adoption without the fathers consent.....

[Donuthole]

bump. Facebook tells me this is a hot issue again.

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-dad-says-baby-taken-from-him-for-adoption-against-his-will

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I never read this thread the first time around. I didn't even know about these adoption laws.

Has this ever gone to the US Supreme Court? As far as I can tell, a father's parental rights can be taken away after 24 hours and there's no legal requirement to even notify the father of when that 24 hours begins to run.

I see a problem on due process grounds. The laws in place substantively give rise to the state taking away a man's child without giving him notice or opportunity to assert his parental rights.

Also, given the disparate treatment of men under the law, there's a potential problem on equal protection grounds.

The reason why Utah has these laws? I believe it's to encourage girls to not have an abortion. If the father asserts parental rights, the mother is on the hook for child support.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I never read this thread the first time around. I didn't even know about these adoption laws.

Has this ever gone to the US Supreme Court? As far as I can tell, a father's parental rights can be taken away after 24 hours and there's no legal requirement to even notify the father of when that 24 hours begins to run.

I see a problem on due process grounds. The laws in place substantively give rise to the state taking away a man's child without giving him notice or opportunity to assert his parental rights.

Also, given the disparate treatment of men under the law, there's a potential problem on equal protection grounds.

The reason why Utah has these laws? I believe it's to encourage girls to not have an abortion. If the father asserts parental rights, the mother is on the hook for child support.

It hasn't gone to the United States Supreme Court. It has gone to the Utah Supreme Court, which led to a minor but not nearly enough change to the law. Utah at the very least was forced to address the very real problem of out-of-state mothers coming to Utah to have a child adopted away without consent to the unmarried biological father. In re the adoption of Baby B is where this problem was at least addressed. This adoption was a particularly egregious example of the exploitation of these laws.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1577452149364723339&q=in+re+baby+b&hl=en&as_sdt=4,45

You read the law right. Unless prior to birth of the child, the unmarried biological father files a paternity action in the district court and files notice of the action, you can pretty much do whatever you want to his parental rights.

What can be done to unwed biological fathers in this state is morally wrong.

[Eddie]

The initial story I read on this current case included the information that the father's name was on the birth certificate and that he had "established paternity". Also - and this story alludes to this part - the father actually had physical custody of the child when the mom went to court and relinquished her rights so that the child could be adopted.

All along, he had no idea what was going on until someone shows up at his front door with a court order telling him to give the baby up.

Now that there is simply crazy.

I don't know what the guy did (or didn't do) to establish paternity, but this sounds a bit crazy. He's on the birth certificate, has and is caring for the kid in his home, and the mom can run off to court and end it all?

I can agree with the idea that mom might not want dad to keep the child because she is then on the hood for child support. But maybe that's something that needs to be addressed in the law as well. (In all honesty - I suspect that more often than not punishing the father is much stronger of a motivation than worry about paying child support. Though logically escaping child support makes sense.)

[SeattleUte]

A quick search of Utah code reveals that an unmarried father has to assert his paternal rights in order to preserve his right to receive notice of an adoption. If Jake wants his son back, he's going to have to convince the court that the mother's intentional deception as to her intentions merits circumvention of the law. It's an interesting argument to make, and, assuming there isn't case law already on point, I think it's a pretty compelling one.

It looks like a father in Utah can stop this kind of thing from happening if he asserts his paternity and associated rights.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The initial story I read on this current case included the information that the father's name was on the birth certificate and that he had "established paternity". Also - and this story alludes to this part - the father actually had physical custody of the child when the mom went to court and relinquished her rights so that the child could be adopted.

All along, he had no idea what was going on until someone shows up at his front door with a court order telling him to give the baby up.

Now that there is simply crazy.

I don't know what the guy did (or didn't do) to establish paternity, but this sounds a bit crazy. He's on the birth certificate, has and is caring for the kid in his home, and the mom can run off to court and end it all?

I can agree with the idea that mom might not want dad to keep the child because she is then on the hood for child support. But maybe that's something that needs to be addressed in the law as well. (In all honesty - I suspect that more often than not punishing the father is much stronger of a motivation than worry about paying child support. Though logically escaping child support makes sense.)

This isn't an area I'm familiar with. But I think it would be difficult for Utah to have a law on the books that would allow a woman to disclaim her parental rights in order to avoid child support in the event the father keeps the child. Men can't do that when a single woman keeps a child. I believe also the federal government places a significant amount of pressure on states to go after the non-custodial parents for child support when the custodial parent applies for food stamps and other welfare benefits. Even if the custodial parent doesn't want the other involved, the state will take it upon themselves to go after the non-custodial parent for child support. For that reason, I imagine a federal administrative agency would go after Utah if they passed a law allowing the mother to get out of paying child support.

