when we see articles on children who are legally free for adoption, what's the what there? 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?
Those types of articles are usually about children already in the foster care system, so their purpose is to interest potential adoptive parents.
There are two basic types of adoption: private and through the state. Private adoptions involve a voluntary termination of parental rights. For example, an 18 year old girl is pregnant and wants to give her baby up for adoption, and the father either agrees or cannot be found. These types are usually arranged through private agencies or attorneys. Adoptions through the state usually involve older children, and usually come after an involuntary termination of parental rights. In these cases, the child is already in the foster system because the parent(s) is/are deemed to be unfit to care for the child.
Courts do not terminate parental rights easily. The supposition is always that a child is better off with his/her parents than anyone else. In the absence of contradictory evidence, the parent will always prevail.
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?
In most states, a rapist will be denied any parental rights, because it is not in the best interests of the child. Some states have codified this; others let case law set the precedent. There are some states that have yet to speak on this issue.
Keep in mind that parental rights and parental duties are independent of each other. A rapist may be ordered to pay child support, and at the same time not be allowed any contact with his offspring or a say in how the child is raised. In LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983), the Supreme Court held:
Where an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by "com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of his child," Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 392 , his interest in personal contact with his child acquires substantial protection under the Due Process Clause. But the mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent protection. If the natural father fails to grasp the opportunity to develop a relationship with his child, the Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.
Parental duty terminates when the parental rights are terminated, as in the case of adoption or other court proceeding.