When Should a Father's Rights Be Terminated?

"The bill defines a relationship as:

1. Consistent prenatal financial support;
2. Consistent payment of prenatal and natal medical care fo rthe mother and baby;
3. Consistent child support payments commensurate with his ability to pay;
4. Consistent contact and visitation with the child; and
5. Assistance with educational and medical care of the child"

So in other words, a relationship between a man and his child is his ability to PAY (see 1,2,3 and 5) in conjunction with having an ex that actually allows you to see the kid. What a disgusting bill! Way to screw over men who had no idea they were dads because the mother didn't care to tell them.

"The bill defines a relationship as:

1. Consistent prenatal financial support;
2. Consistent payment of prenatal and natal medical care fo rthe mother and baby;
3. Consistent child support payments commensurate with his ability to pay;
4. Consistent contact and visitation with the child; and
5. Assistance with educational and medical care of the child"

So in other words, a relationship between a man and his child is his ability to PAY (see 1,2,3 and 5) in conjunction with having an ex that actually allows you to see the kid. What a disgusting bill! Way to screw over men who had no idea they were dads because the mother didn't care to tell them.

The only duty the state has in the financial support of a child or children is to see that the BARE MINIMUM of support is being met by BOTH PARENTS and no more. It is not the job of failed lawyers to be the life coaches of the public.

This is a step in the wrong direction. Missouri and Utah are the most anti-father states. I don't get the list of conditions for defining a relationship especially since most adoptions take place almost immediately after birth. How is a father able to form a relationship in this time? I also don't agree with fathers paying for pre-natal care (I like the points Xtrnl made). And ironically, with my last baby I was not given a single bill until after the birth. The hospital said that is how they do it now. All pre-natal care is one big charge, not broken down into individual office visits.

How I would like to see adoptions go?.... Fathers should try and be identified early in the process with the mother signing affidavits about the paternity situation. After birth while adoption is pending, both parents signatures should be mandatory and confirmed with a DNA test for father. If everything goes well adoption should be final in 14 days. If no father is found, finalizing adoption stalls for 6 months (baby can still be in the custody of adoptive parents) to see if any father shows up. DNA record will be saved from the baby so any potential father who comes forward can know within days if his DNA matches up or not. If there is a match, father should have a quick time limit to make a decision.

Heavy fines should be placed on any adoption agencies that do not perform due diligence in locating fathers. Adopting parents would then be skeptical about adopting from a "father unknown" situation since it would stall the process and that would put pressure on the agency and the birth mother to cough up a name.

However, if the mother truly does not know, I don't think much more can be done. If men wanted to be found after a one night stand, they would leave a name or number or something. In the future, I hope there is technology so we can more objectively rule out if the man wants to know about paternity or not and give him an anonymous way to check.

it means a father must do all of the above to be given consideration. even one point missing and the statement is no longer true, and they can take action.
these lawyer-vermin are just looking for an easy way to take more of our rights away. a simple set up, and vile to the core.

imagine if these manginas tried this with a woman's rights. most lawyers,
and that's what most legislators are, imho aren't much in the man department.
the rest are feminists. not very well educated either.
law school has become a haven for degenerates and affirmative action
promoted misfits. most are there on our dime.

their actions speak louder than their words. equality before the law means nothing to this crew. they despise the principles our country was founded upon.
its really no surprise our country has been seized by these %&*^$. most men appear too stupid and whipped to even know what is going on, or care.

I have been thinking about the list required of fathers and how contradicting it is, especially considering the other article posted about the Australian man trying to prevent his pregnant ex-girlfriend from aborting, moving away from him, and requesting medical records in regards to her pregnancy (his case was thrown out).

I realize the two situations are taking place in different countries, but it still is a reflection of different attitudes and how men are treated. If a man wants to be involve before birth and has concern over his unborn child, he is told he can't and is often labeled as "controlling". In the article the judge even indicated that he has no authority to rule over a fetus. Also, women are allowed to do all sorts of things that are unhealthy to a fetus before there is any thought of taking the baby from her. As far as I know it would have to be very extreme, and be measurably proven at birth. Even so, the mother would probably regain custody after counseling or treatment. Even if a woman acted as though she was going to give the baby up for adoption during pregnancy (perhaps she selects an adoptive family, or accepts some expenses from them) the birth mother can still change her mind after birth. So the actions of a potemtial father during pregnncy shouldn't matter, he should have the same rights as the mother before and after birth.

A mother does not even have to receive pre-natal care if she does not want to. For the life of me, I cannot understand who would think of putting such requirements regarding pre-natal care on a potential father. BTW - what happens if the women tells two or more men that they might be potential fathers? Do they all have to go to her doctor appointments, pay her bills, etc?

When I think of abortion laws, medical privacy laws (what if the girl does not want to share her medical info), and lack of legal expectations placed on pregnant woman; it seems so contradictory that a man who will not have any proof that he is the father (just the mother's word) would have to do all these things to retain his rights before he is even legally defined as a parent (laws say parenting begins at birth). If any gender should be legally defined as a parent with expectations on them before birth, it should be women!

I guess what really sums it all up is the fact that all of these criteria cannot be met for the father of a child, unless the mother actually allows him to do so. That is truly unfair. This makes the mom the gatekeeper. As Kris pointed out, it's not fair that the mom herself doesn't have to meet those criteria, and has a right to change her mind, too. Oh well, if the politicians keep passing laws like this, eventually all men will refuse to be dads.

How retrograde.

And I actually agree with Kris for once, with points she made that I hadn't even thought of.

Anyway, I feel sorry for the people in Missouri. They're poor, they suffer, and anyone with the means and the brains to do it will move to live their lives somewhere else. Missouri politicians are telling the world, "Don't come live here! We suck!"