Unwed Fathers and State Registries

Interesting story in NY Times this weekend about biological fathers who wish to raise their children but are confounded by a state registry that seems set against them. These registries are little known, and their use depends on a very limiting timing sequence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremiah Clayton Jones, who failed to file with a state registry for unwed fathers, is appealing the termination of his parental rights.

...

Under Florida law, and that of other states, an unmarried father has no right to withhold consent for adoption unless he has registered with the state putative father registry before an adoption petition is filed. Mr. Jones missed the deadline.

...

But to claim those rights most states require a father to put his name on a registry. While about 30 states now have registries, they vary widely. In some, fathers must actually claim paternity; in others, just the possibility of paternity. The deadlines may be 5 days after birth or 30, or any time before an adoption petition is filed.

...

Glenn Spraggs, a 22-year-old Cincinnati man, was recently caught short by ignorance of the Ohio registry. His girlfriend, Sharicka Watson, had a baby boy, Thomas, on Dec. 2, and Mr. Spraggs, who also has a daughter with Ms. Watson, was with her when he was born. Ms. Watson has told reporters that she discussed adoption with Mr. Spraggs, but he said he had no warning that less than two weeks after the birth, Ms. Watson would surrender Thomas for adoption.

"No one told me anything," Mr. Spraggs said. "When I found out he was gone, I called the police to see if they could help get him back, or file kidnapping charges or something, but they said there was nothing they could do because it was an adoption. By the time I heard about the registry, it was too late."

More at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/national/19fathers.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

adoption, which sounds like it didn't happen in this case.

that having been said, something like this is an adoptive parent nightmare.
Nobody wins in these situations, especially the child.

And in most cases where fathers are required to place their names on the registry there is no requirement to notify them of the birth!

...as they do their "Top Ten Deadbeat Dads" (which sometimes has just as many MOMS on it) they wouldn't have all these clueless guys losing their rights.

Then again, it doesn't sound to me like most of them really cared about their rights in the first place. You have a child with a woman, and "out of the Blue" she placed your kid for adoption and you "had NO IDEA" she was going to do that?

I think what we have here is a basic Failure to Communicate.

The System *IS* stacked against Fathers, though, anyway you look at it. Our responsibility is to pay child support and shut the fuck up.

And don't expect any help if *YOU* have custody and SHE is the "deadbeat".

a much higher rate of them placing themselves on the registry.

in dark. it is a mess. and it is unjust to father in many ways. i agree. as a woman and mother i feel a strong responsibility to stand up for the fathers. it is not balanced or equal.

But it does go counter to the popular myth (one that's believed even here, amongst so-called "Progressives and Liberals") that men who aren't married to their kid's mothers were only in for the orgasm, anyway.

Some of the CRAP my kid's mom put in her head that we had to work through when she came to live with me, just unbelievable!

there were some very long threads debating whether unmarried men who didn't want kids should be able to opt out of the responsibilities and rights of parenthood.

One side was saying that while the fetus is within the woman, it should be 100 % the woman's choice of what happened to it (there wasn't any argument with this part), but then once the child was born, it was the responsibility equally of the man and woman (point of contention) regardless of who wanted the child.

I'd like to hear the opinion of some of the people who held the above view about this new issue.

If the child is the responsibility of both parents equally, what would the justification be for allowing the child to be adopted away without one parent's concurrance? or even with his active disagreement?

The thing that got lost in the acrimony is that there has always (at least in Indiana) a mechanism for being relieved of your parental responsibility. Of course, you surrender all rights when you do that, and I think the judge would get a little pissed after the third or so time you showed up in front of hime wanting to vacate your rights...

So in Indiana could a man give up all his parental responsibilities for a newborn baby?

Especially if there's somebody who wants to adopt the kid.

So in Indiana could a man give up all his parental responsibilities for a newborn baby?

I thought it would be up to the woman, or at least up to the state to make an honest effort to find the dad if the mom wanted to give up the child for adoption. Heck, they should make a reasonable effort to find the dad just to tell him he's going to be a dad.

It doesn't seem at all fair that someone's child should be put up for adoption without his consent. How can that even be legal?

I love the term "no right to withhold consent." WTF does that mean? If you don't have a choice, then it's not consent, is it? Consent means it's your choice, one way or the other.

Imagine if parents got a consent form for the child to go on a school trip? 'Dear Mrs. Jones. Little Billy will be accompanying our class to the museum this Thursday. Please sign this consent form so he can go. If you do not give your consent, we will take him anyway, as you have no right to withhold your consent. Have a nice day.' WFT is that?

Although in that hypothetical case, at east they would have told Mrs Jones the consent form existed, which is not true for men as I sure never heard of any registry.

This child support and child custody system really does need major reform as it is stacked to an unreasonable degree against the man in too many ways.

This is the first time I have ever heard of the father being involved in this.