregnancies and the mother's decision to not abort, does she have all rights and all responsibility or just all responsibility and some rights? I thought the whole paper abortion "logic" implied that a father had nothing to do with bringing the baby to life - therefor he has no rights (along with no responsibility).

I personally don't agree with the "paper abortion" logic as I think both parents have rights and responsibilities to their children. Therefor on a moral level a mother needs to do what she can to inform the father of pregnancy, but also on a moral level the father should make his wishes known, make an effort to keep informed and his behavior should match his expectations.

Morality cannot be dictated in the courts, but legally everything should be done to keep rights and responsibilities equal for mother and father.

Since fathers have a fair chance to claim their babies from safe haven and are allowed the same benefits, I don't see them as disrepectful to father's rights

Like0 Dislike0

One more thing...

I've gone through an unplanned, unwed pregnancy, and I thought of a million ways to "get rid of the situation" without the father's consent including abortion, hiding the pregnancy, going out of the country, secret adoption, lying about the father, etc.

All of those options were a possibility but I didn't act on any of those thoughts.

I come from a very conservative family and an unwed pregnancy is considered disgraceful. At the time I would have preferred to hide out in his house, in another state with little or no family aware of the situation, and discreetly give the baby up for adoption (with father's consent). The father was not on board with this plan and I respected his wishes.

I'm forever grateful for my two boys and I go out of my way to make sure my boys have a relationship with their dad.

Like0 Dislike0

"Besides, I thought you guys were part of the "paper abortion" crowd. Doesn't the "logic" go something like this: If mother makes the sole decision to not abort, then she must take all responsibility? Well if she has all responsibility then she has all the rights, correct?"

Lmfao. I don't think you are caring about logic or even trying to understand us what "we" want.

Like0 Dislike0

"A man should have to keep in touch and be cordial with any ex, fling, whatever just in case she got pregnant,"

Yes, that's right, if a man is concerned about potential children. He could also sign a putative fathers registry."

You missunderstood his post badly. He was talking about the ridiculous and unfair implications of the argument he was going against.

Like0 Dislike0

Kris,

So what happens if a father drops the kid off at a safe haven. Are there putative mother registries? Is her consent also assumed?

And you only addressed half my point. You're making the exact type of assumption that MRAs try to get people to think more openly about. Even IF a guy keeps in touch with an ex, it doesn't mean she'd tell him about the pregnancy, just because a guy doesn't know about a pregnancy doesn't mean he's abandoned it. Do you think a woman who hasn't told an ex partner that she's pregnant would answer truthfully if asked? If she was willing to have the ex-partner involved in the kids life don't you think she would have contacted him on her own? Do you think women have any responsibility to inform a former partner that a child was conceived? If not, do you think women have a responsibility to inform a former partner that they learned they have HIV? Society in general I would say feels the latter situation means they should have to contact the partner, but the former not as much.

And for the paper abortions comment it's the situation above that leads to that logic. Overall I don't think MRAs want 'paper abortions' so much as we want consistency of logic. Men don't have any say in carrying a child to term, we don't even have to be told we have a child, yet we're labeled as "abandoning" out children if we don't follow up routinely with ex partners, and since they may not tell the truth I guess we need to hire private detectives to follow them around and find out if they're pregnant. Yes, the logic is if women are given the entirely of rights over reproduction after conception then reproduction after conception should be considered an area where women have more of the responsibility, but I know personally I feel it's a way to explain the logic of why men should both have more rights over their children, if NOTHING else the right to be informed that they even EXIST, and also more responsibility. People rail against men who run off on their families, but how long has it been since society has suggested to anyone that fathers are an important role in their kids development? It's how the human brain works, when you tell students that boys do better than girls in math, that is the result you get, well when you tell men they're role is unimportant and secondary to the role of the mother, you see what you get.

Like0 Dislike0

Here is my whole realm of advocating for father's rights in uncommited relationships.

> Unbiased court system, where fathers have equal respect

> take away incentive for purposely getting pregnant. Equal rights and responsibilities for both mothers and fathers. Mothers should not assume support or custody, take away welfare, etc.

> implemnt a national optional putative fathers registry. If courts and support/custody issues are fair, maybe men would be more enthused to register. Then perform a paternity test on all adopted/safe haven babies as well as babies born to "fathers unknown" to see if there is a match. Make laws well known and consistant and extend the time limit fathers have to come forward before adoptions are final.

