Surrendering parental rights

Started by AndyZ, February 23, 2015, 08:44:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Lovely Tsaritsa

Quote from: AndyZ on February 23, 2015, 08:44:23 PM
Should we allow someone to just surrender all rights to a child, never have to pay child support and things like that?

No.

My daughter, she's one year old this month. Her father never meets her, he doesn't want anything doing with her. If he got his wishes, he would give up all legal and financial responsibility, for her.

So if he gets what he wants, your saying all responsibilities for her have to being mine? Just because he feels like ignoring the child he helped create?

Lustful Bride

Quote from: lovelylilT on February 28, 2015, 11:25:54 AM
No.

My daughter, she's one year old this month. Her father never meets her, he doesn't want anything doing with her. If he got his wishes, he would give up all legal and financial responsibility, for her.

So if he gets what he wants, your saying all responsibilities for her have to being mine? Just because he feels like ignoring the child he helped create?

*applauds* (wish I had more words to say but this topic is one I know zip about)

Beguile's Mistress

Our cultural norms are changing every day and the legal system isn't keeping up with that.  If you are a single mother or about to become one go to your county government and find the people who can advise you of your rights and the responsibilities of the other parent in the relationship.  Get the information in writing and keep the child(ren) protected.  This also applies to men who are single parents or about to become such.

amarxnthine

#28
I say yes. No one should be forced in to parenthood. There's more to being a father than sperm. Women get the easy out - they can abort or adopt out if they don't want it, it's their decision. But the father? He's virtually stuck with whatever she wants regardless of his opinions or wants. Either make the choice to raise it together or don't - either deal with the pregnancy, or deal with being a single parent. You had the option to prevent that in the first place.

Some dudes don't want to be with the mother but still want to see their kids, in which case they should be paying child support and overall being there for their kid. But if they don't even want that, they aren't a father, they're just a sperm donor. They shouldn't be obligated to care for something because someone forced them in to it.

(Apologize for gendered language here; it's easier to use he and she than the pregnant one and the sperm donor or something.)

consortium11

While I'm sure it's not your intention I don't think it's ever right to describe giving up a child for adoption, let alone abortion, as an "easy out".

Do I think there is something inherently unfair about the fact that a prospective father has no real legal or definitive say; if he wants a child and the woman doesn't then he cannot stop her, if he doesn't want a child and she does then he cannot stop her? Or in the fact that if he doesn't want a child and even if he took steps to prevent (or at least make it less likely) one will be conceived her can still be "on the hook" financially? Yes, I do.

But what's the alternative?

A woman who doesn't want a child being forced to carry one to term? A woman who does being forced to abort? A father who wants to disclaim responsibility being able to quite literally walk away without consequence while the woman either has to face abortion, giving a child up for adoption or the fact that her life will objectively get worse as she now has the extra financial and personal burden of looking after a child?

For me any unfairness a father may face... and I certainly do accept that it can seemingly be unfair... is dwarfed by the unfairness the mother would face.

The Lovely Tsaritsa

Quote from: consortium11 on March 14, 2015, 06:19:27 AM
While I'm sure it's not your intention I don't think it's ever right to describe giving up a child for adoption, let alone abortion, as an "easy out".

The decision to keep my little girl, and not have abortion, or give her up in adoption, was most hard thing I ever needed making. It was anything, but "easy".

amarxnthine

You're right, I used the wrong terminology there. It's more they have the option available to them if they wanted to not be a parent, while men are considered useless if they don't want to be a parent. It's definitely not easy, and I was careless in my wording.

There is no legal situation in which a woman would be forced to carry to term or abort. Note: legal. You cannot legally force anyone in to either of those options, at least where I live. It's the mother's choice, and no one else's.

People should discuss opinions on reproducing before sex, not after. If you opinions on becoming parents are opposing, don't sleep with each other. Find someone who agrees, so that if accidents happen you will be on the same page. If you have sex with someone who doesn't want kids, get pregnant, and decide to keep the child, that's not the other parent's fault.

Zakharra

Quote from: amarxnthine on March 15, 2015, 06:49:53 PM
You're right, I used the wrong terminology there. It's more they have the option available to them if they wanted to not be a parent, while men are considered useless if they don't want to be a parent. It's definitely not easy, and I was careless in my wording.

