Preston and Baby Wyatt
Once again, an unmarried father is trying to get the courts to award him custody of his child after the mother handed the child off to adoptive parents. This issue was recently examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, and on Ethics Alarms two years ago in its examination of the “Baby Emma” drama. Now it is in the news again, as Preston King, the 19-year-old father of “Baby Wyatt” fights for his child in the California courts
The details of these cases vary, as do the state laws governing them. In the Baby Emma case, for example, among the complexities were the fact that the state of the couple’s residence, Virginia, recognizes an unmarried father’s right to custody, while the state where the adoption took place, Utah, does not. All the cases have in common a conflict between rights, law and ethics. If the mother sincerely believes that the father isn’t fit to have custody and also that she can’t handle parenthood, isn’t adoption against the father’s wishes still the ethical course? What if she’s wrong about the father? If she’s right, does it justify lying to the father until the adoption is a fait accompli? Why shouldn’t an unmarried mother have the right to unilaterally place the child up for adoption, if all states agree that she must have the constitutional right to abort the child without any consent from the biological father?
I don’t have definitive answers for these and other difficult ethics conflicts and dilemmas that arise in these cases, but I do have one unshakable conclusion: the problems all arise from the unethical and irresponsible act of having children out of wedlock, and since this is a condition wholly within the power of a couple to control, and the custody problems that arise when that condition is recklessly and irresponsibly allowed to occur are well-documented, my sympathy for the plight of the fathers is minimal. I also believe that unmarried parenthood is prima facie, though not conclusive, evidence that a father is not fit to have custody of a child.
Here are my thoughts on the issues as formulated during the Baby Emma debate. I think they apply to the “Baby Wyatt” case as well:
1. The situation would have probably not occurred if the child’s mother and father had been married before conceiving a child.
2. Both of them were irresponsible to plan on having a child together without formalizing a mutual commitment to form a family and raise the child together…that apparently archaic institution known as “marriage.”
3. The mother betrayed the father’s trust, deceived him, and treated him unfairly.
Absent a marriage, it is fair and reasonable that the mother of a newborn be able to put the child up for adoption if she deems that course better for the child than being raised by the child’s father. That is not necessarily permitted by state law,and I would not vigorously oppose a law that directed otherwise, as Virginia’s law does. I only state that my own belief is that incentives for irresponsible parenthood are unwise.
I see many scenarios that could be behind a mother’s decision to give a child to adoptive parents rather than the biological father. They fall into three distinct categories: ethical, unethical, and too close to call:
It would be unethical to put the child up for adoption without notifying the father if….
- ….the mother knew she was violating the father’s legal rights, and there were no other factors outweighing them.
- …the mother had always intended to give up the child, and had been leading the father along to believe otherwise without any justification, such as fear of violence.
- ….the mother changed her mind during the pregnancy, didn’t want to disappoint the father and was averse to conflict.
- …the mother gave up the child for financial gain or other personal benefits.
- …the mother gave up the child without considering the best interests of the child or the fitness of the adoptive parents.
- …the mother gave up the child for revenge, in anger, out of hatred for the father, or for the purpose of intentionally hurting the father in any way.
- ….adoption is inherently unethical and un-natural.
It would be ethical to put the child up for adoption without notifying the father if this could be accomplished without violating state law and….
- …the mother had reason to believe that the father would become violent and harm her.
- …the mother had been abused during the relationship.
- …the mother had been coerced or intimidated by the father into conceiving the child or having the child against her will.
- …the mother had knowledge that the father would be an unfit parent due to addiction, emotional problems, untrustworthiness or a violent nature.
The ethics of giving the child up for adoption are too close to call if…
- …the adoption was illegal under state law and she believed that her and/or the child’s health and safety would be at risk if the father were informed.
The problem doesn’t arise at all, however, if the couple commits to staying together as a family before having a child. This is not a new discovery, and has in fact been recognized as the ethical and responsible course for thousands of years. When will they ever learn?
______________________________
Pointer: Fark
Facts: Daily Mail
Ethics Alarms 
“….adoption is inherently unethical and un-natural.”
Unethical…. Yes…. I can think of extenuating circumstances where it could be ethical, but those are exceptions. Unnatural? That would assume that adoption does not happen in nature, and that’s not true. Adoption is a well documented occurrence, especially in social, pack mentality animals, such as wolves.
You can think of extenuating circumstances where adoption could be ethical? Adoption is almost always ethical. And natural.
I think the parents putting up for adoption are choosing the lesser of two evils, so by comparison are ethical. I think those doing the adoption are being ethical.
Perhaps she does not want him to have the child because she is afraid that she will have to pay him 18 years of child support.
Or, she does not want him to have the child if she doesn’t.
-Jut
Jack: “I also believe that unmarried parenthood is prima facie, though not conclusive, evidence that a father is not fit to have custody of a child.”