> make it a crime to withold paternity information (perhaps this can't be proven or enforced, but I think it should be recognized as a legal responsibility onto mothers.) Also, I think men should be made aware of how often pregnancy occurs, and have a right to know, also children have a right to the truth.

PS- I will answer more specific questions later tonight. I have to run...

Like0 Dislike0

A father not knowing he is a father has nothing to do with child abandonment, especially when the baby isn't even born. To say otherwise is absurd. What Kris is basically saying is that men are on their own and what ever happens to them happens to them. Those sentiments don't uphold actual rights for fathers.

Not knowing as a man that you have conceived is simply that, not knowing. Withholding the rights of the father for not knowing is as ridiculous and arbitrary as withholding the mothers rights because she did not know she was pregnant within the first week. In neither case should they every be deemed as unfit or unwilling parents.

A fathers relationship to the mother has nothing to do with establishing parental rights and if it ever did the same responsibility should fall on the mother. Now to get to what is maybe the most important part of the matter it is in fact the mother who is in the very best position to know when she pregnant and by whom. I would say that if she KNOWS she has responsibility, both legally and morally, to tell the man or men she has been with. Its more than just respecting the right of the father its also about the right of the child (which is known to exist). In legal parental matters it is absolutely horrible to leave things as essentially a free for all and that whoever has the knowledge has the power ie letter the mother sign away the kids because she knew and the father didn't...

Like0 Dislike0

It's not a right if the only way you're willing to respect that right is by expecting men to register themselves with every state and every country in the world after every time they have sex, providing them with DNA samples and physical descriptions of the women they had sex with.

Why do you feel that it's fair to protect the anonymity of women all the while violating privacy of men?

What about a man from a conservative family who had kids out of wedlock and the mother chases him down for child support? What if he would feel embarrassed by it the way you did when you made your own decision to have unprotected sex? Where is HIS right to anonymity? Are you a hypocrite?

All we're asking for is that the father have a fair chance at keeping his own children. It's your own body so you can abort it when it's inside you, but once it comes out of your body, you don't own it. It has it's own rights, including the rights to its father. And its father has rights to it. Whether or not you drop the kid off for adoption, if you know the identity of the father but refuse to let him know, you should get thrown in jail for that type of thing.

Like0 Dislike0

@ItsDan-

"So what happens if a father drops the kid off at a safe haven. Are there putative mother registries? Is her consent also assumed?"

Answer: there are no putative mother registries because a mother knows for sure it is her's during pregnancy, and yes, her consent is also assumed if she does not claim a child taken to safe haven by a father.

In most cases I assume it is the mother who drops off a baby. However, we will never know for sure how many fathers drop off babies. In some incidents where a baby was directly handed to a human being (firefighter or hospital worker) they have reported it to be a man (presumed father) and sometimes, witness or hidden cameras suggest a man left the baby as well. The news reports I read do not report much beyond that. But I believe adoption went forward, as I cannot see why it would be treated any differently.

I believe everything should be done to allow parents to come forward and honor parental rights, but at some point parental abandonment and adoption consent must be assumed regardless of wether it is a mother's or father's consent, otherwise these babies would be "wards of the state" indefinitely.

I share your concern about mothers lying or hiding paternity. I would like to close all loopholes. I think mothers have a moral (and should be legal) responsibility to inform fathers. but I also think in many cases a mother does not know who the father is or how to contact him.

If a man knows a woman cannot locate him (say a one night stand and only gave his first name, doesn't live in town, etc), how much responsibility is on him if he wants his parental rights honored should pregnancy occur?

That's the situation I am envisioning as I write my posts.

Now I acknowledge that woman sometimes lie/hide paternity, but you have to admit that sometimes men abandon pregnant woman either purposely after they learn about conception or by simply avoiding any opportunity to be informed after sex by giving few details about themselves and leaving no contact information. In cases like these where the father makes it impossible for him to be notified of conception and the unclaimed newborn baby has been well publicized, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume he is giving his consent for adoption. Besides what would the alternative be?

If a father wants parental rights I think he has a better chance of uniting with his child in safe haven situations because they are highly publicized (national TV internet, etc) versus a traditional adoption where a mother can say "father unknown" and there is no publicity or incentive to locate the father. (In adoption cases a mother must write a sworn statement about her involvement and/or lack of knowledge of the father if she declares he is "unknown").

I think improvements can be made as I listed in my post above, but I think generally adoption and safe haven are fair to both genders and reasonable solutions to unwanted children.

@ fondueguy -

As usual your criticisms of me does not make any sense or match up with anything I post or advocate.

