I was struggling through the General Assembly’s barely usable website (somewhat visible framed PDFs everywhere!) and found a relatively interesting hearing conducted by the interim study committee on the judiciary concerning SB 27 from last session and the issue of whether the consent of a father who has abandoned a child should be required for the mother to put the child up for adoption. (Maybe it’s SB 27, I see references to legislation introduced by Rep. Steuerwald but went to his legislative page and can’t see such a House Bill listed. But, again, the General Assembly’s unnecessarily complicated web page is unnecessarily complicated.)
The Indiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court judges submitted a letter with concerns, stating that: 1) abandonment of the mother doesn’t necessarily equate to abandonment of responsibilities to the child; 2) the timing with which the father can be served with a notice of adoption or file a petition to establish paternity; 3) the situation where a pregnant woman refuses contact with the putative father without “justifiable cause;” 4) an inadequate definition of “abandonment.”
A letter from a birth mother about a situation where, in her mind, allowing the biological father to prevent adoption by requiring his consent even though he would have been unable to provide financially for the child or mother would be unfair. “If a man is able to prevent a woman from choosing adoption . . . and encumbers her with the ensuing responsibilities and expenses then it is only prudent that he shares in those responsibilities.”
Adoptions of Indiana submitted a letter indicating that there is a need for a law regarding pre-birth abandonment in the situation where a father signs up on the putative father’s registry or file a paternity action “out of a desire to control and spite the expectant father.” The letter suggests that, where the putative father fails to support the mother financially during the pregnancy, that is evidence that the father has abandoned the expectant mother.
This one is a little sticky, isn’t it? I would agree with the last line of the post. If a father hasn’t filed for paternity or supported the pregnancy financially, that seems tacit consent (maybe too active a term for what it is) to whatever decisions the mother may make.
The paternity filing I can understand, However it seems an awful big jump to providing financial support to the woman who claims to be the mother, when as a putative father you have no idea if the child is really yours. Mother’s aren’t saints and they’ll lie just as fast as the putative fathers in order to get the “best” deal.
What these laws do not take into consideration is that when a mother has begun to make an adoption plan, often the agencies will assist her and enable her in legally thwarting the father because adoption is a a hell of a lot easier with no father in the pictures. The lengths that a man must go though to have a right to his own child is just insane and the putative father’s registries are a tool created and used by adoption legislation to erase the father’s rights, not to insure his rights.
It’s way more complicated than all that, but for anyone who would like do look into the issues; http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/fathers-rights-custody-adoption/