[cougjunkie]

It hasn't gone to the United States Supreme Court. It has gone to the Utah Supreme Court, which led to a minor but not nearly enough change to the law. Utah at the very least was forced to address the very real problem of out-of-state mothers coming to Utah to have a child adopted away without consent to the unmarried biological father. In re the adoption of Baby B is where this problem was at least addressed. This adoption was a particularly egregious example of the exploitation of these laws.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1577452149364723339&q=in+re+baby+b&hl=en&as_sdt=4,45

You read the law right. Unless prior to birth of the child, the unmarried biological father files a paternity action in the district court and files notice of the action, you can pretty much do whatever you want to his parental rights.

What can be done to unwed biological fathers in this state is morally wrong.

You sure have changed a lot in the last few years:

What happened to an unwed father is not as fit to raise a child as an adoptive family with two parents?

[Eddie]

This isn't an area I'm familiar with. But I think it would be difficult for Utah to have a law on the books that would allow a woman to disclaim her parental rights in order to avoid child support in the event the father keeps the child. Men can't do that when a single woman keeps a child. I believe also the federal government places a significant amount of pressure on states to go after the non-custodial parents for child support when the custodial parent applies for food stamps and other welfare benefits. Even if the custodial parent doesn't want the other involved, the state will take it upon themselves to go after the non-custodial parent for child support. For that reason, I imagine a federal administrative agency would go after Utah if they passed a law allowing the mother to get out of paying child support.

I agree. Very problematic and I don't see how it would work. Just saying - if child support is the only reason a person doesn't want the other parent to keep the child...that's messed up.

In the interest of adoptive parents and the potential for them to be in a pretty emotionally messed up state as well - where is the balance between enough action/notice by the father that his intentions are well known and the interest of the adoptive family not putting out a pile of cash and all of their emotional well-being by not being certain that the adoption is going to go through?

[Topper]

It looks like a father in Utah can stop this kind of thing from happening if he asserts his paternity and associated rights.

But it is odd that a father on the birth certificate must assert those rights first.

[cougjunkie]

This thread saddens me, both for the topic and the fact that CUF is becoming less welcoming to newcomers.

This is also very ironic 4 years later.

[Commando]

But it is odd that a father on the birth certificate must assert those rights first.

Agreed. Seems like the burden would be on the mother to show that the father had knowingly and legally forfeit those rights or meet her burden that the rights should be withdrawn from him.... like it is everywhere else in the U.S.

[Donuthole]

It looks like a father in Utah can stop this kind of thing from happening if he asserts his paternity and associated rights.

Right. I think that was always the case, even back when Jake's case was brought before this forum (note: that post you quoted is a few years old). I think the question pertains to the fairness/constitutionality of requiring affirmative action on the part of the father to protect those rights as well as the relatively short post-birth window to assert them.

[Topper]

Agreed. Seems like the burden would be on the mother to show that the father had knowingly and legally forfeit those rights or meet her burden that the rights should be withdrawn from him.... like it is everywhere else in the U.S.

Termination of a non-custodial, biological father's rights requires specific notice to do that and does not occur by operation of law for failing to assert those rights in most of the states with which I am vaguely familiar. It doesn't pass the smell test for me.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Agreed. Seems like the burden would be on the mother to show that the father had knowingly and legally forfeit those rights or meet her burden that the rights should be withdrawn from him.... like it is everywhere else in the U.S.

Here is what Utah thinks about that:

Utah Code 78B-6-110
(1)
(a) An unmarried biological father, by virtue of the fact that he has engaged in a sexual relationship with a woman:
(i) is considered to be on notice that a pregnancy and an adoption proceeding regarding the child may occur; and
(ii) has a duty to protect his own rights and interests.

Here is the interesting thing, if you are on the birth certificate you are actually entitled to notice, but to preserve your right to notice you also have to file a paternity action and file notice of the paternity action with the office of vital stats.

So this particular father was actually entitled to notice which the mother failed to provide. However, he didn't preserve his right to notice. In short, it is a messed up law.

[Commando]

Termination of a non-custodial, biological father's rights requires specific notice to do that and does not occur by operation of law for failing to assert those rights in most of the states with which I am vaguely familiar. It doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Me, neither, but I guess that's the law in Utah somehow?