Example: "What Kris is basically saying is that men are on their own and what ever happens to them happens to them."

Like0 Dislike0

@ Dungone: You write:

"All we're asking for is that the father have a fair chance at keeping his own children. It's your own body so you can abort it when it's inside you, but once it comes out of your body, you don't own it. It has it's own rights, including the rights to its father. And its father has rights to it. Whether or not you drop the kid off for adoption, if you know the identity of the father but refuse to let him know, you should get thrown in jail for that type of thing." -Dungone

I completely agree and I have lived my life accordingly. However, I take a little exception to your reference to abortion. I'm pro life and so are the men I sleep with - so really not an option.

I thought we had an agreement before conception that adoption would be our solution to pegnancy if marrraige was not agreeable. However I learned later that he didn't think I was serious. He said he could never give his baby away.

The reason I posted about my pregnancy experience was in response to fondueguys accusations that I don't respect fathers' rights. That's completely bullshit.

There are many reasons I made the choices I did, but one of the biggest reasons were out of respect for the father and morality. I was in love with him and we had a great relationship, so of course his feelings were important. But even if we had a bad relationship or no relationship, I still would feel a duty to respect the father when it comes to his parental rights. I also felt a duty to the child. I imagined my adopted child meeting me when he or she is adult and asking questions about their father and me saying "I never told your father about you" - that would be heartbreaking. That's like saying the child wasn't important enough to inform the father or taking decisions that don't belong to you in your own hands. I could never live with myself.

I am also a very spiritual person. I believe everything comes back to you. People reap what they sow.

My parents disowned me during the pregnancy and I had to quit my job as a Sunday School teacher at my church. But I made it through the pregnancy and time has changed alot.

I am no longer with my ex and I am expecting a baby with my husband - which makes him a step father to my two boys. It is difficult to respect everyone's "rights" at times - but I do my best.

Like0 Dislike0

'As usual your criticisms of me does not make any sense or match up with anything I post or advocate.
Example: "What Kris is basically saying is that men are on their own and what ever happens to them happens to them."'

That is actually a fair description of what you have commented:

"But there is some credit to the argument that if a guy isn't aware he got someone pregnant or if due date has passed and he has not contacted the mother or investigated, than he has already abandoned the baby, and his consent for the adoption is assumed."

"And you never know if it was the father that carried the newborn to the safe..."

"If a man does not provide contact information, say a one night stand, it is assumed the man does not want to be bothered. If a man acts unconcerned, he will be treated as if he is unconcerned. There are some risks associated with casual sex and not knowing if pregnancy occurs is one of them. Some men might consider this a benefit."

"If a safe haven is used, both the mother's and father's consent for adoption is assumed."

... it is assumed, it is assumed, he may not have wanted it anyways, it is assumed!!!!!!!

All that is not respecting the fathers inherent rights.

Kris, I made a short general description of the situation I saw and then made my points so you could have just argued the actual points I made. I was only arguing against what you were saying/advocating not how you live your life. That's none of my business and there is obviously a difference in advocating for something and the way you live... I only was concerned about the former.

In order to have a constructive argument people need be concise and stay on point. Kris, look at how long your posts are compared to everyone else (you always do that). We all wander in our posts which is good but not in an argument.

Like0 Dislike0

"If a child is unwanted fathers can emotionally and physically abandon at any time during pregnancy, mothers must wait until after birth."

Wrong!!! Fathers can emotionally and physically leave the MOTHER which should not be interpreted as him leaving the child, whether he knew about the child or not. Furthermore when a father does not know about a child he is not abandoning it. As I've said "Withholding the rights of the father for not knowing is as ridiculous and arbitrary as withholding the mothers rights because she did not know she was pregnant within the first week. In neither case should they every be deemed as unfit or unwilling parents." He is a father by right and his wishes need to be respected not assumed nor should he have to jump through hoops like registry.

Like0 Dislike0

I'm glad that you agree that fathers have those inherent rights and that you agree that women who maliciously deprive a father of these rights should be punished. So let me say where I agree with you before anything else. I agree that safe havens are a good thing - unwanted children beget poverty and more unwanted children. Giving up the child helps break the cycle, puts existing unwanted children in better homes, and over time the numbers go down.

But this all has to be done in a way that respects everyone's rights. It doesn't matter what the excuse is. If a father would want to raise his child but the system doesn't do everything possible to make sure this happens then it's an opportunity lost and a human right violated. There are women out there who would kill their own kids rather than let the father have them. Just because you say that you respect a father's rights doesn't mean that fathers don't have to be protected from women who don't. And just because you don't respect people who have one night stands doesn't mean that they forfeited their rights.

