If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
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!!! |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
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. == |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"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. |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
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 |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
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 |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
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 |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"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 |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"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? === |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | August 3rd 05 01:07 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
So much for the claims about Sweden | Kane | Spanking | 10 | November 5th 03 06:31 AM |