Stigmatizing fathers
|
|
Thread rating:  |
LilMtnCbn - 24 Jan 2005 15:44 GMT http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/01/2 4/stigmatizing_fathers/
Stigmatizing fathers By Cathy Young | January 24, 2005
EVERY SO often, yet another wrenching story of a contested adoption is in the news. Television cameras capture a heartbreaking scene: a frightened, sobbing child being taken away from the adoptive parents, to be handed over to biological parents whom the child has never met. The latest such drama unfolded recently in Jacksonville, Fla., where 3-year-old Evan Parker Scott has been returned to his birth mother after the adoption was annulled because it took place without the birth father's consent. In these cases, public sympathy is typically on the side of the adoptive parents -- while the unwed father is often assigned the role of villain. He's seen as a feckless good-for-nothing who wants the rights of a father just because he took the trouble to impregnate a woman.
Sometimes, the popular perception may be justified. (Evan Scott's biological father apparently has a history of drug abuse and violence, including toward the mother when she was pregnant.) But then there are the other cases.
Take the story of a New York City police officer identified in legal papers only as Robert O. When his ex-girlfriend found out she was pregnant shortly after their breakup, she decided not to tell Robert and arranged an adoption. Eventually, the couple got back together and married -- and one day, Robert learned that he had a 17-month-old son. His quest for paternal rights ended in defeat in 1992; the courts held that Robert had only himself to blame for not keeping in touch with his former girlfriend and not knowing about her pregnancy.
In 2000, a 19-year-old Iowa man, David Heidbreder, got quite a shock when he found out that his former girlfriend Katie Carton, who had gone to stay with her grandparents in Minnesota after their breakup, had given birth to a girl and put her up for adoption. (Carton had refused to tell Heidbreder where she was but had stayed in touch by e-mail and assured him that she would not give up the baby.)
He filed papers with the Minnesota registry which allows men to claim parental rights and block an adoption. However, he missed the registration deadline -- 30 days from the child's birth -- by one day. He sued and lost.
In recent years, some unwed fathers have been more successful in court, though not in the court of public opinion. Ottakar Kirchner, the father of "Baby Richard," was vilified in the press after he managed to regain custody of his son. The boy was born when Kirchner was away on business in his native Czech Republic; the mother, Daniela Janikova, had decided to break up with Kirchner after hearing rumors of his infidelity. She lied to him that the child had died at birth and repeatedly frustrated his attempts to track down the boy.
Biological paternity isn't everything; but it isn't nothing, either. Where is the sympathy for fathers who lose their children through no fault of theirs? Would we be more sympathetic if a woman's baby were taken away at the hospital and placed for adoption without her knowledge because the birth father signed the adoption papers?
The father in such a case faces a strong presumption of guilt. It is readily assumed that if the mother doesn't want him involved, he's either abusive or terminally irresponsible. In society's eyes, when a man doesn't want to marry his child's mother, he must be a cad; when a woman doesn't want to marry the father, he must be a creep.
People can believe that a man would wage a lengthy legal battle out of spite at his ex-girlfriend; yet many won't allow that a woman could want to deny her ex-boyfriend his child for equally base reasons. We stigmatize and prosecute men who refuse to support their children, but not women who willfully conspire to keep a father away from his child.
It's particularly bizarre to place the burden on the man to find out if the woman is pregnant, considering that she's the one with direct knowledge of her condition. Indeed, if a man took such steps after the woman had told him she wanted no further contact, he could be considered a stalker.
In the end, our society sends men quite a mixed message. If your partner gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, you're liable for 18 years of child support, whether or not you want to be a father. If she doesn't want to be a mother, she can give your child to strangers and there isn't much you can do. Then we complain that men don't take parenthood seriously enough.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown
J. - 25 Jan 2005 01:07 GMT >Stigmatizing fathers >By Cathy Young | January 24, 2005 [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" >-----Unknown All legitimate points. Too bad she has no answers.
J.
"The Bible is the most shoplifted book in the United States." That Book of Perfectly Useless Information. Harper Collins (2004)
rkbose@pacific.net.sg - 25 Jan 2005 02:22 GMT > All legitimate points. Too bad she has no answers. > > J. The reason why marriage was invented?
Rupa
rizenslowly@yahoo.com - 26 Jan 2005 23:22 GMT I don't think marrying someone you don't love, much less who's abusive (as in this case) is a wise solution. Marrige is not a panacea. It can be a nightmare.
The solution is already in place: when either bioparent decides they want to raise the child within the time frame they are legally entitled to, the adoptive parents should return the child. Painfully, perhaps, but without hesitation.
A good adoption agency would counsel the mother about the dangers of not naming the father, and cousel the potential adoptive parents about the dangers of adopting a child whose father has not been named.