There is no legal situation in which a woman would be forced to carry to term or abort. Note: legal. You cannot legally force anyone in to either of those options, at least where I live. It's the mother's choice, and no one else's.

People should discuss opinions on reproducing before sex, not after. If you opinions on becoming parents are opposing, don't sleep with each other. Find someone who agrees, so that if accidents happen you will be on the same page. If you have sex with someone who doesn't want kids, get pregnant, and decide to keep the child, that's not the other parent's fault.



The problem I see with the last part is it regulated sex only for those people who want to be parents. It requires everyone else to be celibate.

Kythia

Quote from: Zakharra on March 17, 2015, 09:32:34 AM


The problem I see with the last part is it regulated sex only for those people who want to be parents. It requires everyone else to be celibate.

No, not at all.  I don't actually agree with it, but the way its worded its just "don't have sex with people who have differing views on becoming a parent to yourself"
242037

The Lovely Tsaritsa

Quote from: amarxnthine on March 15, 2015, 06:49:53 PM
People should discuss opinions on reproducing before sex, not after. If you opinions on becoming parents are opposing, don't sleep with each other. Find someone who agrees, so that if accidents happen you will be on the same page. If you have sex with someone who doesn't want kids, get pregnant, and decide to keep the child, that's not the other parent's fault.

I wish always it's for being so simple!

When I'm first with my daughter's father, I tell him I'm not on the birth control. He tells me not for worrying, he's got the vasectomy, so we don't need it. I still don't know if he lies about that. He lies about many things, to me though. :P And maybe, I'm dumb for trusting him.

When I learn I'm pregnant, he tells me first for getting abortion, when I don't he says I must cheat on him, it's not his. I needed court DNA test, for proving he's her father.

He doesn't want being part of my daughters life, I'm ok, with that. But he does pay some child support. I needed going to court for that too though. If I could afford going with out financial help I would, but I can't.

But if some one creates a life, I don't think a parent can just walk away. Not unless someone else agrees for taking full responsibilities. Saying someone just gets walking away because they don't feel like dealing with responsibilities isn't fair to the child.

Pumpkin Seeds

Well, children are a possible result of having sex.  Birth control does not present itself as a perfect solution.  There is a great deal of human error that can play a role in the failure of birth control of many types.  People that choose to have sex need to understand that a child may be produced and has to be provided for by the parents.  This is not a promotion of celibacy, but simply a fact that children can be produced if engaging in sexual activity.  Short of incidents involving divine intervention, children do not result from not having sex.  If someone is going to have sex they need to understand those risks and come to terms with the fact that these situations can and do occur.

  Certainly a woman does have the ability to seek an abortion.  A woman can surrender a child for adoption, but a father that wants to keep the child can block that and claim the child so those rights are the same.  Men do seek child support payments and are awarded them quite regularly.  Let us keep in mind as well that typical child support payments are in the range of 500 a month and most people receiving them gain about half of what is owed to them.  So this is not exactly a life destroying thing.  Someone that owes child support can also file hardship and financial difficulty documentation to have the payments suspended. 

Please keep in mind that child support is not a punishment for having sex, but is meant to be in the best interests of the child and society as a whole.  Children do better with more resources available to them.  This is a means of the court forcing people to provide for the children they produce so that those children may have a better chance of success later in life.

Also, I do apologize for stepping away and then back.  The discussion seems to be a little more focused and on point now so I felt it safe to return.  If that is a problem for anyone, I will step away once more.

Aethereal

QuoteAs for adoption however, I do agree that if one parent wants to raise the child, the other one shouldn't be allowed to put the child up for adoption (barring something like child services deciding that the other parent isn't fit to raise a child).
This. If there is one parent who wants to raise the child, giving them up for adoption should be impossible (and be punishable as harshly as kidnapping would be, should the parent who is doing the giving up try it without the consent of the other parent and lie about the other parent's status).

    Abortion is for the carrying female only - sadly, we cannot grow fetuses out of body, so bodily autonomy wins.

    Parental rights' surrender is a complex topic - I may come back to it once I'm more awake and have more time to reply coherently -, but I believe that yes, on certain conditions it should be possible.

