Fathers Sue Utah Over Unfair Adoption Laws

[-aiko-]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...up-babies-for/

Okay, so basically how it works is a woman can put a baby up for adoption without the consent of the father or him knowing at all. There is a case where a woman from Pennsylvania went all the way to Utah to give her baby up for adoption without the father knowing. This is just wrong on so many different levels. Undercover callers also revealed that the "LDS Family Services" is essentially coaching woman on how to get away with it - without the father's knowledge!

So, as if it didn't sound bad already, this is basically a scheme run by the LDS Church. Quote from the article:

In a statement to Fox News, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said: "The desire of the Church is for children to be raised in an environment that is best for their physical and spiritual growth. LDS Family Services has, for many years, helped with placing children in homes where a mother and father teach and live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Utah's laws regarding adoption are made and upheld by the state's governing bodies."

Fathers are being denied custody of their children because the LDS Church and Utah apparently believe that the only suitable home for a child contains 2 parents and the 'gospel of Jesus Christ'.

Do you agree with this? Disagree? Discuss.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Without the father's knowledge?

.............................Not cool man.


(This is provided the father hasn't ditched or disappeared)

[Lenonis]

I doubt anyone in principle will agree that the father has no say in whether a child should be put up for adoption...

However when put into practice, it's way more complicated than that. What about an abusive father? What about an absent father? Mentally ill father?

Of course the same goes for the mother -- why can't a father put a child up for adoption without the mother's consent?

[Vizardlorde]

It's very wrong for true Mormons the suitable home for a child would be comprised of 3+ parents 1 father and varying number of mothers.

[-aiko-]

However when put into practice, it's way more complicated than that. What about an abusive father? What about an absent father? Mentally ill father?

It would be more acceptable if this were the case but there is no screening of the father or the mother for any of these issues.

[Hyve]

It's unfair to put the child up for adoption when the Father has signaled he clearly wants to take the child into his own care.

[GGA1759]

I'm completely dumb founded by your statement. This partly what's wrong with America.

If he doesn't know at all and it isn't going to involve him financially, I really don't see the big deal.

[FlyingWoodchuck]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...up-babies-for/

Okay, so basically how it works is a woman can put a baby up for adoption without the consent of the father or him knowing at all. There is a case where a woman from Pennsylvania went all the way to Utah to give her baby up for adoption without the father knowing. This is just wrong on so many different levels. Undercover callers also revealed that the "LDS Family Services" is essentially coaching woman on how to get away with it - without the father's knowledge!

So, as if it didn't sound bad already, this is basically a scheme run by the LDS Church. Quote from the article:


Fathers are being denied custody of their children because the LDS Church and Utah apparently believe that the only suitable home for a child contains 2 parents and the 'gospel of Jesus Christ'.

Do you agree with this? Disagree? Discuss.

Given this is a story on fox news I'm expecting we're missing about 99.9% of the actual story and being given lots of untrue facts. However, in principal, the mother should never be able to put the kid up for adoption if there is a suitable family member (the father in this case obviously) who wants to take them in. The child's interests are what should be looked at, and, my understand anyway's, is that children always do better in homes where they are loved and cared for.

[Goradan]

Women always have more right to chose where her child goes because for one they carry a child in their womb for 9 months. However to me the exception to the rule is that if the boyfriend/husband proves to be a better father or that both had a good relationship and the mother decides out of spite, mad etc. To give the child up for all the wrong reasons. Then she's more or less unfit to be a mother and her special (and in my eye justified) right goes down the drain.

[TirielWoW]

I think that the father should be informed, and be able to take custody of the child if the mother doesn't want it (assuming that he's in any sort of position to do so). It isn't right to do this behind the father's back.

[Tirivaria]

The key pattern seems to be that the men were not married to the kids' mothers. Lacking that legal link, the law treats the mother as the sole legal guardian and the father has no rights.

I think this is a big hole in our laws and legal precedents. If we say that a man has responsibility for a child he fathers (which we do whenever we compel a man to pay child support), then he must also have some rights regarding that child's upbringing.

[Deleted]

If he doesn't know at all and it isn't going to involve him financially, I really don't see the big deal.

well its essentially a character test, me personally, I would have a problem with my blood being given away to strangers, but lesser people, like yourself, are probably fine with family being abandoned into the system

[Hraklea]

However when put into practice, it's way more complicated than that. What about an abusive father? What about an absent father? Mentally ill father?

That's why there's a legal system. The mother should not be the one that decides if the father "deserves" to be asked about his child adoption.

[Theinquisition]

Being raised in the LDS church, im not at all suprised. Generally speaking Mormons consider non-members to be almost inferior as humans, and if they can put a child with a member family that isn't blood related and will be raised in the church, rather than a unaffliated blood father, they will do so everytime.

I knew a girl who was a member and got pregnant by a non-member. Her family refused to allow the father to see the child and were going to put the child up for adoption, the father got so fustrated he ended up killing the girl.

[Hraklea]

What is the harm in putting up a child for adoption that the father doesn't even know exists? Please, tell me.

To start, it is morally wrong not to tell the father he has a child.

[Flutterguy]

If he doesn't know at all and it isn't going to involve him financially, I really don't see the big deal.

Because he may actually want to raise this child if the mother does not want to and should be given the opportunity to do so because he is the father and sticking a kid in the adoption system is usually not a great idea if it can be avoided.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Sticking a child with a single parent usually isn't a great idea if it can be avoided either. If he knows the child exists, then sure, he should get first crack at it. If he doesn't, I see no reason to compel people to have contact with someone over an issue that ultimately has no potential to harm them.

And what if he has potential to do some actual good. Doing it behind a good father's back IMO is just not right.

[-aiko-]

Being raised in the LDS church, im not at all suprised. Generally speaking Mormons consider non-members to be almost inferior as humans, and if they can put a child with a member family that isn't blood related and will be raised in the church, rather than a unaffliated blood father, they will do so everytime.

You have my respect tony!
I wasn't raised in the LDS church but I have lived in Utah for over a decade so I've learned a lot about the religion. I knew two Mormons in high school who killed themselves, speculatively because of the pressure of family and not being in line with their beliefs. This is kind of off topic, but at the same time kind of illustrates the mentality of the church and why this is the only state in the country that practices such laws.

[-aiko-]

Cute. Of what value is "your blood"?

Please. I know where you're coming from but you cannot deny the strength of blood ties in like, every culture. Regardless of whether they should be held in high value or not they are.

[Flutterguy]

Sticking a child with a single parent usually isn't a great idea if it can be avoided either. If he knows the child exists, then sure, he should get first crack at it. If he doesn't, I see no reason to compel people to have contact with someone over an issue that ultimately has no potential to harm them.

Actually, even one parent is preferable to going into the adoption system. These kids don't get adopted right away. Many often languish for years in the system looking for a permanent home, especially with the issues that adoption presents like with the child's ancestry which would include medical issues. Adoption is a last chance, not a first chance. Clearly if the father wants to actually be a parent(something that's actually a problem these days) he probably has the means to raise the kid.

Not informing the father that he has a child denies the father an opportunity to step up and likely provide a better environment than the child would otherwise be presented through adoption. This is immoral. You claim it does no harm because "ignorance is bliss" but this is a terrible direction to go in and implies that it is okay to lie as long as the person you lie to doesn't find out.