I'm thinking of a feature that runs in the The Boston Sunday Globe, called "Sunday's Child" which reports on children who are in need of foster or adoptive homes. In cases where a child is legally free for adoption, is he already in the foster system, and if so, is that because of other factors?

I think in those cases parental rights have generally been terminated by the state for one reason or another - possibly only the mother's in cases where the father is "unknown." Maybe there are other things going on, though?

It looks like the law is less interested in the rights of the bio dad, than the welfare of the child. Since the child already exists, the state then goes and finds the nearest deep pockets. It's definitely unfair, but the clear priority is that somebody's got to be responsible for the child, and the state has decided that the kid will be better off with two providing parents. Better also than having the state pay for the kid.

This is the guts of what I meant. If he is telling the truth, Irons did awful things to Phillips, but why should the child give up the child's right to support, because of it?

eta...

Thanks, brenda.

Lawyeristas, (I called you lawgeekers before--I'm sorry, that's a Bronzerism), generally speaking, what happens when conception is the result of a man raping a woman? If the woman chooses to give the child in adoption, can the biological father/rapist contest? Typically, does the court ignore him?

I like the "lawgeeker" title. But "lawyerista" is purty, too.

The issue is what terminates a parent's rights -- it varies by state. For example, a parent can give a child up for adoption. If the state approves, then the parent's parental rights -- and responsibilities -- are ended. The state can also take those rights away. This is generally by a court determining that it is in the best interests of the child to end those rights. It is a high standard. For example, even a father who murders the child's mother does not automatically forfeit his parental rights to see the child, make schooling decisions, etc. By that standard, a father who raped the mother will not automatically lose his rights. But, the crime makes it more likely that the father will lose his rights than if he was convicted of money laundering or robbery. To be the child of rape still carries a stigma for many. Also, there is a perception that a rapist father may attack or harm the child at some point.

So, to answer your question, the father could contest. But, if the child is adoptable, I think many courts will terminate the father's rights in order to serve the child's interests.

C'mon, Gus.

Ya gotta prefer Old School Garofalo to her current look.

She's turned into John Denver! Undo it! Undo it!

Gronk.

Just had my first PT appointment. As expected, I have no real abdominal muscles, and I need to work on developing some.

As expected, I have no real abdominal muscles

So what's keeping your intestines from flopping down to your ankles? Surface tension?

Someone remind me how you do that thing on Excel where you can make the top row or the lefthand column stay visible even when you're further down/over because it has all of your headers in it.

The biological father is responsible for the child, even if there is deception on the part of the mother (i.e. she tells him that she can't get pregnant or she's on the pil and isnt, etc.) This is shady as hell, but he's still responsible. However, he may have a case for IIED if he can prove it, which will be very difficult.

even a father who murders the child's mother does not automatically forfeit his parental rights to see the child

True dat. I saw a case like that in my church when I was a kid. Father sought and got visitation rights -- child had to visit him in prison every so often.

To complicate things, the mother's parents had physical custody. And to say the least (and for obvious reasons), they did not have good feelings toward the father. And as I understood things, they did not hide their feelings from the child.