What does that mean? It means that we can't make the automatic legal status of a father say that he abandoned his kids unless he takes some extra special measures to prove that he's a willing participant. We can't say that if he lost a phone number or forgot the name of the woman he slept with, then it must mean that he abandoned his own kids. That's like saying it's no longer your house if you got locked out without the keys. What if it was the woman who had a one night stand with him? What if he was the one who wished for the relationship to be something more, but she's the one who didn't want him? The rhetoric has to change. Start to be respectful of fathers and their rights and you'll see more men supporting these types of programs.

Like0 Dislike0

Dungone: "It's not a right if the only way you're willing to respect that right is by expecting men to register themselves with every state and every country in the world after every time they have sex, providing them with DNA samples and physical descriptions of the women they had sex with."

Kris: I hope I never implied that. I can't say enough how much I feel a woman has a responsibility to inform the father and respect his rights. I think it should be written into law. My only support for OPTIONAL putative father's registries (PFR) and the reason I mention them is in situations where a father has not provided enough information to locate him and he does not respond to publicity about the unclaimed baby, then it seems PFR is the only option left to check to try and find him. After that I guess one would assume he doesn't want to be found.

It is not that I want fathers to go thru an extra step, it is just with the difference of biology I see no other way if mothers have no contact info. Since babies are connected to their mothers, a mother knows for sure the baby is hers. Only fathers are at risk of not knowing.

So I only think of optional PFR as a last resort and because there is no better system in place. If a man doesn't want to be found for paternity or a woman truly does not know who the father is, I cannot think of another system that will make his intentions known and respect his rights if he wishes to keep them. So it is only with that intent that I support them. Hopefully future technology will offer the same idea only more efficient and better able to protect the man's privacy. I am all ears if some one has a better suggestion as to what to do when mother cannot locate a father.

But my concerns....

From what I have heard PFR are kind of a joke and the laws associated with them can actually hurt father's rights because many men do not know about them and then adoption agencies use the "you did not register" excuse to take babies away from fathers that want their children. So there is alot of room for improvement. I have alot of suggestions, but I wont bore you as I do not think any of us feel like they are a primary solution. And of course the concerns about leaving DNA with a government agency, unfair child support if there is a match, etc....

One improvement I do want to mention though is that in all adoption cases that have "father unknown" which would include safe haven babies should definitely extend the time to finalize adoption so that a father has plenty of time to come forward or develop laws that would protect his rights if it is proven that the mother withheld paternity or adoption knowledge from him.

Dungone: "Why do you feel that it's fair to protect the anonymity of women all the while violating privacy of men?"

Kris: Privacy regarding safe haven is the same for both genders. Names of the mother and father, if known, will not be released. Fathers have been known to anonymously drop off babies as well as mothers. But I assume you are talking about the father needing to register for PFR. I hope I already made it clear that I don't think fathers "need" to register. I am only thinking of fathers that enjoy one night stands, are untrackable after sex, but still want their paternity rights if conception occurs. As I don't have any other solutions for that type of situation. And so far none of you guys have offered any.

And I do realize women enjoy one night stands just as much and can be just as responsible for "loosing track" of their sex partners. But I still don't know how to protect the father's rights if he cannot be found.

I beleive in most cases of safe haven babies there is usually video surveillance, and/or the baby is even handed to a live person. They do not make video public because "privacy" is part of the deal, but any concerned potential father could call up and ask to see the video or speak to witnesses if he thinks it may be his baby.

So do you ever think there is a point where everything has been done to locate the father and now adoption should go through?

Should the father's behavior ever serve as an indication (I did not say substitute) to his intentions if he cannot be located? (let's say she was a cocktail waitress at a bar and at closing they went home together. He would know where she worked but she would know nothing about him. Impossible for her to locate him, but he could locate her, and she is visibly pregnant while she works)

And I will even flip the genders and say should a mother's behavior be an indication to her intension's? I say yes as there have been cases of fathers bringing babies into safe havens and I believe mother's rights were terminated after she never came forward.

You made alot of good points in your post and I think we are mostly in agreement, but still no solutions on how to protect father's right's when he cannot be found without making assumptions.

(Okay - I typed this on a differnt page over a long period and halfway thru I noticed your new post. Some of this may be already coverred, but I don't feel like editing)

Note: PFR = Putative Fathers Registry

Like0 Dislike0

"Kris: Privacy regarding safe haven is the same for both genders."

