The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

"Gini" wrote in message
news:GVxTf.1188$Qm2.798@trndny03...

"Chris" wrote
.........................

Just curious: who exactly "revokes" such rights, and what makes them
revoked.... a piece of paper with some yahoo's signature and the barrel
of
a gun?
==
The only experience I have (we have lots of adopted kids in my family and
extended family)
is with abandonment/parent unidentified. Then the case worker/atty.
asks the judge to revoke the rights. The judge will examine the case to
determine whether the
missing parent should have his rights revoked. Sometimes they put a notice
in the paper, send certifieds
to the last known address. It is extremely rare to forcibly revoke the
rights. If the parent is present and
disputes it, he will probably prevail. That said, there was a Ohio woman
who
posted here in the mid/late 1990s, whose husband was fighting a
years long case where his rights were being forcibly revoked by his ex
wife
due to nonsupport. He was career military and had a spotty child
support payment history. He had a lot of health problems and relocated all
over the planet but he sincerely tried to keep up with the support. The
case
became a convoluted mess and cost the father tons of money in atty. fees
and
he eventually lost the battle. The wife did a lot of public relations work
about
the inequities of the case. It was a very sad situation. So, it does
happen,
but it is uncommon. My first husband's ex tried to revoke his rights but
failed when he disputed it. This was in PA. Her intention was to allow her
then current husband to adopt the kids. When we adopted my oldest son, his
bio father
was summoned from NY to sign the adoption papers and the judge went
through
a long discourse with him making sure he understood the process and
implications
of revoking the rights--that he would have no more rights to the child
than
a stranger on the street. It was extremely hard for that father to make
the
decision and it took several days of talks with his family members before
he
agreed.
==
==

Here is the law in Oregon from ORS 109.092:

"If after the birth of the child the mother decides to surrender the child
for adoption and paternity has not been acknowledged as provided in ORS
109.070 (1)(e) or the putative father has not asserted his rights in
filiation proceedings, the mother has the right without the consent of the
father to surrender the child as provided in ORS 418.270 or to consent to
the child’s adoption."

Oregon is a "safe haven" for expectant unwed mothers. If the mother moves
to Oregon and the putative father doesn't know where she lives to serve her
for a court hearing, she can effectively prevent him from asserting his
paternity which gives her the ability to unilaterally give consent for an
adoption. Private adoption services solicit, take in, and hide expectant
mothers so they can sell the children to adoptive parents.

tonita wrote:
It's a good place to start. Of course there has always been men *and*
women who behave badly, but not as much as we see today.

No!!!!!! Surely you are jesting!!! You just aren't enlightened
enough to see it, that's all!!!

I did a cut-n-paste and it came to a NY Times (ugh, why them..) login page
to get at the article (which is bloody stupid, if you ask me).

Anyway, it works, kinda.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:BlATf.3695$8G2.2788@trndny01...

"GL Fowler" wrote
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:13:24 GMT, "Gini"
...............................................
==
Not so in PA, FL and WVA (where we adopted). It can take *years* to
revoke a
parent's
parental rights and he can come back years later and contest the adoption
and win if he didn't
know about it. My sister had her foster children ( 2 siblings) from
toddlers
and *finally* was granted adoption
when they were teens. They waited all those years for the father to show
up.
They even waited
years after the mother died of a drug overdose and her mother died before
they granted the adoption.
==

Not in Florida, aye the rub with absolute statements.
Your anecdote trumped with this anecdote.
==
What are you talking about? Your link led to Big Brothers/Sister.
==

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tyrTf.1160$5F1.27@fed1read08...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:7CpTf.543$Qm2.67@trndny03...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote
In most jurisdictions in the US, an unmarried mother can put her
child
up
for adoption without the consent of the father and, if the father
wants
to
retain custody of the child, he must assume all legal and financial
responsibility by "adopting" his own child, thereby absolving the
mother
of all legal and financial responsibility,
===
Where on earth did you get this?? In what jurisdictions must the father
adopt his own child? In what jurisdictions
can the child be put up for adoption without the father's consent (save
abandonment, which has strict criteria)?
===

I too would challenge the statement fathers are forced to adopt their own
children. But in many jurisdictions, including where I live, adoption
law
practice plays it fast and loose with father's rights before adoption.

One of the many games is to place "public notice ads" in a newspaper
where
the father never lived giving him notice unless he comes forward his
child
will be adopted out. The legal logic is there is a presumption he might
have lived there. When the father fails to respond the adoption moves
forward without his knowledge.

