Actually, the birth father’s consent is required in only about 20% of all cases, and in the remaining 80% of the cases his consent is not necessary. To generalize, his consent is required if: (1) he has married the mother, (2) he has received the child physically into his home and has publicly acknowledged paternity, (3) he and the mother have both at the hospital signed a special California state form in which they both agreed that he was the father, or, (4) he has done everything he can to take responsibility for the child, both financially and emotionally, during the pregnancy. These cases sometimes turn on subtle distinctions of fact, therefore, it is imperative that anyone considering an adoption have the facts thoroughly reviewed by an experienced adoption lawyer to determine whether the father’s consent is required.
Please also be aware that, even if the father’s consent is not required, California law still requires that he be notified of the adoption, and the law gives him the right to file a lawsuit if he wishes to object to the adoption. However, if his consent is not necessary, and if he files a lawsuit to oppose the adoption, the law says that he will lose that lawsuit unless the court finds that the child is better off with him than with the adopting parents. In other words, it is a “best interest” test, and the court simply looks at the birth father, and then looks at the adopting parents, to determine who can provide a better home for the child. Under such a comparison, the single, unwed birth father will usually be found to have less to offer to the child, with the result that he loses the case and his parental rights are terminated. Even the California Supreme Court has noted that the trial courts usually find that the child is better off being adopted, than by allowing the unwed father to retain his parental rights.