Posted on 04/10/2012 1:26:36 PM PDT by DNA.2012
A bill presented in the House would allow the adoption of a child to take place without the consent of the father, if he has not previously developed a consistent and substantial relationship with the child.
The definition of “consistent and substantial relationship,” has not been specifically defined in Missouri law. The bill seeks to express clearly the actions a father must take to develop a consistent and substantial relationship.
Unless actively thwarted from doing so by the mother, the father must provide:
Consistent prenatal financial support
Payment of prenatal and natal medical care for the mother and baby
Child support payments proportional with his ability to pay
Consistent contact and visitation with the child
Assistance with educational and medical care of the child
Professor Mary Beck at the University of Missouri School of Law wrote the bill. She said this bill was written in response to the Lentz case. She said one of the goals was to clear up confusion on who could intervene in an adoption.
“It (the bill) spells out what a father needs to do to protect his constitutional parental rights,” Beck said.
She said the bill also specifies to judicial circuits when the father has not protected his parental rights, and when the child can be adopted and gain permanency with a family and home.
Rep. Rory Ellinger, D-University City, said he is strongly against the bill. He said in the case of a woman getting pregnant and deciding not to tell the father, that this bill would not only deprive the man of the right to be a father, but would also get him out of his duty to pay child support.
Beck, along with at least 10 other attorneys in the Missouri who are members of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys united to create the bill. The chair of the Family Law section of the Missouri Bar and the chair of the special committee on adoption, developed by the Missouri Bar were both involved in writing the bill.
Beck said the opinion in the Lentz case has led to different interpretations by different judicial circuits in the state. She said the bill attempts to clarify the position of the legislature on the issue.
Arnold said the bill was an attempt to fix the law, because of the confusion in the Lentz case. He said many legislators wanted to strengthen the adoption laws and make it clear to the judiciary what the legislative intent was in such cases. However, he said he believes the bill restricts the constitutional rights of father-child relationships, and they did not get the language right.
“This is a terrible law,” Arnold said.
He said he would suggest changing “actively thwarted by the mother or the child,” to include other entities, such as the court or prospective adoptive parents. Arnold said in the Lentz case, the court and the prospective adoptive parents thwarted Lentz from consistent contact and visitation with the child by limiting his visitation.
In close cases, such as the Lentz case, the laws in Missouri make it difficult for judges and attorneys to know how to proceed. Beck said the bill spells out what the law is.
“We won’t have close cases anymore, it will either be this way or it won’t be this way,” Beck said.
With this bill, Arnold said Lentz would not have been able to fight for custody of his son, because he would not have met the five criteria spelled out in the bill.If a father’s name is not listed on the birth certificate, the father must take certain actions in order to gain custody of the child, such as:
Filing with the state’s punitive father’s registry an intent to claim responsibility for the child.
Filing a paternity action to have himself declared a custodian of the child.
Assuming consistent financial and custodial responsibility.
The bill means to define consistent financial and custodial responsibility as developing a relationship with the child and providing financial support.
Other states have passed similar legislation. In Illinois, consent is not required when a parent has deserted, failed to communicate or provide support for the child. In Iowa, consent is not needed if a parent has signed a release of custody or abandoned and failed to support the child. The same is true in Arkansas, but the parent must fail to assume parental responsibilities for two years.”I think it’s fair to say that the state wants to protect the rights of men who assume financial and custodial responsibility for their children,” Beck said. “But we don’t want to prevent children from going to adoption where fathers object, but don’t step up to the plate and don’t assume legal, custodial and financial responsibility.”
Ellinger said the majority of the time lower class mothers put their children up for adoption, while middle and upper class couples are generally the ones to adopt. He said the bill was legislative class bias at its worst.
Rep. Brandon Ellington, D-Kansas City, also said he believes this bill is biased against men. He said the bill does not take into account the social factors of the mother and father, and the father may not be able to meet the criteria, because the relationship is strained. In such cases he said, the mother may not have the child’s best interest in mind and abuses the father’s support payments.