Let me guess; if it were the father (as opposed to the mother) attempting
to
do the same thing, they would likewise expedite the process..........

Heh.. Yeah, it'd be par for the course.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:30:24 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

Not to question too hard, but a double click ont he link took me to
the article twice. YMMV depending on news reader, I guess.

As far as the source, well hell, they all are journalists, now keeping
company with politicians and lawyers :-)

Jerry

I did a cut-n-paste and it came to a NY Times (ugh, why them..) login page
to get at the article (which is bloody stupid, if you ask me).

Anyway, it works, kinda.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:BlATf.3695$8G2.2788@trndny01...

"GL Fowler" wrote
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:13:24 GMT, "Gini"
...............................................
==
Not so in PA, FL and WVA (where we adopted). It can take *years* to
revoke a
parent's
parental rights and he can come back years later and contest the adoption
and win if he didn't
know about it. My sister had her foster children ( 2 siblings) from
toddlers
and *finally* was granted adoption
when they were teens. They waited all those years for the father to show
up.
They even waited
years after the mother died of a drug overdose and her mother died before
they granted the adoption.
==

Not in Florida, aye the rub with absolute statements.
Your anecdote trumped with this anecdote.
==
What are you talking about? Your link led to Big Brothers/Sister.
==



A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain

Gini wrote:
"Ken Chaddock" wrote

In most jurisdictions in the US, an unmarried mother can put her child up
for adoption without the consent of the father and, if the father wants to
retain custody of the child, he must assume all legal and financial
responsibility by "adopting" his own child, thereby absolving the mother
of all legal and financial responsibility,

===
Where on earth did you get this?? In what jurisdictions must the father
adopt his own child? In what jurisdictions
can the child be put up for adoption without the father's consent (save
abandonment, which has strict criteria)?

There's a saying Gini; "the devil is in the details" and while the laws
are generally written in a non-gender biased language, the regulations
and enforcement are anything but with the effect that, as a father, you
have to "adopt" your child to get it from a mother who wants to put
him/her up for adoption...
The usual way this happens is that the mother decides to put the child
up for adoption, the father objects, there is a custody battle, the
mother is awarded full custody and then puts the child up for adoption
(as she wanted to all along) and the only way the father has any chance
(and it's not even that good a chance at that) of gaining custody is to
adopt, thereby relieving the mother of any obligations or
responsibilities...

....Ken

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Gini" wrote in message news:7CpTf.543$Qm2.67@trndny03...

"Ken Chaddock" wrote

In most jurisdictions in the US, an unmarried mother can put her child

up

for adoption without the consent of the father and, if the father wants

to

retain custody of the child, he must assume all legal and financial
responsibility by "adopting" his own child, thereby absolving the mother
of all legal and financial responsibility,

===
Where on earth did you get this?? In what jurisdictions must the father
adopt his own child? In what jurisdictions
can the child be put up for adoption without the father's consent (save
abandonment, which has strict criteria)?
===


I too would challenge the statement fathers are forced to adopt their own
children. But in many jurisdictions, including where I live, adoption law
practice plays it fast and loose with father's rights before adoption.

One of the many games is to place "public notice ads" in a newspaper where
the father never lived giving him notice unless he comes forward his child
will be adopted out. The legal logic is there is a presumption he might
have lived there. When the father fails to respond the adoption moves
forward without his knowledge.

That is often the "first step" in an irreversible process that strips
fathers of their parental rights and their children...

....Ken

"Dusty" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"Dusty" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
) writes:
"if a woman gets an abortion, he is undeservedly off the hook"????

What if he wanted the child?

Indeed. The hatred of men expressed by such sexist bigots is
amazing, and surely would not be socially acceptable, were
such things said about any other birth groups.

There can be no " equality " in reproductive matters, as
she doesn't need a guy to stick around to have a bay-bee,
but a man does need a woman to agree, and to continue to
agree, if he wants a child.

That aside, and its enough to kill equality advocates'
claims, we return to the basic question:

If *women* are allowed NON biological and NON medical
LEGAL means by which to post coitally, and post natally,
void all their parental obligations, what possible and
consistant agrument can be made that would deny men
*the sme legal rights* ?

None. All claims otherwise are pure misandrous sexism.

Now, as much as I don't like such inequalities, getting
back to your question, one must face the fact that, if
we are to say that women are legal persons as well,
then women get the choice, as long as it's within them.

But, what comes with that choice, is the same amount
of responsibility. If a woman wants to share the latter,
then she MUST similarly share the former.

