Is it a womans right to put her children up for adoption, without telling the father?

A man's respnosibilty is just writing checks?

The following CANNOT happen if the father bestirs himself out of the bar to see HIS kids EVERY SINGLE DAY! And ONLY has sex with women he KNOWS instead of being a promiscuous SLUT sticking it ANYWHERE!

 

One man does not equate to all men. If you are upset with the men for sleeping around shouldnt the responsibility be shared by the women as well?

Seems common sense to me.

 

This thread makes an example of a guy who is so freaking uninvolved in his child's life that he wasn;t there when the child was born or during prenatal care, he didn't know his child wasn't dead, he didn't know the sex of the child, and he didn't know where the child was or is.

There is NO excuse for such FAIL..

Sorry, a child is better off without such a lazy scumbag loser failure of fatherhood and manhood in her life.

 

This thread is not about one man stop trying to make it that way.

 

I do think parents should be notified of any adoptions of their children. I dont get why anyone would oppose that.

 

Yes, Thats true, but conversely, the mother obviously doesnt want custody of the child, and if the father wants custody, she would then have to pay child support to him. So shes basically denying the fathers rights for monetary benefit, and the state of Utah is complicit with kidnapping.

 

You cant put a fetus up for adoption either, duh........

 

Does the Father have more rights to the fetus then the Mother?

 

Its not a fetus, is a baby. This is after the baby is born.

No one is adopting a child from a planned parenthood trash can.

 

Isn't that the exact same argument one could use against abortion? All those 'mothers' should have kept their legs closed. Problem solved.

 

The article states pregnant women. I am not going to play word games since you understood the question, you want to try answering it? Do men have more rights to the "baby" then the woman carrying it?

 

In this specific case, the mother lied to the father about the birth and the father's rights were terminated, like all parents, when an adoption became final.

He had rights, but either did not verify the mother's story was was complicit with the mother's story.

 

Honestly.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that the #$)(#*$#)( STORY WOULDN'T EXIST if there truly were no men in the pciture???!!!???



- - - Updated - - -

Who said a thing about MORE rights? Why aren't the rights the same?

And this isn't even about abortion. It's about women who decide to have the baby.

 

Nope, its not one case, its 30, and the state of Utah is being sued for 130 million dollars, and Utah is going to lose, big time.

 

Since you obviously didnt bother to read the OP, Ive taken the liberty of reposting it for you.

 

Tough call.

I think there are plenty of spiteful women who wouldn't wan the ex-husband/boyfriend to have any say in the choices made for the children they have in common, so I believe biological fathers should have first dibs.

Keeping children with their families should hold priority.


But....... once you visit the inner-city you see the other side of this.

Excellent case for keeping the fathers' influence as far away from their children as possible. Same goes for the mother, in many cases.

- - - Updated - - -

For spiteful women/lawyers/judges..... it's all about control. Not the best interest of the child.

 

The one who is suing for 130 mill. Didn't file with Utah to get on a list as the Father. That filing could have stopped the adoption.


But after Strickland returned to Utah, the romance dissolved. They began discussing parenting options. He said he told Pettersson that he would consider signing up with Utah’s putative father registry, which is how unmarried men can document with the state that they want parental rights.

But Strickland didn’t register. According to Hutchins, Pettersson warned him that if he did, she “would view it as an act of distrust” and keep his child from him.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...it-after-son-in-utah-is-given-up-for-adoption


This is really just a case where someone didn't work within the law and now is upset and playing the victim.

 

You do realize this got started with a Utah Supreme Court case about a specific father who was lied to.

Here's the article where it states that the father's rights should not have been dismissed.

the cases you are seeing are cases in which the father and mother were not married. In Utah, once you are married, the rights of the father are acceptably established under state law. If you are not married, then it is harder to establish your parental rights unless your name is on the birth certificate.

To the extent, I agree that father's should have rights to the child, but the question remains, should all birth certificates have the father's name on them.

 

a fathers rights cannot be invalidated by a freakn list. and Its not just one guy its 30 guys.

 

States want names of fathers listed, makes it easier for them to go after the father for child support.

 

Another vote here for adopting out the living child, vs. aborting them.

 

Of course they should have the fathers name on them.

the state is going to lose, bigtime

 

And who does the hospital/state get the name of the father? The mother, unless the mother is married, then it is her husband.

 

There must be pro-choicers that are this extreme!! Like "we only support abortions up until the age of 132 months."

 

If he's not listed, he should still have the right to get his own paternity DNA test to prove it.