Skip to comments.Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers
Posted on 03/19/2006 10:41:42 PM PST by Giant Conservative
Jeremiah Clayton Jones discovered that his former fiancée was pregnant just three weeks before the baby was due, when an adoption-agency lawyer called and asked if he would consent to have his baby adopted.
"I said absolutely not," said Mr. Jones, a 23-year-old Arizona man who met his ex-fiancée at Pensacola Christian College in Florida. "It was an awkward moment, hearing for the first time that I would be a father, and then right away being told, 'We want to take your kid away.' But I knew that if I was having a baby, I wanted that baby."
Mr. Jones has never seen his son, now 18 months old. Instead, he lost his parental rights because of his failure to file with a state registry for unwed fathers something he learned of only after it was too late.
Under Florida law, and that of other states, an unmarried father has no right to withhold consent for adoption unless he has registered with the state putative father registry before an adoption petition is filed. Mr. Jones missed the deadline.
Although one in every three American babies has unwed parents, birth fathers' rights remain an unsettled area, a delicate balancing act between the importance of biological ties and the undisrupted placement of babies whose mothers relinquish them for adoption.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
He should have thought about that before he had his fifteen minutes under the yum-yum tree.
How sad. The baby has a father that wants him but can't have him. Why did they even bother to call him?
He and the mother were both together of their own volition: there is no justification there for one having lesser rights than the other.
tough situation if he didn't know until 3 weeks before due date.
Aren't conservatives supposed to be doing everything possible to encourage fathers to raise and take care of their sons and daughters?
To hell with the baby, it's all about "me".
He should have been told.
The selfless thing to do with bastards is to allow them to be adopted into loving, two parent (male+female) families. It's called LOVE.
The father cares about his baby, and wants to raise his baby. Conservatives should support all such men with everything they've got!
Otherwise, they're as responsible for the degeneration of the nation as liberals are.
(...a delicate balancing act between the importance of biological ties and the undisrupted placement of babies whose mothers relinquish them for adoption.)
What balancing act would that be? The mother doesn't want the babies, so what would be a reason why the biological father wouldn't get the kids if they want them? Has this world gone mad?
Babies happen. He is willing to accept his responsibility. Not much more you can do.
A father who loves his child should keep and raise his child, not toss the kid off to some unknown couple. Why do you value actual fatherhood less than having any couple raise the kid?
He is thinking about himself. A real man puts the good of his child above his own feelings.
Adoption is not "tossing the kid off", it is a loving, selfless act.
Given that most biological fathers are good people, there is no valid reason to not leave their own children in their care to raise.
Has this world gone mad?
Some parts of it unquestionably have.
Not in view of the fact that the baby is better off with their own natural father as opposed to some unrelated couple.
Children deserve to have a mommy AND a daddy. That's why it is almost always better to put bastards up for adoption.
No the best thing to do is give your child a name and love and raise them yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.