No, in fact the very existence of Safe Havens present us with a double standard. You admitted yourself that the PFR violates a father's privacy. If the dad wants the kid he had with one woman, he has to give up his DNA to a registry that can be used against him for the rest of his life. Any woman he ever has a child with can then identify him with a simple DNA test. No more anonymity, ever. She can give up the kid even if there is a hospital record that identifies her as the mother. A woman can abandon a baby whenever she'd like, with complete anonymity, and no one can ever ask her to support that child ever again. Even if she knows who the father is, no questions asked. No child support obligations, ever. A father can claim the baby and raise it, but her identity is never disclosed. Easy way to get out of child support after a one night stand! And she can drop off child after child for as long as she lives.

Can a man under child support obligations do a similar thing? If a man doesn't even know that he has a kid and doesn't even have custody of the kid within the time limit under which safe haven laws apply, he'll still be obligated to pay child support. When not hampered by a time limit, in 4 states only a mother can do it, in 1 state only the custodial parent can do it. Nowhere in the world do putative fathers have any right to the child, by the way. They can only obtain physical custody of it if they get the mother's permission or by court order (but who ever won custody in 4 days?). Therefore in most of the remaining states, a father can only take the child and drop it off at a safe haven with the mother's permission - or else that's called kidnapping. Only 6 states don't specify who can drop it off - so maybe a father could avoid kidnapping charges, I'm not sure. So please don't try to say that there is equal protection under the law for men. Not in the slightest. Instead, a father could end up in jail because of the private personal information he divulged to a PFR. So much for protecting his rights! Not only is his privacy violated in a profound way, but it violates the constitutions of the USA and any other country with an equal protection clause.

So in order to give a woman her anonymity, we force men to give up theirs or else lose their rights. It's a zero-sum game. Even if the father lives under the poverty line, the only option he has to give up a child that a woman wants to keep is to break the law.

Women's advocates push for both safe haven and mandatory child support for men but can't seem to see their hypocrisy. So, they argue until they're blue in the face that Safe Haven laws won't cause any sort of bump in women abandoning their own babies. But, on the other hand, they argue that giving men the option of getting out of child support would unleash a flood of men who legally get out of supporting their kids over and above the ones who do so illegally. Why should it matter? If men really do have the same rights as women under safe haven laws, then why do safe haven laws require physical custody of the child in order to abandon it legally? Why not give men a paper abortion that does nothing more than live up to the same standards as existing safe haven laws? 9 months + 72 hours after finding out he is a father, let him get out of it free and clear. The reason why not? Because it's only okay if a woman does it. If a woman wants the kid, she can keep it and the dad is legally obligated to pay up. If she doesn't want the kid, she's got a dozen options from condoms to abortions to safe havens to adoptions. If an unmarried father is the one who brings the kid in to a safe haven provider, then just like you said, the mother must have already abandoned it. And if a married father does it where it's legal, she can still claim it back and he's still responsible for it. So it's only if she doesn't want the kid. That's the only time a kid can be abandoned at a safe haven.

The hypocrisy is profound. Why are there safe havens? Because we wouldn't want women murdering their own babies or throwing them in dumpsters, would we? It's only fair to women and children not to create situations that result with murdered babies. What does that imply? It implies that fathers won't murder their babies, but mothers will! And by and large that's the truth of what happens. So by the logic of feminists, maybe fathers could win some reproductive rights if they started murdering babies and their mothers a little more often.

A father has no rights, especially a putative father. Not within the first 72 hours after birth, or even if it took 10 years to track down the father, or even if the kid isn't even his and it's proven with DNA tests that it's not his, or if he doesn't show up for a court hearing for any reason - even if he never got the summons or didn't think it was important because he never even heard of the woman - even so, no matter what, women's advocates will happily tighten all the screws when it comes to men. So please don't say that there's anything equal about this. A man never has the same opportunity under safe haven laws that women enjoy.

"As I don't have any other solutions for that type of situation."

Not having a solution doesn't make it okay to go around telling men they should just suck it up because life isn't fair. If there ever was a single completely wrong answer to any injustice, that is it. You're only slightly guilty of that attitude, but google this issue and you'll find dozens of forums where hordes of bigoted women ravenously mock men for their lack of equal rights. That's why you can look everywhere else and never see a solution.

"And so far none of you guys have offered any."

