From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:09:59 GMT

In article <1jkvmeINNkjs@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor) writes:

>>In article <1jhkgsINN7sn@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>>>A man has a right to stop his child from being given up for adoption.

>>How much time is/should be allowed between the birth of the child, and
>>the adoption

>in CA, 6 months.

What is the intent of this time period?  I have always understood it to be
a "trial period" during which the state can evaluate whether the adoption
is acceptable;  nowhere have I heard it suggested that it is to give the
father time to track down his child.  Am I correct in this assumption?

>>this time, who is/should be responsible for the care and support of the
>>child?

>Usually the child is in the care of the would-be adoptive parents
>or in a foster home.

If the child is with the would-be adoptive parents for 5.5 months, (with
a lot of bonding presumably going on during this time) and suddenly the
biological father arrives on the scene requesting custody, is this fair
to either the child or the would-be adoptive parents?  Would it not be
in the best interests of all concerned to notify the father of the fact
that he has a child?

If the child is in a foster home, the state has a financial interest in
the matter.  Should not the state notifiy the father of the existence
of his child?  If he wants custody, this could save the state money that
is being paid to the foster parents;  if he is willing to sign away his
parental rights, this could speed the adoption process.

>> Assuming the father is able to prevent his child from being
>>given up for adoption, and gains custody, should the mother be required
>>to pay child support? 

>He would have to get a court order for support, same as a woman would.

But *should* she be required to pay?  I'm interested in your opinion
here.

>>If so, would not that give an added incentive to
>>keep the father uninformed of the child's birth, at least until after the
>>adoption?  Do you feel it is right for women to have this advantage

>Funny how biology isn't always fair.

But it's not biology any more.  The child is no longer inside the mother's
body, dependent upon only her for its survival.  As you said in another
article, one has the right to one's bodily autonomy, but not necessarily
to the output of one's body.  Once the child is born, we are talking about
an individual human being, with rights of his/her own.

>Is it fair that women need to 
>suffer through pregnancy in order to have children, whereas men do not?

We don't need to.  We can adopt.  If we have the money, we can look for
a surrogate to carry the child if we feel the necessity to have our own
genes in the child.  And not all of us who carry a child, consider it
suffering.  Besides, we do it because we choose to, remember?  Men may
not have to "suffer through pregnancy" but they have no choice either
way once a child is conceived, no matter how hard they tried to prevent
that conception.  So I guess maybe biology isn't so unfair after all;
it gives men some advantages, women others.  And don't forget another
big advantage biology gives us:  when we give birth to a child, we know
it's ours.  I seem to recall a lot of heated debate a couple of months
ago about whether a man has the right to know if his wife were carrying
another man's child.  What was your position on that one, again?

>>If, as you have stated elsewhere, the child has the right to be supported
>>by both its parents, how can you justify making that right contigent on
>>the father's sleuthing skills, or the mother's benevolence?

>I think that a blanket requirement for requiring listing of the father 
>in all cases, with no exeptions, would be very difficcult to implement.

So, should we just forget about it?  After all, it's only the father's
rights we're dismissing.  Funny how so many women seem to have a real good
memory when they want that support money, but get forgetful when they want
to keep the man out of their lives.

>>Likewise, does the child have a right to a relationship with both parents?
>>If so, why should the mother be allowed to deny this relationship by keeping
>>(or attempting to keep) the father uninformed of the child's existence?

>IMO that is a terriffic ideal.  But there are some cases where this is
>not appropriate.  Such as where one parent is potentially abusive or
>otherwise harmful.

I can accept that it would not be appropriate in the case of rape by a
stranger (I have my doubts about some cases of "date rape" where it
seems more likely the woman merely changed her mind after the fact)
though it seems highly unlikely that such a child would be carried to
term.  "Potentially" abusive?  What ever happened to the idea of one
being presumed innocent until proven guilty?  If the mother has evidence
that the father is unfit, she can contest his custody petition;  other-
wise, I don't consider this a valid reason for denying him his right
to his child, or denying the child's right to its father.

>There is also the question of what to do when one 
>or more parent is not willing to have a relationship with the child.
>I don't think anyone knows how to make someone want to parent.

True.  But what is so terrible about giving someone the benefit of
the doubt, and offering him that relationship?  If he is unwilling,
he can consent to the adoption, probably making it easier for all
concerned - not least of all, the adoptive parents, who will now not
have to worry about the biological father showing up months or years
later, seeking custody.  After all, whether or not he "wants to parent",
if the mother sues for child support, the state will force him to pay
for 18-22 years.  Oops, I keep forgetting:  "Biology isn't always
fair."

Roberta