Andre

Awe, man.... there ya go, confusin' the femi-twits with the facts.
How do you expect them to use emotion, irrelevancy, bogus data and
out-right lies when you go and do that, huh? Jeesh.

bg

Ya know, it's kinda funny when ya think about it.. like being the
dope that brought a knife to a gun fight... One day they'll learn.

One could hope...

Its really a basic question: Do claimants of " equal rights " mean
it, when their interest group is NOT the ones demanding more for
them, *only* ?

Clearly WomenFirsters only want rights for whemselves...

Andre

Quite true. But it will take an anvil to fall from the sky to drive that
point home with the femi-twits... where's ACME when ya need 'em?

g Well, the Marriage Strike may yet get to be a falling anvil to
the ageing man haters...

Andre

"Ken Chaddock" wrote
Gini wrote:
"Ken Chaddock"wrote

In most jurisdictions in the US, an unmarried mother can put her child up
for adoption without the consent of the father and, if the father wants
to retain custody of the child, he must assume all legal and financial
responsibility by "adopting" his own child, thereby absolving the mother
of all legal and financial responsibility,

===
Where on earth did you get this?? In what jurisdictions must the father
adopt his own child? In what jurisdictions
can the child be put up for adoption without the father's consent (save
abandonment, which has strict criteria)?

There's a saying Gini; "the devil is in the details" and while the laws
are generally written in a non-gender biased language, the regulations and
enforcement are anything but with the effect that, as a father, you have
to "adopt" your child to get it from a mother who wants to put him/her up
for adoption...
The usual way this happens is that the mother decides to put the child up
for adoption, the father objects, there is a custody battle, the mother is
awarded full custody and then puts the child up for adoption (as she
wanted to all along) and the only way the father has any chance (and it's
not even that good a chance at that) of gaining custody is to adopt,
thereby relieving the mother of any obligations or responsibilities...
===
And this happened where? When? To whom?
===

A. Because it disrupts the flow of inquiry followed by responses.
Q. Why is top posting a habit of retards ?

"tonita" ) flounces, ignorantly:
You know, Andre...I don't think you really thought your rantings
through.

No proof offered ? Cow**** ad hominem fact free claim fails.

I'm not taking sides here, merely responding to the original
spirit of the thread about men's rights after a child has been
conceived.

No, you're MS-ing the point that WOMEN, post-coitally, have LEGAL
means of NON biologically and NON medically voiding their parental
obligations.

Its ONLY man hating sexism that grants that to women, while *denying*
equal legal rights to men...

What do I care if women are complaining that marriage is
down. Thank the feminists for that and the fact that women will have
sex on a second "date" and then move the guy in. Why *should* men
marry today? I think the state of relationships is truly sad these
days. Nothing profound, nothing sacred anymore. Kids born to one
woman and a dozen different fathers. Kind of sickening when you really
think about it.

Indeed: Now *think* about WHO makes that possible... Who is the
*common factor* in ONE woman sleeping around with a " dozen different
fathers "... ?

Answer: the slag-ho *woman*. Society owes her a *dis*incentive to
continue *being* a slag-ho.

If you start dating a woman there's probably half a
dozen other men who've already had sex with her so you're nothing
special. Actually, what *is* special between two people anymore?

Lots. But, not among slag hos. If a woman decides to UNILATERALLY
birth a bay-bee *without first getting a WILLING father to co-parent
the child with her, then a slag-ho she IS.

Among healthy people who believe that a child deserves and needs
TWO willing parents, there is much to cherish and honour.

Among wimmins who will pimp their bay-bees, made WITHOUT a willing
father, there is nothing.

HTH.

Andre Lieven wrote:
"tonita" ) defends 'separate but equal':
I suppose it does at this time.

Which could equally have been said of lack of equal pay for the same job,
prior to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, wrt women's pay...

So, " its OK right now, so that makes it be moral " is your insane
claim...

That's why it is so important for men to think twice.

laughs Thats why marriages are *down* in California, 2002-2004, by 24%,
and those who are complaining about this are... *women* !

Dealing with the reality of the situation as it exists
right now would help.

" Yessa, massa, I be gettin' the cotton in ral soon now... "

Its BIGOTS who say what you just did. Thanks for so *clearly* outing
your misandrous sexism.

Or does the sex
act before conception occurs define the end of a man's choice?

If it does, then it should for women, too. Thats... *equality*...
The thing women hate most.

Its illustrative of "tonita's" retarditude that she was UNABLE to
debate/refute *anything* that I actually wrote.

Therby adding mounds of proof to the fact that:

Baby Feminists is SO *stoopid* !

Andre