> > All legitimate points. Too bad she has no answers. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rupa rkbose@pacific.net.sg - 26 Jan 2005 23:46 GMT I suppose one might also argue that an abusive man wouldn't make a good parent, either.
I mentioned marriage because it was the way a man historically established paternity rights in the children of the woman he married.
Without marriage, the thing is much more open-ended, as this thread points out.
Rupa
rizenslo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't think marrying someone you don't love, much less who's abusive > (as in this case) is a wise solution. Marrige is not a panacea. It can [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > Rupa rizenslowly@yahoo.com - 27 Jan 2005 19:03 GMT I don't think marriage should establish paternity. Biology should. And I disagree that without marriage it's much more "open ended". What's "open ended" about DNA?
Some people choose not to get married. They should have as much right to their children as married people do.
> I mentioned marriage because it was the way a man historically > established paternity rights in the children of the woman he married. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > > > Rupa chickeyd - 27 Jan 2005 19:09 GMT rizenslo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't think marriage should establish paternity. Biology should. And > I disagree that without marriage it's much more "open ended". What's > "open ended" about DNA? > > Some people choose not to get married. They should have as much right > to their children as married people do. The State of California disagress with you.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/family/parentage/sign.htm
If you are unmarried, even if DNA says you're the dad, this is the way California recognizes you as the father.
If the mom was married to someone else, even if DNA says you're the father, the state sees her husband as the legal father.
It's not about DNA, it's about committment and support in California. I tend to feel that's more important than DNA.
chickeyd
rizenslowly@yahoo.com - 28 Jan 2005 01:48 GMT Actually, the state of California agrees with me. You don't need to get married to establish paternity. A father can register per the cite you noted rather than get married. He can also sign the birthcertificate. He and the mother can simply agree that he is the father, take no legal action, and raise their children like other people, just sans a marriage certificate. You don't need to get married to prove you are the father of a child. Thankfully, IMO.
> If the mom was married to someone else, even if DNA says you're the > father, the state sees her husband as the legal father.<< How would you feel if it were the other way around? What if the father were married to someone else, and the mother was single? Does the state automatically see the wife of the father as the legal mother? Is the child removed at birth and given, without even benefit of relinquishment and adoption, to the wife of the man? I disagree vehemently on how the state handles this. It truly stigmatizes fathers, IMO.
> It's not about DNA, it's about committment and support in California. > I tend to feel that's more important than DNA.<< I feel committment and support is important too. It's possible to have both. And, I believe the person who shares the DNA gets first dibs at providing that committment and support, whether married or not.
> rizenslo...@yahoo.com wrote: > > I don't think marriage should establish paternity. Biology should. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > chickeyd chickeyd - 28 Jan 2005 05:05 GMT > Actually, the state of California agrees with me. You don't need to get > married to establish paternity. A father can register per the cite you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > marriage certificate. You don't need to get married to prove you are > the father of a child. Thankfully, IMO. I guess you didn't read the link, or go to the state website and read the law. Just signing the birth certificate means exactly squat, at least in California. You MUST sign a Declaration of Paternity, preferably in the hospital and BEFORE the birth certificate is signed, to avoid the hassle later.
> > If the mom was married to someone else, even if DNA says you're the > > father, the state sees her husband as the legal father.<< [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > both. And, I believe the person who shares the DNA gets first dibs at > providing that committment and support, whether married or not. Hey, get married or don't, no skin off my nose. Just be sure if you REALLY are going to support the child, you get legally recognized as the father before you leave the hospital. Because later, forget it, it's as if you don't exist.
Chickeyd
Steve White - 28 Jan 2005 00:33 GMT > I don't think marriage should establish paternity. Biology should. And > I disagree that without marriage it's much more "open ended". What's > "open ended" about DNA? > > Some people choose not to get married. They should have as much right > to their children as married people do. The state, in one way or another over the past 6,000 years, has used marriage to establish paternity so as to encourage family formation and the stable upbringing of children. It's thought to be a major advantage in the survival of a society.
Are you channeling Marley? :-)
steve
Kathy - 28 Jan 2005 00:44 GMT > > I don't think marriage should establish paternity. Biology should. And > > I disagree that without marriage it's much more "open ended". What's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > steve Geesh,how many yahoo accouts could one person have?
rizenslowly@yahoo.com - 28 Jan 2005 01:52 GMT It's possible to raise children in a stable environment without marriage. And marriage is no guarantee of stability. I wish the state would recognize that. Only some people think it's a major advantage to the survival of society. I think our society could survive much better if we placed more emphasis on responsibility, caring, ethics, compassion toward others, and ceased to believe walking down the aisle in a white dress solved societies problems. Brittney Spears is a testament to that.
rkbose@pacific.net.sg - 28 Jan 2005 02:28 GMT rizenslo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It's possible to raise children in a stable environment without > marriage. And marriage is no guarantee of stability. I wish the state [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in a white dress solved societies problems. Brittney Spears is a > testament to that. Of course it is. But if you disentangle marriage from its religious roots for a bit - what is it?
