Cindy, the case of Baby Jessica is an example of that. The mother lied on the child's birth certificate about the father, gave the child up for adoption and had her parental rights severed. When she decided she wanted the baby back from the couple in Michigan who had adopted her, she went to the child's real father and they sued for custody in HIS name, owing to the fact that he had never surrendered his parental rights.
They won the case and the child (then three years old after all the legal wrangling) was taken from Michigan and returned to her natural parents in Iowa.
A horrible, nasty case for adoption law all around.
Is there any mechanism by which only one of the biological parent can give up his rights, in the absence of another adult seeking to adopt the child and fill the parental role?
Oddly, I once sat in on a hearing where something like that came up.
Couple was divorcing, young child (1-2 years old?) involved. Husband/father (not represented by counsel, BTW) didn't want to pay child support, offered to give up all parental rights. Judge didn't go for it, child support was ordered.
So, at least in the late '80s in WI in a divorce/child support context, the answer is no.
Overall, legislatures and courts will require that the parents provide financial support for their child, if they are able to do so. So, the unwitting Sperm Donator is liable for the child even if he didn't want to have one and didn't think that the sex act would result in his partner becoming pregnant. (And suddenly, I'm thinking about "Deep Throat" for some reason.)
Can the father give up his parental "rights"? Yes, but that may not relieve him of his obligations to financially support his child. He may be relieved of those obligations if there is another able to take over -- either the mother or another person. What the government does not want is the child having to rely upon the support of the state when there is a financially capable parent out there.
Cindy, my BiL got sued for back support for a 15 year old child he didn't really know he had. The mother never approached him for support. It wasn't until she was ill and had to go on welfare that the state of Ohio went after him for supporting the girl.
It was very weird. The mother knew where he was the whole time but never reached out to tell him he had a daughter. That didn't free him up from the responsiblity of back support though.
"when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift.... There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
Isn't that technically a gift with purchase?
It sometimes happens after it rains heavily, though that stink tends towards wet dog more than rotting meat. Gack.
Have you looked around for any elk carcasses, sara, 'cause that would explain both types of stink.
Isn't that technically a gift with purchase?
Only if he was a prostitute, I think.
It would have to be a 8 year old carcass.
GRRR. I don't care if it's not me you're pissed at, I don't care if you're in a panic, I don't care if you're way way higher up in the company than me. Do not fucking ASSCAP me in the morning, ok?
Yes, this. I just feel sorry for the child. The mother seems pretty fucked up to go to such lengths to conceive and then run the father through the ringer. That right there would tempt me to seek at least equal custody--to do what I could to insure the child's emtional well-being as best I could. Most of my sympathy in this case goes to the child.
Yep. Me, too. Cashmere, did your b-i-l ever get to know his daughter?
Couple was divorcing, young child (1-2 years old?) involved. Husband/father (not represented by counsel, BTW) didn't want to pay child support, offered to give up all parental rights. Judge didn't go for it, child support was ordered.
So, at least in the late '80s in WI in a divorce/child support context, the answer is no.
Can the father give up his parental "rights"? Yes, but that may not relieve him of his obligations to financially support his child. He may be relieved of those obligations if there is another able to take over -- either the mother or another person. What the government does not want is the child having to rely upon the support of the state when there is a financially capable parent out there.
Thanks, Fred and Narrator. It's a bit of an interesting situation. If both parents agree (or if the parent giving up the child goes through all the hoops, like posting legal notifications in the paper, etc.), they can both be free of their parental obligations. When they disagree, by one deciding to keep the child, it means both must fulfill the legal obligations (or go through whatever hoops are available to rid themselves of them) of parenting.
Well, if I lend two garden hoes to my neighbor, and he uses the garden hoes in a way a reasonable person would not expect him to do, i.e. tapes them to his legs and uses them as stilts, and then he falls down and breaks both his legs, am I responsible for his broken legs?
I think that pregnancy is not a reasonably foreseeable result of oral sex. (Depsite what all those abstinence-only "sex educators" may say!!)
Why should "foreseeable" assume everyone is decent? I have to equate his rights in this, to the rights of a woman who conceived as the result of a rape, because if I am alone in my apartment, I do not foresee conceiving that night. Heck, even if I go on a date with someone with whom I know I will not consent to intercourse, I am going to have to take some measure of responsibility, if conception takes place. If I climb into bed with my own husband, but say, "Not tonight, dear," and he disregards my refusal, I am still obligated to see that the child is cared for, in one way or another.
My question is not whether she deserves any sort of spousal support/palimony. The question is whether or not the child deserves the financial support of both parents.
When women conceive as the result of rape, they are not automatically free of parental responsibility because they conceive and bear a child as a result of rape. They are legally obligated to take responsibility in one form or another, because it is a hard fact of Nature. If they decide to continue the pregnancy, once the child is born, their legal responsibility increases, although it may be fulfilled by finding someone else who will take over the responsibility for the child. And those women don't even give permission for the "use" of their bodies in any way, to either the rapist, or the fetus. It is taken from them.
Why should men be held to a lesser standard where hard facts of nature are concerned? Granted, this man shares the trauma of unwanted, non-consensual conception, with any female who conceives as the result of rape, but he played a willing part in at least one of the steps necessary for conception--that is, he willingly made his sperm available to this woman. A female rape victim doesn't even give that much consent.
