NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/men/23148

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky soc.men:23148 alt.abortion.inequity:6670 alt.dads-rights:3469
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.dads-rights
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!castor.cs.psu.edu!beaver
From: [e-mail] (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: castor.cs.psu.edu
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:40:20 GMT
Lines: 76

[e-mail] (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>[e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>[e-mail] (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (r l taylor) writes:
>
>>>>Likewise, does the child have a right to a relationship with both parents?
>>>>If so, why should the mother be allowed to deny this relationship by keeping
>>>>(or attempting to keep) the father uninformed of the child's existence?
>>>
>>>IMO that is a terriffic ideal.  But there are some cases where this is
>>>not appropriate.  Such as where one parent is potentially abusive or
>>>otherwise harmful.
>
>>Yes, but what makes you feel that the mother should have the sole
>>right to make such a judgement?
>
>>If a child were one week old and the father *knew* the mother was abusive,
>>would it be right for him to take the child and disappear and never
>>permit the mother to see the child again -- or even to arrange an adoption
>>without her permission or knowledge?
>
>>By proposing that mothers can give children up for adoption without
>>permitting the father to be notified, you imply that it is alright
>>for the *mother* to take such action.
>
>Don, you have a compelling argument here.  What do you propose to
>safeguard the father's right to stop an adoption, yet safeguard the
>mother and the child in the cases where the mother feels that the
>father is potentially abusive?

IMO...

A mother who feels that the father is potentially abusive
(whatever that means -- "potentially"?) must declare that
she wants the court to terminate the father's parental rights
on the basis of abuse.  The burden is on her to demonstrate
that the father is abusive.  The same standard should be used
as in cases where children are taken by the State from a couple
because of abuse.  The father must be notified and given a chance
to defend against the accusations.

If the court terminates the father's parental rights, then the
mother can place the child for adoption.  If it does not, then
if the mother places the child for adoption, the father should
be awarded sole custody if he desires it.


A mother +should+ be hindered from placing a child for adoption
if a father has not been "identified."  If the mother is concerned
for the welfare of her child, she should make a stronger effort
to identify the father.  If she lies, she does so to the detriment
of her child, and she must make that decision.  If she can't identify
him, she is the one responsible -- not the decent and innocent men and
children who would be penalized by permitting a systematic misuse of power.
Do, however, note my choice of words:  "hindered."  We should not
streamline the termination of children's rights and fathers' rights
out of a misguided desire to "rescue" children.


I do not agree that a father should be denied knowledge of his children
based on a mother's opinion or on a bureaucrat's findings.  There is no
system so perfect that the "criminality" of a person should be determined
without that person having a defense.  Even where children are involved.
Placing a fascistic mechanism (for the presumed "best interests") in
place of presumed innocence might "rescue" a few children from harm,
but at the cost of robbing all children --and fathers-- of a guarantee
to the fundamental rights of every person:  to eat, to sleep under a roof,
to receive the love freely given by one's parents, and to raise and love
another generation.

Now, Michal, what do *you* propose?

Don
--
[e-mail]                       Opinions from the PC-challenged