Lets discuss the war on fathers!
People should place more emphasis on what is best for the child than what the biological father’s wishes are. A child is generally much better off in a two-parent household than with a single father siring children out of wedlock. So, the only consideration here should be whether the life the prospective adoptive parents offer the child is better or worse than what the biological father would provide.
There is no war on fathers. Utah is one of the few states that do not require the bio dad’s consent for place a child for adoption. I understand the need to have all parties agree and sign off for placement but realistically, did any of these so called dads really want to raise their babies by themselves and on their own? Are not children better served to be placed with two married parents than be raised and bounced around between single people? If these guys really wanted their children then maybe they would be man enough to marry the mothers. But even if the father’s are required to sign off for adoption, a number of states do have in place provisions in case the so called dad refuses to sign off. There isn’t a war on men but a war on adoptions and the more legal hoops bio parents have to make, the less likely they will not make an adoption plan for their children and the big losers here are the children who won’t end up in stable homes but end up in unstable environments.
Okay. Why don’t you begin by telling us what you think about the article?
Fathers should have as much control/rights over/to the child as the mother.
Is a child generally much better off in a two-parent household than with a single mother siring children out of wedlock?
Yes, statistics show this to be the case. But when they say “two parent household” in the statistics I think it’s politically correct ambiguous language for “mother and father”.
Women don’t sire children, that is a derogatory term. Men sire children and usually the guys in these situations really are not interested in raising children as much as getting some 2 minute thrill. If these men were real men, they would take responsibility and marry and raise the child together with the mother.
Most of these “fathers” are more interested in having the mom have an abortion that even seeing the child born and placed for adoption. Most single women that end up having abortions do so under pressure from the boyfriends and family. It sounds nice to say that birth fathers should have “rights” but most of these guys are not really interested in what is best for the baby and battle the mom either to have an abortion or raise the child.
This lawsuit is probably long overdue. There have been a slew of cases in the last few years in which biological fathers have tried to contest their children’s adoption in Utah. Most of the biological fathers – and biological mothers – were not from Utah, and the cases involved ugly battles over which state’s law applied. Utah’s laws are the strictest in the nation regarding biological fathers, and some fathers have properly established paternity in their own state only to have Utah say that they didn’t do it properly in Utah.
One father was actually married, and his wife placed the child for adoption without his consent – and it took him about 2 years to get custody of his daughter. (sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55700459-78/achane-teleah-freis-daughter.html.cspl)
The Salt Lake City Tribune did a big story package about biological fathers’ rights a couple years ago, and there’s been a lot of media coverage of the various cases involving bio fathers challenging Utah adoptions. FWIW, even with the online adoptive parent community there’s been a lot of discussion and concern about Utah’s laws. Adoption is great! But it needs to be ethical.
I completely agree this is long, long overdue. Interfering with a parent/child relationship, outside of abuse or neglect, is WRONG. It’s wrong for family members to do it, and it’s especially wrong for the state to do it.
Yes, of course children are better off in a two-parent household but that doesn’t justify depriving a child of being raised by a loving, WILLING, single biological parent. The child has a right to be raised by their biological parent. Adoption should be a last resort only when* neither* parent is willing/able to raise their child.
I sincerely hope this father is successful. It’s time for this nonsense to stop.
I’ll probably get blasted for saying this, but it seems most of this was done by an LDS agency. There was a time (now past, I think) when their people haunted hospitals here and made deals with mothers of newborns just outside the hospital premises. Once the deal was made, the child disappeared to parts unknown. Maybe Utah, maybe not.
There is good to be said about Mormons, even about their religion, but one of the things in it is that one’s position in the afterlife is determined by a number of things, one of them being the number of children one has. And if a couple can’t bear any or many themselves, then???
Of course. And fathers and mothers also have equal responsibilities. When either parent denies their own flesh and blood their basic human right to a stable, loving, two parent family, it is time to hold them accountable by enforcing parental responsibility laws we already have.
Parenthood is both a great blessing and a great responsibilty:
And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Timothy 5:8
I have very strong opinions on this. I am an adoptee from the 1950s, an era before legal abortion, rampant single motherhood, and before unmarried bio-fathers could run interference with a ‘knocked up’ girl or woman surrendering her child for adoption.
Many young women today find themselves in a real quandary. They can kill the baby, something they have total control over. They can raise the baby, probably alone, forever entangled with (maybe)loser father and his interfering mother. Or they can surrender for adoption, an already wrenching process, further made difficult because, in this day and age the baby-Daddy has to sign off.
I’ve seen young women who can’t even move out of their county or state because baby-Daddy has her under his thumb with a legal document. Meanwhile, he creates unhealthy drama in her life, doesn’t pay support, is manipulative and controlling.
So, I think the Utah law encourages adoption and life, and protects young women.
I later found my birth family, they are all super liberal, pro-abortion people.
If my daughter got pregnant I would definitely advise her to go away, never tell the father, and quietly surrender the living baby to an intact family with good values.
Perhaps if a woman doesn’t want to be “under the thumb” of her loser “baby-daddy”, she should avoid having sexual relations with loser men that she doesn’t want to be tied to for the next 18 years.
I’m sorry, but just because some woman make stupid choices about who they sleep with does NOT justify stealing children away from their father who is fit and wants to raise them.
Nice sentiments. Then, her only option, if she wants to protect herself from a man who wants to interfere with the rest of her life, use the child as a bargaining chip, manipulate her right and left? Abortion.
Hats off to Utah to attempt to protect women and unborn children. The Mormons are very aware of cause and effect. They understand more than Catholics do to protect the family structure and encourage morality. I wish them well to fend off these men, who should have kept their pants zipped, and are lucky their children are alive:thumbsup:
Have a good day.
Typical feminist BS. Men are pigs and women are victims. This is why the “War on women” is a farce. What better way to hurt women then to say that they can’t make good and responsible choices. Last time I checked it takes 2 to tango.
So I guess fathers are only valuable when the woman decides she wants access to his wallet. Otherwise he should just get lost. :rolleyes:
Why do you have such a hard attitude towards women? I am an adoptive parent and am quite aware of the typical situation with a single woman that would like to make an adoption plan because it is in the best interest for the child to be placed in a two parent home instead of a single mom with some father floating in an out. Whether you want to see it or not, most women that become pregnant out of wedlock are abandon by the boyfriend and left to fend for themselves. Yes they are equally responsible for having sex and getting pregnant and making bad choices but most of these bio father/sperm donors are not really interested in the baby and what is in the best interest for the child. Most single women that have abortions do so under the pressure of the boyfriend. And even sadder is that most of these “dads” would rather see the mom have an abortion than make an adoption plan and even when the bio moms do so, the so called dad then kicks in gear and starts pushing on his “legal rights” which usually is just another way to interfer with the adoption and push abortion. Maybe if more men would be “real” men and take some responsibility for their actions and either marry the mom or help her make the adoption plan. If you are so concern that men are always blamed or victims, then why are you using this law suite to blame women? The only victim here in all of this is the child and a real man would be more concerned about the child not about his rights to get back at some women he thinks he has been done wrong by.