Here is a simple solution to start with: get rid of PFR lists. Tell safe haven providers to provide DNA information about the baby to fathers, not the other way around. We have HIPAA laws that protect every other kind of medical record from being disclosed without the patient's consent. But a putative father's DNA records are considered public for all intents and purposes. They get searched by the thousands as if they were listed on Google. That's the "simplicity" that you alluded to when you claimed that this is the best we can do for fathers' rights. It's blackmail. It's so simple, only sexist policymakers wouldn't have thought of it in the first place.

We live in a digital age, as you've noted. Enforcing a father's rights could be as simple as clicking a button and sending out a DNA profile to every single legal firm or father's advocacy group that subscribed to receive the data on behalf of their clients. You said that safe haven drop-offs are "widely publicized" events where potential fathers are given every chance to find their kid. If that's true, then this fits right in line with it. It preserves the mother's anonymity as well as the father's.

But while we're at it, let's force DNA testing for any adoption where the woman lists the father as unknown. And extend the amount of time given to a father so that he can claim his children without any arbitrary assumptions about his intent, even after they had already been adopted. Put an end to adoption agencies hiring lawyers and making multiple appeals to drag the process on long enough for them to turn it into a "best interest of the child" issue.

* PFR - a list of men who have absolutely no rights. Why isn't there a similar list for women? Because they have rights!

Like0 Dislike0

it's called equality under the law.

it took me many years to understand.
if we are all equal under the law then we all have the same rights and
responsibilities. end of story. game over. anything less is bogus.
that statue of the woman holding the scales while blindfolded
says it all. our smarter than us forefathers carved it in the stone
over the s.c. entrances,
so they would never forget. but, guess what? yep.
equality was the first thing to bite the dust. followed by fairness, truth,
justice and honor.

it's not that hard to understand; but, it appears to be very hard to do.
especially when the system is slowly tweaked until it no longer resembles
what is described in their own 'professional' precepts of law.

we must go back to those venerated principles to have any chance of lasting as a country,
or as a people. the very nature of the precepts prove them. the definition of the p.o.l.
also says that you if lose any one of them, you lose them all.

think about it. you take away any of these (equality for instance) from one side and allow it to the
other side and you no longer have any fairness. then you lie to cover, and so forth.

THAT is the fix. the only fix!

Like0 Dislike0

Dungone,

You make a good suggestion, and it is much better than the current PFR that requires info from the dad, but I also assumed that we all understood that something along that line was already considerred. I allude to this in my fist post about sending out alerts to potential fathers is a click of a button and I often say fathers can then investigate if they want. You are right that it should be the other way around as far as DNA goes and sending info of the baby's DNA to groups representing fathers instead of the government.

But it will always take some sort of group representing fathers and effort on the father's part if the mother does not know who the father is, that is just the nature of pregnancy and birth.

Like0 Dislike0

> "You admitted yourself that the PFR violates a father's privacy"

Yes, I admit that they do, but I also place them in 'the back of the line' for determining who the father is - just one of many tools used to locate him . The mother should be first in line (and legally obligated) to disclose such info. I also say they are optional and I wish for a better system that will protect the father rights. And if implemented the way you suggest (they would no longer be PFR, but called something else ran by groups representing fathers) then the baby's DNA would be sent to such groups and a father could choose to have a private paternity test.

So please let me clear up that I do not necessarily support PFR, But I support some sort of optional system that would allow the father to be identified when the mother is unable to do so and help sort out wether he wishes to forfeit his parental rights or does he wish to keep them.

>"Even if she knows who the father is, no questions asked. No child support obligations, ever. A father can claim the baby and raise it, but her identity is never disclosed. Easy way to get out of child support after a one night stand! And she can drop off child after child for as long as she lives."

I am not an expert on this, but I am not sure it works this way. Child support should work the same for both genders in this case. I'm also not sure if there have been any cases where a father picked up a child from safe haven and raised it. It would be interesting to know. I certainly advocate for the mother paying support.

Safe Havens work because adoption is guaranteed if parents do not claim their children. But safe haven/adoptions takes consent of both parents. Consent is assumed if one parent cannot be found. We already discussed the need for improvement which I advocate for. But if one parent comes forward to raise the child that nullifies their consent and blocks adoption. I would think all "safe haven" benefits would be nullified as well. In the scenario you provided, the mother may not be found, but she should still be legally on the hook for child support. No different that if a father abandons a situation either purposely or because he is unaware - it may not ever catch up to him if he has not left any identifying information, but the law still considers him responsible. And a parent should only be responsible for the care of the child since the time they are informed (and notice I use the word "care" and not "support"). I am not saying all this is currently the law - but it is how it should be.