He should not have to buy a right to parent via payments to his child's mother as listed in this anti-father legislation.
>>He should not have to buy a right to parent via payments to his child’s mother as listed in this anti-father legislation.<<
Keep it zipped up until after you are married and a guy has no fear for this law.
But in general, it is yet another attack on men.
Women are not deprived of parental rights for not “keeping it zipped up”, regardless of their marital status.
I don’t think it will be long before enraged fathers go to hunt down fully law-compliant women and/or Professor Beck with fire arms and/or chain saws.
A biological father who is not willing to make a child legitimate should have no rights whatsoever with respect to the child, unless the mother refuses to marry him. Whatever happened to taking responsibility? Whatever happened to shotguns?
Fathers have every right to raise their own children, regardless of their marital status.
A father’s right to raise his own child is not contingent upon his marital status.
And it is quite possible that:
A) the mother doesn’t want to be involved with raising the child
B) the mother doesn’t want to be married
what about the mothers?
Is it fair? NO!!! Is it the way it is for the most part? YES!!
Incidentally, a father who wants to raise his own child - without any involvement from the mother who doesn’t want to raise the child - IS being responsible as well as asserting his rights.
OBVIOUSLY.
i see lots of women who use their pups as cash machines. interesting you have no words for them.
Fathers who are willing to raise the child on their own are taking full responsibility.
Those willing to do so have every right to block the adoption of their child to some random stranger.
If all the men in the legislature vote against this measure, that will be the end of it.
I doubt that the mothers of children by rich men attempt to adopt those children out.
Why would they, when those children become sources of cash for the mother?
If your rights as a parent were dependent upon a vote of the members of the nearest sorority, would you be OK with that?
ah, so you approve of pups as cash machines!? By all means, go pop a few more out, sow...and hell with the poor fool that gets suckered. If he can’t meet your cash requirements, adopt the pup out from under him. Serves him right. Right?
I described the current state of things; I did not indicate approval of them.
Please read my previous comments on this article for context.
That law is wrong and unjust.
There may come a day when the sperm donor and child reunite in an attempt to forge a relationship.
This law would place a wall to high to surmount and the child would be programmed with whatever narrative the mother supplied, which would be disastrous.
Who knows the vile and vindictive crap mother pull and their Holy Wars to exact satisfaction, despite the very real damage they doin to their child.
Oh and I’m adopted, knew my real father my entire life and all my relatives on his side. In fact, I was the #1 pallbearer at my grandmother’s funeral.
I don’t talk to him but that’s a personal choice and I don’t like nasty drunks. Funny, apparently my brothers and sister feel the same.
Still, he made the decision to relinquish my birth name and it all worked out.
I have a great dad, who I would never dishonor by using the term step dad.
He is a great man who I have always looked up to and reflect upon when I make important decisions.
That law is wrong and unjust.
There may come a day when the sperm donor and child reunite in an attempt to forge a relationship.
This law would place a wall to high to surmount and the child would be programmed with whatever narrative the mother supplied, which would be disastrous.
Who knows the vile and vindictive crap mother pull and their Holy Wars to exact satisfaction, despite the very real damage they doin to their child.
Oh and I’m adopted, knew my real father my entire life and all my relatives on his side. In fact, I was the #1 pallbearer at my grandmother’s funeral.
I don’t talk to him but that’s a personal choice and I don’t like nasty drunks. Funny, apparently my brothers and sister feel the same.
Still, he made the decision to relinquish my birth name and it all worked out.
I have a great dad, who I would never dishonor by using the term step dad.
He is a great man who I have always looked up to and reflect upon when I make important decisions.
A biological father is a father, not a “donor”, just as a biological mother is a mother, not an “incubator”.
You are missing the part about a child having a relationship with their father.
They do desire to at least know the person from who their unique life came from.
Fathers who don’t provide for their children are pricks but the child doesn’t need to also suffer consequences.
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.