Questions about paternal rights?

Let me begin by stating that the term "parental rights" is a misnomer. Parents do not "relinquish their rights to the child" rather they abdicate their responsibilities to the child in abrogation of the rights of the child to the "care, comfort and companionship" of his or her parents. It is the child's right that is terminated, not the parents'.

It is certainly discriminatory, but we should also ask whether the discrimination serves a valid public policy interest or if it is just a gender based prejudice? If it is prejudicial, then who is victimized by the discrimination? One could argue that such statutes are discriminatory against the woman because the father has more latitude than the man, or that the man is the victim because the woman (and the adoption agency/state) can apply pressure to him to act before the child is born without the safeguard that is in place for the mother. (I am sure the adoption agencies would love to change it so that Mom could sign the papers pre-birth!) In keeping with my point above, I am of the opinion that it is the child's right that is prejudiced, but treating the parents' equally would not resolve the issue.

Adoption is a legal (and moral) contradiction, and is discriminatory in many ways. When we look at the idea of adoption from the point of view of the child's rights, the parents' responsibilities and the proper role of the state, the contradictions become more evident. There are no benefits to the child from adoption that cannot be had by means other than terminating the child's right to her or his parents and legally pretending to alter the child's innate identity; processes that harm the child. The only valid public policy objective of adoption is to protect the child and ensure its welfare.

Adoption - in any form - serves only the adoption agencies and government agencies that are funded by and for adoption and the folks who purchase babies from them.

@Tad W. I agree with you. However, the question was about "paternal" rights, ie, the rights of fathers and not about "parental" rights, by this the rights of bio parents is probably meant.

As for "birthmother of 3". I hope you are a troll.

-------------

All this business of encouraging " fathers to relinquish their parental rights BEFORE their child is even born " only shows that where adoption is concerned, societal changes, including improvements to the rights of divorced fathers, which have been slowly put in place since the end of the 70ies, are totally excluded.

This shows that all the changes made to family law, society's views on single motherhood and the liberation of gays from bigotted attitidues only affect adoption insofar as this is in keeping with the business situation of agencies.

By this I mean that single motherhood is no longer looked down upon and single women are allowed to adopt. Conversely, teenage mothers are coerced into surrendering their own flesh and blood and persuaded that their situation is contrary to their own welfare and that of the child.

Same applies to gays, divorced couples, lower classes, etc...

(edit was for style)

The father doesn't even HAVE any legal rights until they sign the birth certificate. So they have nothing to sign over, before that!

I think b/c paternal parentage can often be confusing--possible DNA tests, bio-dad vs. punitive dad, MIA dads--they want to get this mess out of the way before the child is born or the mother meets/chooses the potential parents.

My own story is one of complicated paternal parentages & I am glad we got all this settled before I met the potential parents. Now I didn't place directly after birth, but I prob would have been even more grateful for the early termination of paternal rights simply b/c it would have taken so long for all the certified signature mail to be sent, rejected, etc. that the potential parents may have backed out.

I think ??#2 & 4 is very valid ones. I've wondered that myself. I do think the support would still be enforced if the mother filed with FOC for support payments. I think it's crappy to do that to a father though--playing with his emotions like that.

But with ?#3, I think the ? is moot b/c I don't think a father would make a good parent in any way if he was trying to get out of payments.

My ? is for the poor dads who never know they have a bio-child b/c the woman lies to the lawyer/adoption agency about paternal parentage. Contrary to popular belief, agencies--& probably lawyers too--don't require DNA tests in most cases. They just take the birthmother's word for it.

Most people give up there rights for one reason, monthly payments of support and it's a shame to give you your child because of money and this is happening more and more

Actually mothers can give up their rights before the child is born. Thats how many adoptions are created. Mothers give up their rights and that creates the adoption scenario...... And yes your right most judges will not grant a father the right to reliquinish this rights just to avoid child support.. and even if they did.. the biological father could still be required to pay child support each month.......