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

And what happens if the father is not known? Or in cases of rape? Then the rapist, by your standard, would have parental rights to the child.

You may have solved one problem, but you are opening up a whole new can of worms here with birth certificates requiring a father's name be on there.

 

Well in Utah the father had to get on the list, he chose not to. It isn't like he didn't know what to do, he chose not to do it. How you feel things should be doesn't matter in the state of Utah where they have laws.

 

But this woman in this case was still married... to not the father. Her husband is the father in the eyes of the law.
http://www.paternitymatters.utah.gov/parents_faq.html#3

 

If he does that, then the father should be liable for any back child support and current child support to the custodial parent, along with joint legal custody. If the father wants to challenge who has physical custody, then the father would have to prove how unfit the mother is and that he is in the best interest of the child. But to do that would require the father to either lie or show that the mother has endangered the child. Hard to prove in most custody battles, not to mention expensive to the father.

Methinks that the father's who want the law changed are not thinking this far and will eventually become dead beat fathers for lack of child support payments.

 

Please tell me you have the brains to understand those are not the fathers this affects.....ffs

 

Lol... this complete disconnect explains the rest of your comments.

 

That would actually be an interesting approach.

 

Doing that would degrade the legal issues at hand and never get the problem solved.

 

Yeah, because rapists always fight for custody.......

 

The claim is that all birth certificates must have a father's name on it. If a women game birth after being raped and has to put the rapist's name on the said birth certificate, then the rapist would have rights to that child, which would be more detrimental to the woman who was raped.

 

As ludicrous as that sounds.... it would not shock me in the least

- - - Updated - - -

Goal achieved then.

 

My apology. I thought you meant in relation to the rights being discussed, I didn't read carefully enough. You just meant the BC. In which case I agree with you.

 

It is all a part of the Liberal war on men.

 

more like the liberal war on white heterosexual christian men.

- - - Updated - - -

Not signing some stupid list doesnt invalidate his rights as a father.

Even if you signed that list it wouldnt absolve them from paying child support, now would it?


.

 

Na, women shouldnt be allowed to lie on birth certificates.

 

Absolutely yes - why not? Every person born has the right to know who their bio parents are.

 

You are correct. No, it does not. There are federal laws that protect parental rights: http://www.ordination.org/rights.htm

There is that dreaded Fourteenth Amendment again, the same one that the gay marriage advocates are hedging all of their bets on. The Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to interpret the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, right?

 

In all fairness, I don't think it's realistic to think all BCs will list a father.

While the "rape" analogy is far-fetched with the small numbers of resulting pregnancies, especially when abortion is legal, there are millions of irresponsible young "adult" mothers who wouldn't have the foggiest idea which guy to name.

In fact, I bet there are more incorrect paternity tests on Maury, than there are full term pregnancies due to rape

 

or raped, or drunk, the father could be unknown then too

.

 

But if a woman wants a lustful promiscuous affair and gets pregnant, the "father" will have to pay child support.

 

You can't speak logic to the left...

If she wants money, dad is involved. If she doesn't want him to have custody, he is not.

 

Are you serious? It's not likely that a rapist will rush forward and say 'that kid is mine!'

If the father is unknown, then he's unknown, so no name can be put on the birth certificate... which is unfortunate for the child, but what can be done? "John Smith" on the birth certificate would be a lie.....

In the 80's I worked for the state, w/welfare recipients. One pg gal came in to apply for welfare. While helping her w/the forms, I asked her who the father is and she said 'oh, I'm not going to say. I don't want the state to bother him'. Yeah, there's sappy idiots like that out there. They love Leroy and want to protect him, even from his responsibilities as a father. I asked her again, she wouldn't tell me, I closed her file and said 'fine! I'll let Support Enforcement handle this. You won't get a dime until you give up his name'... w/a long, sad face she gave me the name.

Some women really are idiots when it comes to men....and vice versa.

 

Not always. Depends upon the situation. There's some cases where the children should be permanently removed......

 

Well it might be a stupid list, but he knew about it and chose not to get on it. He could have saved himself a whole bunch of trouble had he followed the law.

 

Where do you get this stuff from? I've never heard of all birth certificates have to have a father's name......

If a woman is raped by a stranger, is he going to whisper his name in her ear?

And even if she could identify him, the court is not likely to allow him to have parental rights when the child was conceived thru a violent rape..

But then there's some really off-the-wall, bizarre judges out there......