Now I am reading your second paragraph about the gender discrepancy in safe haven laws which seems to contradict what I assume. I am no expert so the information you are providing certainly changes things. I read about the 4 states requiring it to be the mother that drops off the baby, but in the other states it can be the father. I did not read anything that supports what you are saying about the father needing to have legal custody (physical custody and legal custody are two different things).

I know of fathers that found their children after mothers unanimously (and illegally) placed them for adoption and fathers went thru long legal battles to get their children back. I would hope the mothers are legally obligated to pay child support.

I do support adoption and safe haven when the rules and benefits are the same for both genders. There is room for improvement and I also think that if a whole realm of issues were improved for fathers regarding pregnancy and parenthood then there would be less need for safe havens and more two parent families.

As far as paper abortion....I do not support. I also think it is a bad position for male/father rights activist to take, especially if the argument is based on a woman's "right" to abortion. I hope it is only out of frustration that some men advocate for this. It is conflicting in many ways. I do not have time or energy to get started on this conversation, but I have written in the past and I am sure I will in the future.

But again, here is what I advocate for pregnancies in uncommitted relationships:(edited: notice I took out PFR reference)

- Fathers to get respect and equal treatment in courts especially in regards to support and custody

- Cut off incentives for getting pregnant on purpose (mothers should not assume support or custody) Each parent should have to provide care for the child, not necessarily financial support. Cut off welfare But if any government help is to be given it should be offered to father as well. Support payments should only be if a parent is unwilling or unable to provide care. Fathers should have fair shot at full custody if shared parenting is not an option.

- Mothers should have legal obligation to disclose paternity information

- Adoption laws should be improved to protect fathers rights.

- In cases where father is "unknown" (born to single mom, adoption or safe haven) some sort of system where baby's DNA is provided to groups representing fathers should be available to help unite fathers with children they may not know exist.

Like0 Dislike0

"I am not an expert on this, but I am not sure it works this way. Child support should work the same for both genders in this case. I'm also not sure if there have been any cases where a father picked up a child from safe haven and raised it. It would be interesting to know. I certainly advocate for the mother paying support."

Yes, this is rare and it's unclear what would happen exactly. BUT, let's connect the dots one more time.

1) For all intents and purposes, only mothers can abandon their babies (a father alone can't, but a mother alone can).
2) The mother remains anonymous and safe haven laws protect her from being persecuted for her actions. Child services and the father may not be able to find her even if they tried.
3) A single mother has sole custody of the child and she is legally giving it up for adoption. The moment she drops it off, the child is essentially adopted by the state until a permanent family is found.

So, if a father doesn't have legal custody of the child before the mother abandons it, what can he do? He can't claim custody retroactively. Everything that the mother did was legal. So the most the father can do is go through adoption like anyone else.

Why do you think it's rare for this to happen? Probably because not many children are dropped off in the first place, not many fathers even get the chance to find out about their baby, and the remaining few that do are faced with a situation where there isn't even the slightest hope for support from the mother. Given that this happens more often to poor families, the mother's support may be crucial. There are so many more government, charitable, and corporate programs available to women but not men (maternal leave, anyone?), it's even harder for a single father in poverty to raise a child on his own. That doesn't mean that potential fathers are abandoning their kids because they want to. We'll never know because people just love to make bigoted assumptions that pigeonhole fathers into negative stereotypes.

Like0 Dislike0

http://www.floridafamilylawyerblog.com/establishing_paternity/

"In Florida, an unmarried biological father has a right to assert his claim of paternity and obtain notice of a mother’s relinquishing of parental rights. But, to preserve these rights, the putative father must follow proper Florida procedure. In order for the putative father to preserve his right to notice and consent to an adoption, he must file a notarized claim of paternity form with the Florida Putative Father Registry which is kept by the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Health. When a putative father submits his paternity form to the Office of Vital Statistics, he consents to testing of his DNA as proof of being the father.

Timing of the biological father’s submission is also very important. To receive proper notice and reserve his ability to consent to the mother’s choices, the claim can be filed at any time before the birth, but may not be filed after the date the mother files a petition for termination of parental rights. For example, if three days after the birth, the mother decides to relinquish her parental rights, and the biological father has failed to submit a notarized claim of paternity, he has essentially waived his parental rights to be notified and provide consent to the mother’s decision. In Florida, the putative father should also realize that the interests of the state, the mother, the child, and the presumable adoptive parents outweigh his interests if he fails to take timely action to establish his relationship with the child."

Think about that for a minute.

