Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
      Being the father of one adopted son and one of my own, I think
    that any adoptive parent who would deny their child the opportunity
    to see and know their natural parent is being terribly short sighted
    and insensitive.  I think that any child has a natural curiosity
    and a right to know his/her natural parent/s.  My adopted son has
    seen his natural father a number of times and I ahaven't noticed
    any major trauma associated with the event, and I'm also satisfied
    that had I stood in the way I would have irretrieveably damaged
    our relationship.  I'm also not convinced that the case is a simple and
    straightforward as your synopsis would indicate.
                    
    

    I think the language in .0 is a bit strong and uncalled for.
    "Subhuman"?  Really!
    
    I don't think that a biological father ought to have any less right
    to ask for visitation to his child than a biological mother should
    for her child.  Note that the father may not even be aware until
    much later that he has a child, if the mother has chosen not to
    inform him - thus the comment about the father not being at the
    adoption hearing is not convincing.
    
    I would, myself, commend this father for taking parenthood seriously,
    if in fact he only recently became aware that he was a father.  I don't
    claim to know what his motives might be, but they are certainly not
    any worse, by default, than a biological mother in a similar
    situation.
    
    					Steve

I understand taht Sammy will want to meet his birth-parents some
day. I do not have a problem with that. What I do have a problem
with is that he claims this "right" 7 years later; after the
child is stablized in the adopted family.

She was torn whether she would stay with her adopted family or
not.

Then this is my current opinion.

cal

    But Cal, the father is not just now claiming a right. He asked
    for custody of the baby before it was ever adopted. He has been
    fighting for seven years for HIS child. Is visitation to a child
    he wanted and would have raised such a sin? 

    				Alfred

    Re 0. 
    
    Before you start "naming or condeming" the father, I wish you would
    get the facts straight!
    
    The case that is going against the supreme court is the following:
    
    (1) A man has relations with a woman
    (2) Relationship breaks off by the woman
    (3) Woman is pregnant (DOESN'T TELL THE FATHER UNTIL 6 YEARS LATER!)
    (4) During the pregancy, the mother gives the child up for adoption
    (5) Father finds out, and wants to build a relationship with his
        child (visitation)
    
    So whose's the scum that you refer in note 0?

    I happen to know one of the parties in the case and it's details, so 
    before we pass judgements look at the facts.  
    
    In a previous note, there was a discussion of FATHER'S RIGHTS you
    might want to examine.
    
    
    A father with rights.....

    re: .0
    
    Just curious.  When you entered this same topic in Womannotes, why
    did you give a warning that some strong writing follows after the
    <CR>, and you didn't do the same in Mennotes?

     Mike

    in re .5
    
    a couple of errors in your 'facts'....the father didn't find out
    that the mother was pregnant until just before the girl was born. He
    saw her once as a baby. He tried at that time to establish a legal link
    with the child but was not able to under Calif. law. He has
    been trying ever since to establish some rights of visitation.
    
    However, in defence of Cal, since we are both adoptive parents,
    there is in many adoptive parents a concern of varying size that
    the biological parents may come back years later and take their
    child away. The concern is that the court may decide with the
    biological parent rather than the emotional parent, solely on the
    basis of biological relationship.
    
    Bonnie
    

< Note 311.5 by IAMOK::MARMAT "Perfessor Quintessence" >
                 -< Get your facts first before FLAMES ON... >-

    The case that is going against the supreme court is the following:
    
    (1) A man has relations with a woman
    (2) Relationship breaks off by the woman
    (3) Woman is pregnant (DOESN'T TELL THE FATHER UNTIL 6 YEARS LATER!)
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    (4) During the pregancy, the mother gives the child up for adoption
    (5) Father finds out, and wants to build a relationship with his
        child (visitation)
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear "A father with rights....."

California laws as well as Colorado laws publishes the fact that
a child's birth father is given a right to a court hearing 30
days before the child is palced in an adoptive parents homes.
Then for 6 months, the adoptive parents are only guardians until
a court hearing where again the birth father has a right to claim
the child.

6 years later the guy wants a relations with his daughter? Is
this for his own psyche or the well being of the child who is
living harmonously with the adoptive family? I understand that
the child seeks out her birthfather but this man seeks to
interfer the harmony of the adoptee family by seeking legal
visitation.

I do have the media "facts" in front of me. I also heard of a
conflicting report that he fought 6 years for this visitation
(implying that he is aware of the adoption proceedings). Yes, I
judge him to be a scum for intrusion into a peaceful family life
that the little 7 year old is settled in.

Have you worked with big brother? Have you ever worked with a
confused kid who does not know of a stable family? I have. I
cherious the peace and harmony of my family.

You bet I am emotional about this issue.

cal hoe

    Tough to call.....
    
    I wont comment on the father's rights but as for the childs...
    I was married for a time to a woman who was adopted and never was
    allowed to know her real mothers name,ect. This left her with tons
    of emotional baggage that caused lots of problems for us both as
    a couple and even more for her. Special days like her birthday and
    mothers day always brought *deep* depression and crying almost all
    day long was normal. Insecure? You bet any seperation was murder
    to her even though she had adoptive parents that gave her lots of
    support and security. Although I tryed my best to understand how
    she felt I could never really fathom how it must feel to be discarded
    (her word for the feeling) as a baby. She also needed health info
    on her mother which she was unable to get causing problems around
    health care.
    
    From my experience I feel the child should be privy to as much as
    they want to know and *never* should they be discouraged/prevented
    from contact with their natural parents.
    
    BTW- Her adoptive parents protested loudly when I asked them for
    info(she could never bring herself to ask them) about the adoption
    details and her natural mother. It was real obvious that they felt
    threatened about her desire to know about or meet her natural mother.
    She was adopted in NY where records are not released. Her only way
    of finding out was her mother and father who met the natural mom
    and they refused to ever tell. VERY unfair in my opinion....
    
    -j

    I can, in no way, judge the father in this case to be "scum" for
    wanting visitation rights. I have read most of the comments here
    and in Women's note and I think people have missed the boat on the
    real villain in this sad story. It is the courts. Adoption and child
    custody cases are not a place for them to be dragging their feet.
    If it is a fact that the father has been fighting all along to gain
    visitaiton rights, it is incomprehensible how the child could have
    been given up for adoption. I can not comprehend any such law that
    would not require the consent of both parents. 
    
    Because of the neglegance on the courts side to expedite this case
    all sides are loosing. I agree that it now too late to consider
    the fathers right to raise the child. I firmly believe it is in
    the child's best interest to stay with the parents that have been
    raising her. The courts should be doing what is in the child's best
    interest. On the other hand the biological father should not be
    punished for the courts inability to offer him fair visitaiton rights
    from early on. We are talking about a child, not a $$ settlement.
    
    Everyone involved should now procede with a good faith effort of
    explaining and allowing the father to get to know his daughter.
    It is the only right thing to do.

    My point of reference? I am an adoptee, had one of my biological
    parents approached my adoptive parents about visiting me and I found
    out later in life that they had refused I would most certainly resent
    them for it. 
    
    Gail
    
    
    

    Somebody entered an article from the Boston Globe about this case
    in the same topic in WOMANNOTES-V2.  Very good stuff.
    
    Mike 

    I may be stepping into some real deep crap here, but I can't bite my
    tonge, and have to force my opinion.
    
    
    If its true, and the father did walk off 7 years ago, (hard to beleive
    what is true now :-), I feel that he should just keep walking.  I am a
    mother of a 7 year old daughter (almost 7), Her father too, walked off
    when I was pregnant.  We were both young, and confused, but I HAD to
    make a decision, I couldn't walk away, and THINK about it like he
    could.  I mean I had no choice but to face the truth.  One the other
    hand, he was able to walk away, pick up with his life, and 'grow-up'.
    In all honesty, its not fare.  I feel that his decision, was his
    decision, just like mine was mine, No TURNING BACK.  My daughter is
    living a happy life, in 7 years, she has NEVER asked where/or who he
    is, so I take it, that she isn't missing anything.  If he was to come
    back tomorrow morning, it would just shock her, and may hurt her for
    life.  I feel for the man, and the man in the article, and anyone else
    who has had to leave a child, but your dealing with a human being, not
    an animal, or a car, and just walk away and think about it for a while,
    once you make a decision, stick to it, and DON'T EVER LOOK BACK.  If he
    (the man in the article) is so concerned for his daughter, then why
    doesn't he just let it be, and wait till she is 18, and adult, and able
    to decide just what SHE wants to do?  She may not WANT him in her life.
    
    
    

    in re .13
    
    If the man in the court case had indeed walked off 7 years ago
    then that would be a reasonable way to look at it. However, he
    didn't even know about the pregnancy until after the baby was
    born, and has been trying ever since to have some right to
    visit or get to know her...which to me is a different situation.
    
    Bonnie

    I agree with Bonnie.  If the man did not know about the birth until
    later, then he has every right to have visitation.
    
    I cannot believe that just because your little daughter has not
    asked about her father that it does not bother her.  You act as
    if she would never need to know her father.  That is a poor way
    to look at it.  Every child has a right to know about their birth
    parents.  Nobody has the right to withhold this information FOR
    ANY REASON.
    
    Just my opinion.
    
    Ed..
    

    Today, the Supreme Court ruled against the father -- actually, I
    believe they refused to hear the case; primarily because, in their
    view, there was no constitutional question to be answered. 
    
    I'm sure a fuller report can be gleaned from tomorrow's newspapers.
    
    					andrew

    
    I think people do strang things; especially during very emotional
    times in their lives.  Some of those actions [choices] have
    ramifications that impact their lives in the future as well as other
    peoples lives.  As human beings we must accept that people make
    mistakes.  And for many of us it is very difficult to accept or
    forgive some of these actions based upon our own morales, social
    upbringings, etc, etc.
    
    In the case of unwanted [read: mistake] pregnancy and child birth
    this is a very emotional situation, not just for the couple, but
    for the immediate families.  And in many situations the decisions
    made, may have been right at the time or wrong.
    
    I don't feel that I should judge someone based upon what they did
    back then nor how they feel today.  
    
    The simple [sic] facts are.  The birth mother and father are known.
    And there is this new person.  The choice to give up the child to
    adoption is a fate acompli.  They are still the natural parents.
    And I beleive [my opinion] that a child would want to know who the
    natural parents were?
    
    The question that comes to my mind is the judicial systems ability
    to deal with this social issue in a fair and equal way without
    negatively impacting the child?
    
    If a mother gives up her child at birth and never makes any contact
    with the adoptive parents for 6 years and then asks for visitation
    rights.  Should the courts look any differently at the case than
    if the natural father did the same thing?
    
    

    
    From the other side of the fence...
    
    I was adopted when I was a few days old. My (adoptive) parents lived
    in a different town than the one I was born in, so I grew up away    
    from my natural parents. Some time later, I happened to wander back
    to the town where I had been born and got an apartment there. I
    knew the name of my natural parent. It wasn't for about a year that 
    I even bothered looking in the local phone book for my natural 
    parent's name.
    
    Not all adoptees necessilarily want to know their natural parents.