From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Equal Male Rights
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:58:10 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <#kbn4n@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <702@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>>For all three of my kids, when it was time for them to leave the hospital,
>>I picked them up. I didn't have to show ID, I just went and asked for my
>>kids. I was told congratulations, handed a box full of baby products, and
>>given the child.
>
>That's because you were married to the mother and were assumed to be
>the father...even if they weren't biologically yours.

No, as a matter of fact, my ex and I didn't marry until after the
birth of our second child. So for two of the three, your scenario
holds directly.

>>A picture is painted here as though fathers aren't permitted to do much
>>else than peer through the glass at the nursery. Not so. Not so at all.
>
>Again, you're talking about the situation that exists in married
>couples.  I'm talking about unmarried couples.

Again, no I'm not. Further, I can point to a number of my friends who
had exactly the same experience. I suspect that you've somehow
extrapolated an opinion from your suspicions, rather than the facts.

>>In cases where both mom
>>and dad say that Mr. X is the dad, no suit is necessary --at least in this
>>neck of the woods, that's true.
>
>It is my understanding that such is not the case all over.
>
>>If there is a contention about paternity, then the short answer to "Is this
>>the father?" is settled pretty rapidly by tests. A better circumstance than
>>playing eenie-meenie-miney-mo with the stories that the court hears.
>
>Exactly.  That the biological father would have to go to court to get
>custody rather than the med lab is what is at issue.

Not always. The only case this is true is when the mom goes out of her
way to shield the identity of the father. As I understand it, this is
not a very common occurrance --although it does happen --but usually
does because the mom isn't really sure who the dad is, and chooses not
to admit that. At least, this is what I gleaned from conversations
with a few of the nurses at Spokane's biggest hospital, Sacred Heart.

>
>>Fortunately, I live in Washington, where if the mother wants to give the
>>child up, legal notice has to be served on the father who has first option
>>to take the child... and without adoption. It's simply his.
>
>That's at least a partial answer to my question:  He is considered a
>biological father, not an adoptive one.  But again, it is my
>impression that such is not the case all over.

Hmmmm. What locations are you talking about? What was the position in
the system (whatever) that the people who told you this hold? If what
you say is true, that's pretty amazing.

>Now, can he sue her for support when this happens?

That I don't know. One would THINK that he could --at least, the RCWs
(WA law) indicates that to be the case. In practice, I don't know.

-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Xref: sparky soc.men:15884 soc.women:16109