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.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I agree.
In all likelihood, there is more than sufficient opposition to the proposed Missouri law, but much more needs to be done.
First, I would definitely sign onto protecting the rights of all of the good fathers even if that meant that there would be an occasional legal wrangle with a few not-good ones in accordance with your scenario.
That said, fathers who did not want to raise the child would be unlikely to oppose adoption because they would wind up with 18 years of child support payments.
Also, a simple pre-condition can be built in: namely that for a father to veto an adoption, he has to be willing to accept full custody.
Seems as though you have never experienced Western divorce court as a white male. You would be in for a rude awakening. Google: “parental alienation”
On “18 years” A check of the most recent CS laws reveals that only THREE states have CS ending at age 18 without caveat. The trend now is for CS to go beyond age 21 regardless of circumstances. And beyond 21 if a child is “special needs” which most children of divorce are now classified.
Once the biomom exercises her court condoned and approved “parental sovereignty” and squeezes biodad out of the children’s lives, no real parenting takes place. The children are “friended” not parented and they instantly become “special needs” due to behavioral issues. It’s a catch 22 for white males who dare to marry and reproduce.
As a “second wife” to a man who has been alienated from his children purposely by his ex wife (all three children conceived after marriage) with the court winking in approval (his ex wife is practicallly the MAYOR of her small town and works as a CPS caseworker) AND is also being sodomized sideways by said ex-wife with a 12 foot pole as far as child support is concerned; so much so that he couldn’t possibly afford to live on his own and be self supporting, I’d advise any male (particularly caucasian) to avoid marrying and breeding with Western women until such time as the laws DO change.
People’s opinions are very much the product of their own personal experiences.
And if you ever want to meet a 20-year-old spoiled brat, talk with one whose father is forced to send money for that 20-year-old regardless of that 20-year-old’s attitude.
I had a classmate who was just such a 20-year-old, and her disrespect towards her father was incredible.
Entitlements without corresponding obligations - even obligations of good conduct - breed disrespect and very bad personalities.
It is basically handing the bio-mom a shopping list and telling the bio-dad that either he pays for everything on the bio-mom’s shopping list on a very short timetable or he will have failed to buy a right to be a parent for his own child.
>>Seems as though you have never experienced Western divorce court as a white male. You would be in for a rude awakening. Google: “parental alienation”<<
1) This is about unmarried men who create kids out of wedlock
2) I am very specific about it being anti-male.
3) I know that married guys in general and dads in particular get the shaft in family court. I was barely able to get away with a huge 2 year alimony on a 3 year marriage (no kids) BECAUSE she was lazy and wouldn’t work — the very reason we got married.
Believe me, I have been on BOTH ends of this issue. Married in the late seventies and into the eighties, I had two children (within wedlock) where upon divorce I received NO child support (pre draconian CS laws), worked several jobs and was able to parent properly and traditionally without alienating both children from my ex. Both children are grown, independent, fully functioning and contributing members of society. Something I won’t be able to say for my current husband’s children of divorce.
Seems biomoms under the age of 45 are more narcissistic and juvenile than ever; their mothers probably bought into the phoney self esteem and no spank methods of non parenting. Thus raising self-centered, juvenile, egotistical diva children with adult spousal status (100% authority and 0% responsibility) primed to be the classic western 45 and under wife who dumps dad and takes his wallet.
I am saying that it matters not out of wedlock or in wedlock. Caucasian Western men get shafted when they choose to marry and breed with Western women of today (especially the 45 and under set) due to the draconian “have our cake and eat it to” bio-mom centric family court laws.
The only way to resolve this problem is:
1. Men refrain from marrying AND breeding (in or out of wedlock) with women in Western countries.
2. Women refrain from marrying men who have been saddled with the tremendous burden of draconian and out of date alimony and child support laws from their “first family.”
Yes there IS a debtor’s prison in the U.S. Go into arrears on CS due to loss of employment through no fault of your own and try to get a downward modification via a court date six months later (while arrears acrue) then be laughed out of court by the magistrate as he/she imputes your income. Go directly to jail.
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.