Caela

Quote from: AndyZ on February 25, 2015, 02:03:06 PM
Wait, so even if everything is properly and contractually bound, and the gay couple give semen over to a woman as a surrogate, she can then decide to keep it and the gay couple has to fight in court to get their child?  That's really messed up.

Didn't read the whole conversation but this caught my attention.

The truth is that very few states of many laws on the books concerning surrogacy so yes, the surrogate, in a lot of places, can say she carried the child and she wants to keep it and she will be viewed as the mother because she carried the child. There are a few exceptions (one of the couples I work with went to Chicago for their surrogate because it had better laws protecting the parents seeking the services of a surrogate) but in a lot of areas it's really undefined.

Caela

As for the option of parental surrendering of right. If the parent that wants to keep the child can afford to support them, and agrees to let the non-custodial parent sign off, then the parent that doesn't want to be involved she be allowed to sign off their rights. The caveat to that is, however, that with their rights goes any responsibility that the custodial parent might have had to try and allow them to be involved. If you don't want your responsibilities you have no rights either.

I am a single mother who can afford to raise her child on her own (thankfully) with just a bit of childcare help from my folks who live very nearby. The sperm donor didn't want to be a parent and I didn't want to have someone in my child's life who didn't actively WANT to be there but in my state he would have rights if I so much as acknowledged him on her birth certificate. I agreed to leave him out of our lives on the condition that he STAY GONE. If he tries to show up in 5-10 years all the sudden wanting to play "Daddy" I will make him pay out the rear for the court fees and testing to prove he's the father (there isn't a father listed on her birth certificate) and nail him for the back child support owed to HER for the years he chose not to be a part of her life. This isn't an option open to everyone, not everyone is in a situation to have a job that pays them well enough to support their child on their own but, as I watch parents battle over children on this issue, I am beyond grateful that I can just let him go without a second thought.

Mikem

Why can't men just man up and be fathers? If they were stupid enough to impregnate their partner then they walked themselves into the responsibility of parenthood. (In a perfect world...) A man, (or woman) shouldn't just be able to walk away from such an important thing. God if I accidentally impregnated my ex in the past I'd be scared shitless, but I wouldn't walk away from it. I'd get my ass in gear and make us a family. But then again the world is more full of douches than Mikems.

But about rights I do think the woman should hold the majority of it. She does in fact have to carry the child to term and then give birth to it. The man should have a say in the matter but the woman's word should carry more weight, considering all she has to go through. But then again I have strong feelings about Abortion being an option.
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. So why not take the scenic route?"

My Ons & Offs

Caela

It's not just men. Women leave too. It would be nice if everyone that was a part of a pregnancy just grew the hell up and dealt with it, but that's not always a valid option and seriously, some people would make SHIT parents and sometimes the best thing they can do for a kid is to acknowledge that and not be there. I didn't sleep with my daughter's SD (sperm donor) with an eye to starting a family. I was sleeping with him because it was fun, not because I thought he'd be a good dad. He knows he wouldn't, I know he wouldn't, he stays out of my child's life instead of screwing her up by being a part of it.

Aethereal

QuoteIf they were stupid enough to impregnate their partner then they walked themselves into the responsibility of parenthood.
Sperm stealing occasionally occurs. Females lying that they are on birth control or poking holes in condoms (horrifyingly, I've seen women suggesting other women to do that). Also female rapists getting their victims to pay child support by means of court. Just to point this out that it isn't even them consenting to as much as sex in the first place, and lying occurs.

DesiArcy

I think there's a false equivalency when it's argued that giving men the right to "surrender parental rights" is on par with upholding women's right to terminate a pregnancy. When you have a fetus, the mother bears sole responsibility for  that child because it's inside her body and she is the sole provider of care and nourishment for that baby. When you have a baby that has actually been born, both parents are equally responsible for that child and neither has the legal right to withhold support. That's not actually unequal.

A male "right to abandon" is not equivalent to a female "right to abort", because one case involves a baby that exists and has needs and the other case does not. If you want to propose a "right to abandon", it has to apply equally to both parents; you have to frame it that BOTH parents have the same right to abandon the child and leave it in the hands of the state. Except then you'd have to pony up funds for the state to care for abandoned babies on a much larger scale than it already does, and that sort of scaling up a system that is ALREADY horribly broken is the worst idea ever.