Compare that with the rights of a mother:

"Consider the following situation: Man and Woman met in 2004, had a very brief relationship that lasted several weeks, and they never spoke again. In 2008, Woman comes knocking on Man’s door, informing him that when they were together 4 years before, she got pregnant and had a child. Soon thereafter, Woman initiates an action in circuit court to establish Man’s paternity of the child. As it turns out, Man is the father and the court orders him to pay child support... That being said, the court, in its discretion, is only allowed to award retrospective child support for up to 24 months before Woman initiated her paternity action."

You still think Safe Haven laws create a situation where men and women are treated equally? A man isn't allowed to establish custody retroactively, but a woman can do so easily, even years after the fact! A woman has automatic custody, so she doesn't have to do a damn thing to establish paternity or custody. A man isn't a father, he's just a "putative" father. Even if his DNA matches, he's not considered to be the real father unless he knew about the baby and filed all the appropriate paperwork before he realized that the mother made a decision to abandon her kid. If anything, a DNA match should automatically establish paternity and automatically and retroactively give him full rights to his baby since the moment it was born. But that's not the case anywhere. So, honestly, how's that for equality under the law?

Like0 Dislike0

"As far as paper abortion....I do not support. I also think it is a bad position for male/father rights activist to take, especially if the argument is based on a woman's "right" to abortion. I hope it is only out of frustration that some men advocate for this. It is conflicting in many ways. I do not have time or energy to get started on this conversation, but I have written in the past and I am sure I will in the future."

How can you be in favor of safe haven laws - they absolve women of all responsibility for her child (which you seem to be in denial of) - yet be against paper abortions for men? THAT is contradictory. Paper abortions are nothing remotely like real abortions - a man's paper abortion in no way forces a woman to give up her child or go through any medical procedure she doesn't want to go through. A paper abortion is exactly what a safe haven law offers to women, but not to men. A paper abortion doesn't mean that there won't be a healthy, happy little baby. It just means that there will be a healthy, happy father that isn't imprisoned by a woman's personal choices.

Also, just because you don't agree with abortion doesn't make it wrong. It's not out of frustration that I support paper abortions, as I am pro-choice with no questions asked. I don't respect most "pro-life" stances because they are also against contraceptives, against fighting poverty, against the health of the mother, and against the future of the child. Usually these views are based on religion - so a Catholic would want to force their Catholic views on a Muslim or an atheist or a Jew or a Buddhist or whatever - and that's just not right, unless Jews can ban all our pork and Hindus can ban all our beef and the Amish can ban all our cars. So I only respect your personal choice based on your personal beliefs, but I don't think that you respect everyone else's.

Like0 Dislike0

I often describe myself as pro-life as that is the simplest and quickest way to inform people that I would not choose abortion for myself; but the reality is that I am politically pro-choice, and I am glad abortion is available in some situations.

I don't believe life begins at conception, therefor I do not consider an early term abortion to be murder or unethical.

There are many religious people that are pro-choice and many non-religious people that are pro-life.

Like0 Dislike0

This thread is getting stale. I was busy over Halloween weekend and cannot keep up with all the posts and the different subjects that are being introduced into the conversation - and I do think of this as an interesting conversation not an argument . I have quite a few things I want to interject. I will continue to post on these subjects as they come up in new threads.

Some thoughts....

- The inherent right that children have to be cared for by their fathers (and with that inherent right comes inherent responsibility).

- paper abortion will give women full power and control over children (mothers will become the "givers of life"). Men that want to be parents will not have the law on their side to do so. I don't think it is wise for men to ever hand over their right to influence their children. Where will the next generation of MRA's come from if women solely raise kids?

- Some men suggest that it is the disrespect fathers are shown in society and legal system that leads to this type of logic (referring to paper abortion). But I feel this will only perpetuate the stereotype that some have of fathers (uncaring, unattached to children, non-nurturing, etc.). BTW - I can understand not wanting to get pegged with unfair child support payments, but why not fight that while still holding on to your right to care for your children (Example: advocate for shared parenting)?

- Although contraceptives and abortion can have health benefits, I think sometimes their harm is overlooked. You have some parents putting their 12 year old daughters on birth control that are not even sexually active "just in case" or because it "clears acne" (these girls will be 'medically pregnant' for 20+ years). My teenage friends that had full access to these services (progressive/ liberal parents) had more unplanned pregnancies than my friends that did not have access to these things (conservative/ strict parents). So behavior is the biggest indicator, I believe.

Like0 Dislike0