It's a way of providing a format in which to raise young children, preserve paternity rights, and conserve property rights. It doesn't always have to be one man and one woman -- societies have developed various different forms, including polygyny, polyandry, homosexual marriage, and so on. But they're all about a societally acknowledged construct to guarantee paternity, economic interdependence, and inheritance.
This society is wealthy enough that economic interdependence is not critical, nor is inheritance. That does make it possible to raise children as a single parent of either gender.
However, if you have two parents asserting rights in children they have engendered, but they do not live together, it complicates the process of child-rearing. Not a deal-breaker, of course, but not necessarily what one would pick as the best model.
Rupa
rizenslowly@yahoo.com - 28 Jan 2005 01:56 GMT It's possible to raise children in a stable environment without marriage. And marriage is no guarantee of stability. I wish the state would recognize that. Only some people think it's a major advantage to the survival of society. I think our society could survive much better if we placed more emphasis on responsibility, caring, ethics, compassion toward others, and ceased to believe walking down the aisle in a white dress solved societies problems. Brittney Spears is a testament to that.
rizenslowly@yahoo.com - 28 Jan 2005 01:56 GMT It's possible to raise children in a stable environment without marriage. And marriage is no guarantee of stability. I wish the state would recognize that. Only some people think it's a major advantage to the survival of society. I think our society could survive much better if we placed more emphasis on responsibility, caring, ethics, compassion toward others, and ceased to believe walking down the aisle in a white dress solved societies problems. Brittney Spears is a testament to that.
Marcy - 27 Jan 2005 20:39 GMT An adoption agency would not counsel the mother about the dangers of not naming the father, the agency would inform the mother that an adoption can not take place without naming the father, way too high a risk. That is why so many birthmothers come up with "rape" stories, you know someone put something in my drink, I woke up pregnant. A judge in Texas made the agency hire a private detective to sit in the bar for two weekends in the hopes of locating the alleged rapist. Now assuming it was true, why would any woman want a rapist to assert his rights to the child?
Kathy - 27 Jan 2005 23:45 GMT > An adoption agency would not counsel the mother about the dangers of > not naming the father, the agency would inform the mother that an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it was true, why would any woman want a rapist to assert his rights to > the child? You are so full of sh.t.
Not saying it doesn't happen on occasion where an emom would cry rape, but is there reason you must dramatize everything? All the more reason there is NO good reason to have facilitators near the adoption process. Kathy
Marcy - 28 Jan 2005 00:05 GMT What is an emom? Is that like an e ticket at the airport? I am not dramatizing everything, that really happens in Texas, they make the attorney go find the guy. What does that have to do with facilitators? The judges just don't buy, "I don't know who the father is." I have a suggestion Kathy, if you don't like facilitators, don't use one. Now go take an ugly pill, it will make you feel better.
Kathy - 28 Jan 2005 05:55 GMT > What is an emom?> You're the professional adoption worker, so why are you asking me? An emom is an expectant mother until she delivers. Duh.
> Is that like an e ticket at the airport? Does an eticket have two legs and a big belly?
I am not
> dramatizing everything, that really happens in Texas, they make the > attorney go find the guy.> Find the guy? You mean the edad? Oh yeah, your job is to go find the emom, go figure.
>What does that have to do with facilitators? What do you have to do with Texas? Inquiring minds want to know.
> The judges just don't buy, "I don't know who the father is." I bet you know all about judges, er, I mean judgements. Don't you have a few on your record?
I have a
> suggestion Kathy, if you don't like facilitators, don't use one.> You can be sure on both counts, I don't and I won't.
Now go
> take an ugly pill, it will make you feel better. What makes you feel better? Oh let-me guess, buckaroos for snaggin' babies.
rizenslowly@yahoo.com - 28 Jan 2005 01:55 GMT If the agency doesn't believe the rape story is true, it should counsel the mother on the dangers of such an action. If they still don't think it's true, they could turn down the case and refer her to social services. But then, they wouldn't make all that money off of her.
Why would any rapist want a child, especially if it meant being accused of being a rapist?
J. - 28 Jan 2005 02:16 GMT >Why would any rapist want a child, especially if it meant being accused >of being a rapist? When he's not a rapist.
J.
Kathy - 28 Jan 2005 02:38 GMT > >Why would any rapist want a child, especially if it meant being accused > >of being a rapist? > > When he's not a rapist. > > J. Lol, now practice saying that real fast and I'll get you a pack of pickled peppers. ;-)
Kathy
|
|
|