Quote from: lovelylilT on March 17, 2015, 03:33:56 PM
I wish always it's for being so simple!

When I'm first with my daughter's father, I tell him I'm not on the birth control. He tells me not for worrying, he's got the vasectomy, so we don't need it. I still don't know if he lies about that. He lies about many things, to me though. :P And maybe, I'm dumb for trusting him.

Men have a persistent belief that vasectomies are a perfect guarantee of no pregnancy. This is false; vasectomies have a documented long-term failure rate of about one in two thousand, and a much higher short-term failure rate due to lack of patient compliance with follow-up visits. (The short term failure is because the vasectomy ties off further sperm production but doesn't flush the sperm that has ALREADY passed down the vas deferens; the long term failure is because the vas deferens can potentially heal and reopen).





Caela

A man having the right to surrender his rights may not be equivalent to a woman's right to abort, but it is equivalent with her own right to abandon her child via either "Safe Haven" laws (which I am in favor of!) or by putting the baby up for adoption. To say one gender should be allowed entirely off the hook and the other can't be is just ridiculous.

Pumpkin Seeds

Men have the right to leave their child at a "Safe Haven" just as a woman does.

Caela

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on May 08, 2015, 08:52:09 PM
Men have the right to leave their child at a "Safe Haven" just as a woman does.

That's debatable. If the woman doesn't want to give up the child and he tried that he's likely to get nailed with a lawsuit for child abandonment. Whereas in a lot of places, the mother can simply give up the child with NO input from the father whatsoever.

Pumpkin Seeds

Keep in mind that the Courts are looking at who has the greatest investment in the child’s welfare.  A mother, by virtue of carrying the child to term, has already shown a great investment in the child’s care.  Now if the mother gives the child up for adoption and the father, up to that point, has shown an investment in the child’s future then he can claim the child.  A man showing up out of the blue with no actual ties to the child would have a hard time showing good intention, but even then the court may still grant custody.  There are accounts where grandparents, aunts and uncles or cousins have adopted a child from the mother or father.

Caela

I'm not talking about a father getting custody, but about him giving up his rights. The ability to do so is most definitely NOT equal. In general, a woman has every right to voluntarily give up her rights to a child, but a man has almost none unless the woman chooses to let him off the hook.

DesiArcy

Quote from: Caela on May 08, 2015, 08:12:58 PM
A man having the right to surrender his rights may not be equivalent to a woman's right to abort, but it is equivalent with her own right to abandon her child via either "Safe Haven" laws (which I am in favor of!) or by putting the baby up for adoption. To say one gender should be allowed entirely off the hook and the other can't be is just ridiculous.

"Safe Haven" laws do not privilege women as you claim because they apply equally to both parents; indeed, the single biggest criticism of such laws is that they theoretically enable either parent to unilaterally and anonymously surrender a child without the other parent's knowledge. You're also wrong about adoption laws, which specifically require the written consent of both parents; that's the entire reason that Safe Haven laws were seen as a potential loophole.



Caela

#49
Quote from: DesiArcy on May 08, 2015, 11:20:41 PM
"Safe Haven" laws do not privilege women as you claim because they apply equally to both parents; indeed, the single biggest criticism of such laws is that they theoretically enable either parent to unilaterally and anonymously surrender a child without the other parent's knowledge. You're also wrong about adoption laws, which specifically require the written consent of both parents; that's the entire reason that Safe Haven laws were seen as a potential loophole.

Laws vary from place to place to place. Here a woman can give her child up for adoption regardless of what the father may want unless the parents were married at some point. Marriage makes a lot of laws different. An unmarried woman, doesn't need the father's consent at all here though they are supposed to be able to show that they attempted to let him know of the adoption, usually via a short notice in a newspaper...which in general means a lot of guys never see them because most people these days (especially as the age of the possible parents gets younger) don't actually read the paper.

A father can try to challenge the adoption...but that assumes the mother told him about the child in the first place, much less the adoption.

And, again, this is all about a men retaining rights when I was speaking to his right to, voluntarily terminate them.