Why do girls achieve so frequent rights when it comes to adoption?
I just called an adoption agency and found out that it is perfectly lawful in Utah for an 16 year old girl to place her kid for adoption without the consent of the father. How is this allowed? How can another person take the rights of another parent? Shouldn't they give more rights to the parents of that girl and to the birthfather?
Its NOT legal. You probably called an LDS agency, and they are the worst when it comes to breaking the law. It is forbidden for a woman to give her child up without a father's consent, and can be grounds for an adoption to be overturned.
If someone suspects a woman is doing this, they need to receive a police report and call DCS so it is on record that the man does NOT want his child to be adopted. You enjoy to stop it BEFORE the child is adopted.
It's not legal for a woman to place a child for adoption in need the consent of the child's father. However, there ARE ways to get around that.
As far as the minor girl's parents, however, that's a different story. Yes, she is a minor, but generally once someone have a child, she is considered an adult and is allowed to make parental decisions for her child. This includes not individual the decision to adopt, but the decision for immunizations, for medical consent, for schooling, etc.
It is not legal. The problem is that nearby are plenty of ways to get around it. Such as, in the case of my adoption, my bio-mom's parents refuse to even let her tell the father that she was pregnant until after the adoption be finalized.
So, I definitely agree that more of an effort -needs- to be made to include the fathers within the decision making.
It is indeed stupid. But the reason why it happens is that traditionally, the parents of the unwed pregnant "girls" and father of the babies were eager and anxious to banish the babe away ASAP, despite any wishes of the mother to keep her child. Ask adoption agencies -- the biggest predictor of a mother surrendering her baby are the wishes (pressure from) her parents and the baby's father.
With these people wanting to return with rid of shameful "bastard grandchildren" and 18 year child-support commitments, is it any wonder that laws are set up to facilitate the surrender of the baby to total strangers?
Before a mother surrenders her baby, not single should she be recovered from the birth (which takes several weeks) but her own parents, the baby's father, and the paternal grandparents of the baby should ALL gain the first right to take custody of that child if she does not want it. Family should get rights -- especially as it can be almost as emotionally devastating to a father or to grandparents to lose a child or grandchild to the adoption industry.
Maybe you can begin lobbying for change in adoption law so that fathers and grandparents will not lose babies to adoption if the mother still decide to legally abandon her child?
Answers: I believe it IS unfair, but I know there are ways to get around it. From two adoptions I witnessed the one biological father have his rights taken away by a judge. The reason being, he never provided the biological mother beside any help during her pregnancy. He was against the adoption, but she wanted to place the tot. In the end, she got what she wanted. Although, I do not blame her for what she did. I believe she made the right choice surrounded by the end. The second biological father was deported to Mexico and the biological mother had no information to gain in touch with him. From what I was told they tried inquiring for him but had no luck and his rights were taken away as well.
Of course, these two examples are different from other situations. I believe in that are some men who can and want to be fathers, in these situations, not so much.
Sorry were just going to hold to agree to disagree on this one. Why should the GRANDPARENTS have the say in this situation? How almost giving the FATHER more rights.
Related Questions:
Foster kindly? UK just?
Adoptees who don't want to scour?
Does anyone know how I can contact my birth parents?
Its NOT legal. You probably called an LDS agency, and they are the worst when it comes to breaking the law. It is forbidden for a woman to give her child up without a father's consent, and can be grounds for an adoption to be overturned.
If someone suspects a woman is doing this, they need to receive a police report and call DCS so it is on record that the man does NOT want his child to be adopted. You enjoy to stop it BEFORE the child is adopted.
It's not legal for a woman to place a child for adoption in need the consent of the child's father. However, there ARE ways to get around that.
As far as the minor girl's parents, however, that's a different story. Yes, she is a minor, but generally once someone have a child, she is considered an adult and is allowed to make parental decisions for her child. This includes not individual the decision to adopt, but the decision for immunizations, for medical consent, for schooling, etc.
It is not legal. The problem is that nearby are plenty of ways to get around it. Such as, in the case of my adoption, my bio-mom's parents refuse to even let her tell the father that she was pregnant until after the adoption be finalized.
So, I definitely agree that more of an effort -needs- to be made to include the fathers within the decision making.
It is indeed stupid. But the reason why it happens is that traditionally, the parents of the unwed pregnant "girls" and father of the babies were eager and anxious to banish the babe away ASAP, despite any wishes of the mother to keep her child. Ask adoption agencies -- the biggest predictor of a mother surrendering her baby are the wishes (pressure from) her parents and the baby's father.
With these people wanting to return with rid of shameful "bastard grandchildren" and 18 year child-support commitments, is it any wonder that laws are set up to facilitate the surrender of the baby to total strangers?
Before a mother surrenders her baby, not single should she be recovered from the birth (which takes several weeks) but her own parents, the baby's father, and the paternal grandparents of the baby should ALL gain the first right to take custody of that child if she does not want it. Family should get rights -- especially as it can be almost as emotionally devastating to a father or to grandparents to lose a child or grandchild to the adoption industry.
Maybe you can begin lobbying for change in adoption law so that fathers and grandparents will not lose babies to adoption if the mother still decide to legally abandon her child?
Answers: I believe it IS unfair, but I know there are ways to get around it. From two adoptions I witnessed the one biological father have his rights taken away by a judge. The reason being, he never provided the biological mother beside any help during her pregnancy. He was against the adoption, but she wanted to place the tot. In the end, she got what she wanted. Although, I do not blame her for what she did. I believe she made the right choice surrounded by the end. The second biological father was deported to Mexico and the biological mother had no information to gain in touch with him. From what I was told they tried inquiring for him but had no luck and his rights were taken away as well.
Of course, these two examples are different from other situations. I believe in that are some men who can and want to be fathers, in these situations, not so much.
Sorry were just going to hold to agree to disagree on this one. Why should the GRANDPARENTS have the say in this situation? How almost giving the FATHER more rights.
Related Questions: