Father of Newborn 'Did Everything One Would Hope a Man in His Position Would Do'--but It Wasn't Enough
April 9th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesAs a judge noted, Jorge C., the father of a newborn, “did everything one would hope a man in his position would do.” It wasn't enough--after all, he couldn't become a mom.
Marc Angelucci, Esq. reports on a new anti-father ruling by a California Court of Appeal:
"Mom gives birth to a boy, doesn't tell the dad about him, puts the child up for adoption, doesn't name the dad. The dad learns of the child when the child is 7 months old, and he immediately seeks reunification services. The trial court awards him reunification services, but the 2nd court of appeal reverses (Los Angeles) because the dad came 'too late', i.e., after the adoption proceedings were completed. One of the three appellate judges vigorously dissented and said the mom committed 'outrageous lies."'
As we've discussed before, these types of scams are not uncommon, and often separate babies from their loving fathers.
C.A.: Biological Father Waited Too Long to Assert Rights
Metropolitan News-Enterprise (4/7/08)
By SHERRI M. OKAMOTO, Staff Writer
A biological father seeking reunification with his child who comes forward after the reunification period has ended must establish changed circumstances or new evidence that reunification is in the child’s best interest, this district’s Court of Appeal held Friday.
In a split decision, Div. Five found that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Emily Stevens abused her discretion, concluding that a father whose paternity was hidden from him by the mother is a presumed father entitled to reunification services without regard to the best interests of the child and reversed the dependency court’s decision.
Vincent M.’s mother—children in dependency cases are only identified by name and initial— surrendered him for adoption at birth, and declined to identify his father. The judge found Vincent a ward of the court, and because his parents’ whereabouts were unknown, did not order reunification services. Stevens set a permanency planning hearing, with adoption by Vincent’s de facto parents as the plan.
The mother had allegedly deliberately concealed the pregnancy and birth from Vincent’s asserted biological father, identified in the opinion as Jorge C., who had relocated out of state and was allegedly expecting mother to join him and continue their relationship. Jorge C. said the mother finally told him about Vincent when the baby was seven months old, and he flew back to California to try and obtain custody.
He appeared at the permanency hearing, claiming paternity. He filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 388 requesting presumed father status and reunification services.
Stevens found that Jorge C. was Victor’s presumed father under case law, and held that because he “came forward at the earliest possible time,” she had “no choice” but to find him the presumed father, entitled to reunification services regardless of the child’s best interests.
Writing for the appellate majority, Justice Sandy R. Kriegler reasoned that because a child’s de facto parents have an interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of the child, and that these rights and interests were injuriously affected by the dependency court’s ruling, Vincent’s prospective adoptive parents had standing to appeal.
Citing Civil Code Sec. 7004(a)(4), Kriegler said Jorge C. was not a presumed father because he did not receive
Vincent into his home and hold the child out as his own. Relying on In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435—which held that a man who fails to achieve presumed father status prior to the expiration of the reunification period is not entitled to reunification services unless he can establish, in a Sec. 388 petition. changed circumstances or new evidence demonstrating that the child’s best interest would be promoted by reunification—Kriegler concluded the trial judge had abused her discretion in disregarding Vincent’s best interests.
Presiding Justice Paul A. Turner sided with Kriegler, but Justice Orville Armstrong argued in dissent that Jorge C. occupied a “completely different position than the biological father in Zacharia D,” because Zacharia D. involved a father who learned of his child’s birth after he had abandoned the child’s mother and who waited until the court was about to terminate the mother’s reunification services before coming forward. In contrast, Armstrong noted, the mother in this case had “engaged in a web of lies” to conceal the pregnancy and birth from Jorge C., who “did everything one would hope a man in his position would do” upon learning of Vincent’s existence.
“It is an odd conclusion indeed to deem the hoped-for result–a family’s reunification–a legal injury to the foster parents,” Armstrong added, disputing the majority’s conclusion the same Sec. 388 requirements applied to all biological fathers who appear after the end of the reunification period, regardless of whether his paternity was concealed from him or not.
The full article is here.
"));
19 queries. 0.630 seconds.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I wonder if the decision would be the same in a conventional case of kidnapping. Kidnapper puts up child for adoption and then the parents are not allowed to have the child back because it was too late.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
"Writing for the appellate majority, Justice Sandy R. Kriegler reasoned that because a child’s de facto parents have an interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of the child, and that these rights and interests were injuriously affected by the dependency court’s ruling, Vincent’s prospective adoptive parents had standing to appeal."
How many parents have been injuriously affected as a result of the willingness of family court judges to allow them to have less than half custody - also known as visitation?
April 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
If the American government cared about fathers, then they would ask the woman who is the father to give him his child. Instead, the government allows women to give children to strangers.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:47 am
How is it that the mother was allowed NOT to identify the father at the time she abandoned her baby?
Oh, yeah. Men have no reproductive rights -- only responsibilities. Women have no reproductive responsibilities -- only rights.
Who else gets rights without responsibilities? Children, the retarded, the insane .... Women are in good company!
April 9th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Mark Ruffolo: The government allows women to give children to strangers.
Excellent point. Even when it is the law and even when the father is paying child support and his address is known, the government has failed to contact the father before allowing the mother to have the children adopted. The state gets money from the federal government for adoptions under Title IV-E.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
This man has grounds to file a major lawsuit against his ex, due to the fact that her lies and fraud have damaged him and his daughter irrevocably. He could possibly also sue the adoption agency and the state for failing to even try to notify him. (IE, any agency involved in the adoption process should be required to perform an exhaustive search to locate and notify both parents and to make sure they have consent of both parents, before an adoption can proceed).
Until more men start standing up, it's only going to get worse. The courts, CPS agencies, and Federal and State Governments have proven they don't care about our rights. Men bring a good deal of that down on themselves, by doing nothing until it's too late, then basically just whining about it.
After a few lawsuits and big payouts (and if the guys actually get involved, donate time and money to the cause), these kinds of issues will disappear. BUT experience has shown me that if the guy even bothers to sue anyone, IF he wins, he'll disappear into his own world, abandon the movement that stood behind him, and just shrug when it happens to someone else.
Respectfully (even if cynical),
Thomas Lessman
. www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
Email: talessman@yis.us
World History Maps
. www.WorldHistoryMaps.info
Lessman Farm and Truckhenge
. www.thomaslessman.com/LessmanFarm/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
April 9th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
We absolutely need consequences for women. She should be in jail and this guy shoud not only be awarded the child, but should get a hefty civil award from the mother.
Outrageous and inexcusable!
April 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
This is one of those stories that scares the life out of me. What a nightmare for a willing father: through no fault of his own, he's being forced out of the life of his own son for no other reason than the fact that the mother couldn't be bothered to tell him he had a child, and because a court says he didn't file for custody before some arbitrary deadline (how the hell could he have done so if he didn't even know until then that he had a child in the first place!?).
As someone who really wants to be a father someday, this story tells me that, contraception notwithstanding, I'm keeping an eye an any woman I have sex with for a full 9 months after the fact, just in case she tries to pull something like this on me.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Of course, if she were to keep the baby, say nothing to the father, and then hit him with back child support payments ten years from now, the court would rule in her favor.
I'm saving up to move out of the country within 2-3 years.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Any person other than a female, attributed with a mythical maternal instinct, would be in jail for a long time for doing this!
April 9th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Actually Jay those groups' rights are linked with their responsibilities. Women are unique in the respect that they are allowed to make huge decisions about everything and then not have to deal with the consequences.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
"Writing for the appellate majority, Justice Sandy R. Kriegler reasoned that because a child’s de facto parents have an interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of the child, and that these rights and interests were injuriously affected by the dependency court’s ruling, Vincent’s prospective adoptive parents had standing to appeal."
And this ruling does not "injuriously affect" the child and its real father.
Sounds like, because there is a female de facto parent, her rights are more important than the biological father.
We know its not because there is a defacto father.
Men simply do not matter in this culture. Scary.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I read and re-read this story hoping to see in it something I wasn't seeing. Sadly, I didn't. I am less outraged at the family court system in this case than I am completely saddened for both the father and the child in this case. What an absolute heartbreaker.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
These stories make me so sad. I understand the judges' logic completely, and it makes no sense whatsoever.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Does citizen still apply to the male population?
Do we still have the right to vote and for how long?
April 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
The federal government provides state governments up to $126.000,000 to separate fathers from their children by adoption.
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0473A.htm
Recall: The federal government provides state governments up to $4,100,000,000 to establish child support orders and create arrearages against father.
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm
I observe that the government uses retirement money from men against men. Men are funding anti-father programs.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
A few years ago I mentioned a similar case like this to a feminist who stated that these kinds of cases could never happen because adoptions cannot be done without the father's consent. However, it seems like they can be done and are allowed. Most of the time the justification is that the child has bonded with the adoptive parents, but this time it is purely bureaucratic: "We already finished the process." Just pathetic...
April 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Root cause: money.
If mom gives up the kid for adoption to a stranger:
She pays nothing.
The state collects federal funds for the adoption.
Mom lets dad have the kid:
State collects nothing for adoption
child support will be either zero or below that assigned to minimum wage earning men
state's kicker from the fed for collecting child support would be approximately zero. (plus not being able to campaign on 'deadbeat mom' as a political whipping boy)
Secondary root cause - it's ok if mom interferes with the paternal interest. No punishment what so ever. Pure spite is allowed. Gross double standard, compare to what would happen if he'd been named as the father - they would have sent a first class letter to his old address, imputed his income, then start accruing back child support that is irrevocable when he finally does find out he got a default judgement.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
California's Safely Surrendered Baby Law sets up places where legally, a parent (read mother), can give up their newborn. This law was to prevent parents (mothers) from abandoning and killing their children. A law designed to keep women from killing children, how does it work you say?. It places no burden on the women and steals the children from their fathers. The LA county website says cheerily "No Shame, No Blame, No Names".
" In California, the Safely Surrendered Baby Law allows an individual to safely give up an
unwanted infant with no fear of arrest or prosecution for abandonment as long as the baby
has not been abused or neglected. The law does not require that names be given when
the baby is surrendered. Parents are permitted to bring a baby within 3 days of birth to any designated hospital staff or designated fire station in the County of Los Angeles. The baby
will be placed in a pre-adoptive home while the adoption process gets underway."
Lets get that baby out before dad finds out.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
It's amazing how many "deadlines" fathers have, and the feminists are wanting fewer for them.
Deciding to use, not use birth control, morning after pill, ru-486 - that's ok
Lying about being on birth control, or recovering semen to later impregnante - that's ok
no notification to her spouse or parents - that's ok.
3rd trimester and partial birth abortions - that's ok.
Put child up for adoption, i.e. walk away from all responsibility - that's ok
Never identifying the father to let him know - that's ok.
Fradulently mis-identifing the father - that's ok.
Lying about the father's address, income, criminal activities - that's ok.
Fathers' limitations
cant ask to have/ not have/ discuss abortion - that's harassment.
Can't assume that her saying 'yes' actually meant 'yes'
only party responsible if one or both are intoxicated.
he will be asked in front of new mom and (her) family if he wants a DNA test, not privately, pressuring him to decline.
Has 4 year limitation to demand DNA test, or child presumed his.
Has less than 7 months to discover child is his after mom put it up for adoption (at no consequence to her)
default judgment of child support cannot be revoked.
Mom and state workers can lie or mis-represent the case to pressure dad to acknowledge paternity - irrevokable, inflexible and frequently arbitrary financial responsibility for two decades with no remedy for fraud or negligence.
If fraud proven, or child is not his, cannot get refund of already paid child support, and frequently can not get arrears canceled.
Yeah, I'm all for equality. Lets see some.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
This is the correct judgement.
Although the biological mother was wrong in concealing the birth from the father, the child is now with new parents, who would be most distraught if he was taken away from them.
You can't just rip a kid out from a family when it's several months old, and give it to some people who've never even enjoyed its company.
In real life terms, family is more about upbringing than genetics.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
onz: "Although the biological mother was wrong in concealing the birth from the father, the child is now with new parents, who would be most distraught if he was taken away from them."
How many fathers have their children taken from them?
April 9th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
"He reasoned that because Vincent’s de facto parents had no legal right to adopt the child, they were not legally aggrieved. He further criticized the majority for failing to explain why the de facto parents were entitled to challenge the child’s ability to reunify with his father by appealing an order the child’s attorney supported. "
The majority did not explain why they ignored the guardian ad litem who supported reunification with the father, presumably based on the best interest of the child.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I'll wager that very shortly the department of 'human services' will come after him for child support.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
So "onz" lets set up a hypothetical here, stretched a bit, but in reality functionally the same. A newborn is "kidnapped" from a hospital in a foreign country. The "parents" are told the baby had died. An "unscrupulous adoption broker" for "consideration" places the baby with a US family. Seven months after the adoption the "parents" find out where the baby is and come to the US to get their child. They have been deceived also , never nutured the child, and the adoptive parents would be hurt if the child is removed. The law would return the child to the biological "parents". What is the difference?
replace "kidnapped" with "lied to", replace "unscrupulous adoption broker" with typical family court, replace "consideration" with with selfish self self-centered needs, replace "parents" with father and I think you get the picture. Its just bigotry.
This baby is his child and he has the right to raise it. Period. He never gave up his rights. The adoptive family is out of luck, I feel for them, but everyday I see ads on TV showing wonderful children available for adoption.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I could see the states point that the kid would be better off with the foster parents. Especially if the kid had been living with them for several years.
But what I can't understand is why the state won't punish these lying "women".
How about some fracking justice?
April 9th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
The judge is right. The child should have been with the parent more likely to kill it from birth (and before) ... mom.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
With the one judge strongly desenting, it greatly improves the chance the Supreme Court will at least hear the case. It's $50,000.00 and up to launch such an appeal.
However, because of the importance, you would want to stack the odds as much as possible in favor of winning. Those that come later may not have to face such an artificial, anti-male barrior if this is overthrown.
Having $150,000.00 available to assemble a good legal team and an attorney with a dynamic court presence is advised. Some may even advise $350,000.00 or more to ensure all the bases are covered. If and when you win, there is nobody to sue to collect your legal fees from. You have to understand that going in.
DanH
April 10th, 2008 at 12:17 am
So basically what DanH is saying is you have to be rich to get justice in this country.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:20 am
This man has grounds to file a major lawsuit against his ex, due to the fact that her lies and fraud have damaged him and his daughter irrevocably. He could possibly also sue the adoption agency and the state for failing to even try to notify him. (IE, any agency involved in the adoption process should be required to perform an exhaustive search to locate and notify both parents and to make sure they have consent of both parents, before an adoption can proceed).
It's unlikely she has any money to take so a lawyer isn't going to help him.
And as long as the adoption agency followed the law they can't be sued.
He has no recourse but to suck it up and move on. Ironically, that also puts him in the same class as so-called "deadbeat dads".
April 10th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I think it’s just as bad to force a man to be a “father”, (we all know what that boils down to) for not “keeping it zipped up”, as it is to deny this man the chance to be a father to his biological child. Both involve not having any respect for the wishes of the father in question.
When women are forced to bear children for the act of “spreading their legs”, and are not allowed to give the child up for adoption, I will be glad to take equal custody of a biological child for not keeping it zipped up. That’s exactly what the law requires.
Roe vs. Wade needs to be overturned. That’s what the “law” requires.
The mother doesn’t “own” the child, never did, never will.
It looks like it has to be John McCain.
If you think it’s bad now, just think what four or eight more years of Femocrats will do.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
The women's movement propaganda machinery is effective. Though women are perceived as nurturing and family orientated, yet they abort (kill about 1.5m yearly), initiate divorce more (about 75% in a country with the one of the highest divorce rates), abandon (dropping child off/adoption), circumvent a father (in vitro fertilization), does not provide (dad pays support); more abusive against their children, unable physically protect against a real assault, refuses access (paternity alienation and visitation inference). The liberal feminist media is powerful.
Further, mothers do these activities without the consent of the father (and full approval of our government). Not very family orientated.
I am thankful for glennsacks.com for allowing almost illegal and politically incorrect observations to be expressed without fear of retaliation and or censorship.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:03 am
This is an outrage. He should have his rights. Funny, but maybe they don't allow it because then, the law would allow HIM to ask for child support and imagine that...the mom not wanting the baby and then being made to pay for child support just because the ex decided to keep the baby...wow...That'll be the day...
April 10th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I just wanted to add that as long as we continue to blame mothers, the courts and the government for these problems and refuse to take direct personal responsibility, this injustice will continue.
No one has ever broken a “real law” by doing the right thing.
Rosa Parks didn’t break the law by sitting in the front of the bus. The racist bigots who had written the laws requiring her to sit in the back were the real lawbreakers.
The sexist bigots in today’s Family Courts are no different than the racist bigots of old.
How long will fathers allow this to continue?
April 10th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Kevin - what specifically are you saying should be done?
April 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I'm biased, so salt grains for all.
1. What is the difference if the birth mom had an abortion without the birth dad's knowledge?
2. How is it that the child is better off with the birth dad than a mom and dad that went to great lengths to adopt him?
In regard to #2, any honest person that has not been through the ordeal (and expense) of adoption would be appalled if they would just look at the "system". Adoptive parents pretty much hold their collective breaths until the final hearing, the one that this birth father appeared, is over and the paperwork is filed. Having been through the screening process and the intrusive social worker "visits" that are required tell me that the adoptive parents will be very good for this little boy. Its really hard to make the case that the birth father would be a better setting for him.
How would any father that loses his baby after only 7 months feel? Image the State coming and removing the baby. Please just shoot me instead.
Its a bad situation and there is plenty of heartbreak for all, but I can't find a good argument for the birth father to gain custody.
April 10th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Snner says - Its a bad situation and there is plenty of heartbreak for all, but I can't find a good argument for the birth father to gain custody.
BECAUSE HE IS THE BIRTH FATHER..PERIOD. End of argument. I can not for the life of me ever understand why people dont get this. Do you think men have no hearts, men can not love their children. I am sick to death of hearing this kind of nonsense. Have your child taken away from you, no matter their age, what do you think will happen to your heart?
April 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Promoting discrimination on the basis of race was no more in the public’s best interests than it is in the child’s best interests to discriminate on the basis of gender.
The “best interests of children” carries no more weight in the minds of reasonable people than “separate but equal”.
Only the most foolish or perhaps criminal of minds are incapable of acknowledging the correlation.
Why in the world are we allowing fools and/or criminals to prance around wearing black robes in our courtrooms?
Is it something in the water?
April 10th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Based on sinner's logic, the state should start the practice of systematically removing children from single moms. Clearly, being raised by a single mom has a well defined detrimental effect on the child.
Really, Sinner, how can you continue to justify women raising children on their own, when there's 2 parent families willing and eager to adopt? All we need is one parent abdicating their responsibility.
Are you claiming that women are better parents, that men are second rate parents who are less worthy of caring for their own progeny than total strangers?
Back to point 1 - yes, she can get an abortion up to a point, varies by the state she lives in. We cannot compel her to carry a baby to term. Nor can we compel her to abort a pregnancy. IMHO, the dad should be notified, if they're married. I can see where others would feel that the dad should be notified regardless of marital status, but I would argue that the couple has a contract of mutual interest and support, where a 'hookup couple' does not.
April 10th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I remember once several years ago when I got into a discussion with a single mom about the importance of fathers. She had said that fathers were not very necessary to a child's upbringing, regardless of how good they are. She said that most fathers, if not all were just "glorified babysitters". Mind you, I was not talking about her situation, or that it was her fault in being a single mother. If one is put into the situation of being a single parent when one was not planning on it, you can only do the best you can. However, that was not her situation, nor were we discussing single motherhood by circumstances out of your control. No, we were just discussing the importance of fatherhood, plain and simple. At the time, I just thought that comment about the "glorified babysitter" was coming from an extreme very miniscule viewpoint embraced by a bitter person. However, I am seeing more and more of this viewpoint being tossed around. It's sad to see this type of belief being embraced by more people. When a true father cannot have custody of his child even when the mother lies about the father, doesn't inform the real father about the child, and puts the child up for adoption is ridiculous. But when there are people out there that see fathers as nothing more than "glorified babysitters", then one starts to understand why fathers are being pushed out of there children's lives.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Jean Valjean says: So basically what DanH is saying is you have to be rich to get justice in this country.
Jean, I said nothing about “justice,” which is a concept relative to which party is espousing it. I said “Winning.” Winning does not have to be even a second cousin to justice. Family Court proves this point day in and day out.
If you are looking for truth and justice, go to a place of worship. If you are looking to defend yourself against being wronged, go into a courtroom with the idea that behind a façade of calm, reasoned demeanor, there lurks a person armed to the teeth with every dirty maneuver ever dreamed up in a courtroom for the past 200 years. Fighting a good courtroom fight is not your core competency nor is it for fully one-third of the attorneys practicing law. The opposing party will be pulling no punches to see that you are left a mangled heap on the floor at the end of the day. You would do well to grasp this if you are heading into court.
The horrible injustice is when you are defending yourself against a horrible injustice and it costs you a substantial part of what you have just fending off the evil.
In this situation, I’d be inclined to offer the mother $25,000 if she cried on the court to get the child back and sign over custody to him. The court would fall all over themselves tearing up the adoption papers for the woman. If she counter-offered $40,000 that would still be cheaper than the first tier of legal costs and it removes all uncertainty of the outcome.
A very pragmatic DanH
April 10th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
To those who are supporting the biological father (who is really nothing but a sperm donor here, as he's had no contact with the baby at all) - try to empathise with the adoptive parents for a minute. Imagine the joy on their faces as they're given the baby they never thought they'd be able to conceive naturally, when they'd been desperately longing for a child for years. Now imagine their child being wrenched away from them, seven months on. A strong bond - much stronger than than either of the biological parents have - has been formed with the child and it would be incredibly cruel to break that bond, both to the new parents and the child.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Onz, my gripe is not with the adoptive parents, it's with the mother and the system which enables her.--GS
April 10th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
onz,
So if a baby is kidnapped from the maternity ward and found after a year with some people raising it as their own.. the original parents are simply egg, sperm and womb time donors.. correct? There is a difference between a donation of your money and donation of money obtained through theft. There is no charity involved in the money care more than love is involved in this one. Would you say the same thing if the father took a newborn child away and gave it up for adoption without the mother's consent? After all she would be just an egg and womb time donor... right?
April 10th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I think people who see the biological father as a “sperm donor” probably see the unborn child as a “fetus” to be disposed of at the mother’s discretion.
The father and child need to have their rights protected from the moment of conception.
Roe vs. Wade was never intended to give the mother carte blanche. The intent was to allow an abortion in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:14 am
So have the adoptive parents tried to get child support from poor Jorge? This stinks beyond stink. Just another example of the wonderful family law courts and legislation that is in place.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Onz,
Other's have pointed this out but, had the baby been kidnapped at birth and not found for 7 months, would you still suggest that the kidnappers keep the infant because of the bond that's been mutually formed?
Why do the adoptive parents 'rights' out-weigh those of the paternal father? I'd feel awful for them, but I feel an awful lot worse for the father having to know that his daughter is 'out there' and not being able to have anything to do with how she's raised. This idea that, just because he hasn't had the chance to 'bond' with her means he's somehow losing less than the adoptive parents would is just spurious nonsense.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
JoeV says: "BECAUSE HE IS THE BIRTH FATHER..PERIOD. End of argument. "
SO, if this guy happens across the knowledge of his child 7 YEARS later, he get custody? Is there a line? When does the parent-child bond transcend biology?
In this case, the birth mom gave up her rights (72 hours after birth at the very lest) and the state has a child on its hands that needed to be taken care of. If there were no adoptive parents, the state would have been forced to pick up the bill. Should the state just never allow adoptions where the father is unknown? Should "unknown father" kids be forced to live in state custody until 18?
Sorry, I am with the MRA advocates (A quick search on my blog will show that) but there is a point where biology cannot be a claim to unconditional custody.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Foster parents??? those who are PAIDED to render the service of a parent. So the poor guy loses his kids and has to pay for a stranger( not the ex ) what he is willing to do as a DAD. Gee help me with one . JW
April 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am
If I have said it once, I have said it thousand times. Women have so many rights, that men have none in dealing with them. Too late to be a parent, how about him being to late to pay child support huh! I'll bet that would go over like a lead ballon.
The problem is very basic, but the solution is not . Men have to learn the law, no not just the parts that the "government terrorist " want us to learn. I mean all the law, you see if you learn what I have learned. You can put a stop to the abuse and mistreatment. The law is a double edged sword,not the "safety razor, the women and the "government terrorist" believe it is! Just like Richard Cornforth says( look this guy up folks, you will find what he does very interesting) you need to learn the law and be predisposed to use it. Yes you can put a stop to the fraud and racket the family courts have turned into. You can put a stop to the child support racket.*
The secret to stoping and holding these thieving criminals and terrorist accountable is in their own law!
Most lawyers, especially government lawyers, are so sloppy and lazy, that they only go through the motions. They don't fully and completely apply the law as it is written and what the court have ruled that they mean,because of this ,most of thejudgments are void! That includes most judgment in the family courts, in effect they have committed fraud and because they have gained authority to do what they do under that fraud, not only can they be sued, they can in some instances be charged criminally.
Once the "government terrorist" can be held personally accountable, this puts the "fear of God" in them and makes them behave themselves. They go from acting like thieves, criminal and terrorist back to being the complient, obedient and respectful servants, we the people hired and start applying the law the way it was intended, fairly and justly. Pretty soon we have no injustice, pretty soon women, grow up and start to act like reasonable and responsible adults, not the spoiled rotten children they have turned into!
* When it comes to child support , I believe we need to keep the "good idea" and get rid of the extortion racket it has turned into. Our legal system is based on equity law, ie contract law. If you know anything about contracts, you should know that contracts are based on agreements, voluntary agreements. If we do it this way, the problems associated with the current child support racket will go away. Shared parenting will replace the transfer of wealth by the child support apparatus. It will work because it respects the rights of both parents and get the state out of the arrangment.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
---“Just like Richard Cornforth says( look this guy up folks, you will find what he does very interesting) you need to learn the law and be predisposed to use it.”
Thanks for the post.
I look forward to attending one of his seminars. I think refusing to hire lawyers for anything is the key factor in ridding ourselves of these parasites.
Check out the video.
It may be the best 54 minutes you ever spent.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5829475333571645410
April 18th, 2008 at 12:20 am
[...] my recent blog post Father of Newborn 'Did Everything One Would Hope a Man in His Position Would Do'--but It Wasn't Enou..., we discussed the case of an embattled California father, Jorge C., who fought a long, hard and [...]
April 30th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
[...] In my recent blog post Father of Newborn 'Did Everything One Would Hope a Man in His Position Would Do'--but It Wasn't Enou..., we discussed the case of an embattled California father, Jorge C., who fought a long, hard and [...]
May 1st, 2008 at 1:31 am
[...] MORE DETAILS HERE [...]
June 10th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
The father should have custody. I do feel for the adoptive parents, but that doesn't make giving them the child right. Custody should be worked in over a period of months though for the child's sake. Being taken away from the only family you've ever known and dropped off with a stranger can be damaging even to an infant. The dad should gradually have more time with the child and within a few months should have full custody. It would also be nice if the father continued to allow some contact with the former adoptive parents throughout the child's life.