Posted on 06/21/2006 6:55:07 AM PDT by ShadowDancer
Court: Father Can't Raise Child Despite Mother's Deception
Woman Lied, Saying Baby Died
POSTED: 7:06 am EDT June 21, 2006
RALEIGH, N.C. -- A biological father should lose his parental rights because he did not establish himself as a caregiver, even though the mother deceived the man by claiming she had a miscarriage, the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
Pernell Ingram argued that he had provided sufficient care to the mother to qualify as the legal father of a child born out of wedlock. The Newton Grove man said he had provided "consistent care" by frequently caring for the mother's other two children while she was pregnant and joining his former girlfriend at prenatal medical appointments. While he did not provide financial support, Ingram pursued a new job and bought a larger car to prepare for a child.
Ingram also testified that he and the mother planned to marry and even discussed names for their prospective child. But after deciding against marriage, the two separated, although Ingram kept contact and insisted he would like to care for the baby.
Later, the mother informed Ingram that the child had died. Suspicious, Ingram sought confirmation, but was unable to find official word until an adoption agency served him with a petition to end his parental rights.
But while the judges were "sympathetic" to Ingram, Chief Judge John Martin wrote that there were no findings of fact that would indicate the father had "assumed some of the burdens of parenthood." Judge Eric Levinson agreed.
The judges ruled that under state law Ingram had to gain paternal rights by either marrying the mother, providing substantial financial support or consistent care to the mother and child, or immediately filing a petition to the courts or to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Judge Barbara Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, reasoning that Ingram could not have pursued his status as a father with the woman's lies.
"To argue, as the majority does, that (Ingram) should have filed an affidavit to legitimate an illusory child seems beyond the bounds of what we reasonably may expect of any man," Jackson wrote. "It is undisputed that (Ingram) made drastic changes in his life upon learning of the pregnancy."
The appeals court ruling reverses the 2004 decision of Wake County District Court Judge Michael Morgan, which sided with Ingram.
Attorneys from both sides did not return phone calls seeking comment Tuesday.
He will appeal.
On the other hand, if the mother didn't adopt out the baby, and kept it herself, she could sue him for child support as long as she kept the secret from him long enough that his year-to-object expired.
Different take on an old saying:
Judges are lawyers with their brains bashed out.
Yes, but considering the intangible
relationship he had with her family,
he should thank his lucky stars he's
rid of her. He obviously didn't
satisfy her idea of a husband/father
to her kids. I suggest she saw a
lucrative "out" in deceiving him and
putting the new baby up for adoption.
By doing so, she got rid of him, the
unwanted child, and a financial bonus.
Complications always arise when two
people are more concerned about them-
selves than about their responsibilities.
IMO, the baby is 100% better off. Wish
I could assume as much about the other
two kiddoes!
Yep.
Information one needs to tell ones' sons, accompanied by a whipping with a big brown belt, even if said said son is a teenager.
MWT, Sr. did just that when I was messing around with a very good looking little senorita that --- in hindsight --- didn't give a damn about me, but wanted to get pregnant by the ranch-owner's son. (She got knocked up about 6 months later by the son of another well-to-do family.)
And people wonder why we despise family courts. This father was trying as best he knew how to be a father, and they still took his child away from him.
The point here, which is made a thousand different ways in divorce and custody trials across America, every day, is that Men have no rights that Women and the courts have to respect. Males are simply 4/5ths of a human.
Question: does this guy also qualify as a deadbeat in your opinion?
Not a deadbeat per se, but I'm leaning toward calling him other names because instead of legitimizing his bastard, he and the girlfriend "decided against marriage."
BTW, any names I'd call him in this regard, I'd call her too.
I'm all about the legitimacy.
Yes, it defintely looks like the guy was trying to be a father, after the fact. So the court can just take away his parental rights at will, even though he wants the child. He got screwed.
and
The point here, which is made a thousand different ways in divorce and custody trials across America, every day, is that Men have no rights that Women and the courts have to respect. Males are simply 4/5ths of a human.
Wow. This is one man who wanted to be a father and worked to show his intention and was screwed. It's a sad day.
Let me say that I agree men have no rights and women have it all - in many areas of the country. Said with a tiny whisper, here in my rural area, the opposite holds true, the main officer, a woman, of the domestic area is known to favor men in every instance, whether worthy or not. No flames please, but it's true. I could go on about the corruption that went on, the corrupt judge and attorneys, but they have cleaned up that problem. But I do see that, in other places, it is indeed a 'men are evil' mentality that is poisonous.
THe article doesn't say whether or not the decision not to marry was mutual, or unilateral.
It seems that the woman upped and decided that the baby deserved a two-parent home and put it up for adoption. Or else she did it out of spite.
Not knowing the full story here, my vote goes to what's best for the child, and IMHO that's a two-parent home.
Is this happening in that paragon of legal justice, Durham?
If he wanted to "be a father" so badly, he would have married his girlfriend after he knocked her up.
NC Social Worker Manual: http://info.dhhs.state.nc.us/olm/manuals/dss/csm-60/man/index.htm
Social Worker response decision tree: http://info.dhhs.state.nc.us/olm/manuals/dss/csm-60/man/CS1407-04.htm#P991_89359 (fascinating)
Charlotte, Mecklenburg, NC, DSS failure: http://www.rhinotimes.com/charlotte/archives/082803/story02.html
The pivotal court decision that swung control back to parents: http://sswnt7.sowo.unc.edu/fcrp/fp/fp_vol8no1/stumbo.htm
A fascinating record of one family court case in NC:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/850864/posts
Scroll down for the background story.
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.