Does the same hold for the mother? Should the government simply take those children into Child and Protective Services?
-Jut
Sure the same holds for the mother, perhaps even more so, but the child has to have some parent, and the mother has first dibs. Our foster child system is a disaster: a child of an unwed couple starts life with a handicap (if he gets to start life at all), but the options are limited, and there may be no good options at all. Certainly government custody is not a good option—it’s expensive and random, and riddled with bureaucracy. The natural mother should have the opportunity to prove she’s an unworthy parent. Maybe she’ll surprise, and rise to the occasion.
I understand the birth mother gets first dibs as a rule- it is a perfectly logical consequence of her carrying and delivering the child. The part I have a problem with, is that once she decides to take a pass (for good reasons or ill) the birth father doesn’t get second dibs as a matter of law.
“The problem doesn’t arise at all, however, if the couple commits to staying together as a family before having a child. This is not a new discovery, and has in fact been recognized as the ethical and responsible course for thousands of years. When will they ever learn?”
Quit being a Regressive Conservative, man. Get with the program, dude. What an old fogey. Completely out of touch with the new ways. Take chill pill and loosen up. Open relationships and other people taking care of your consequences are the way to go man!
Dig it?
Yes, I sure am glad that our society and our government makes such an effort to protect the concepts of marriage and family.
Reproduction is natural and necessary to the survival of the species. Parents raising their own biological children is natural. Marriage is nice, but since reproduction is necessary for the survival of the species and marriage is not, I believe that reproduction and the need for children to be parented by those with a biological connection to them trumps marriage in the ethics department.
Strangers taking children from natural parents and keeping them from their natural parents is unnatural, unethical, and it has the capacity to hurt children tremendously, even if the adoptive parents truly have nothing but the best interest of the child in mind. This type of adoption us unethical, unnatural, and immoral. Children should only be removed from their natural families if their natural families will harm or neglect them. Adoption should be for orphans or the children of unfit parents. Adoption is a $13 billion industry. Adoption in America is child trafficking. It’s in need of a major overhaul, and I believe that starts with focusing keeping families together or at the very least, keeping children with their parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles.
Your argument appears to be that it’s ok to punish children by forcing those children into adoptions if the parents had premarital sex .
1. “Reproduction is natural and necessary to the survival of the species. Parents raising their own biological children is natural. Marriage is nice, but since reproduction is necessary for the survival of the species and marriage is not, I believe that reproduction and the need for children to be parented by those with a biological connection to them trumps marriage in the ethics department.”
Marriage is “nice”? Marriage is one of the most reliable predictors of a child’s health, success and future socio-economic status. And what does “trump” mean here? That we should have children BEFORE marriage? That marriage is optional, but having kids is essential? The species is over-populated, not underpopulated.
2. Who is talking about, or advocating “removing” children from caretakers who want them (and are not going to abuse them)? Not me. The post says, not that the father shouldn’t be allowed to have his child, but that the fact that he in this fix is his own fault, and it is.
2.“Adoption in America is child trafficking.”= Non-factual, misleading, dishonest statement. I adopted my son, from an orphanage, after he was given up by a single mother (whom I never met) to the state because she couldn’t care for him as an infant. Trafficking? Slander.
3 Tell me, would you “take away” the kids in this situation? Just curious: https://ethicsalarms.com/2013/12/07/six-questions-raised-by-a-horror-story-i-wish-i-had-never-read/
1. “Your argument appears to be that it’s ok to punish children by forcing those children into adoptions if the parents had premarital sex.”
That’s not what the post says, or even close: Nobody is “punishing the children.” The child’s mother has determined that the father is unfit, in the child’s interest. Maybe the mother is right, and maybe the mother is wrong. If she is right, the child is better off. If she is wrong, the child is worse off, and the father is being mistreated. But the child is still not being punished.
It’s irresponsible to have unplanned children and not to be married when you do. Fact. Undeniable fact. Irresponsible conduct has consequences. Also fact. The consequences to the child involve this kind of crap, and it is unnecessary and wrong. The consequences to the father are, again, his own damn fault. Get married first, and this doesn’t happen anywhere near as often.
2. “Children should only be removed from their natural families if their natural families will harm or neglect them.”
Who says otherwise? Not this post.
3. The second half of the comment appears to be a cut and paste job—I have received the same text from other readers. Write your own comments, please. Can you think for yourself? Because I don’t respond to robots.
Tricia I agree with you. That was how I felt also when I read the article. People make mistakes. That doesn’t mean they are irresponsible or unable to parent a child. Also I believe a father married or not should have the same right to raise his flesh and blood as the mother. The mother shouldn’t have the right to make the determination if the father is fit or not since we know a lot of women will lie out of spite. If she really feels that way she should have to prove it in a court of law before being able to place that child up for adoption without the father’s consent. PERIOD
Do you agree that marriage is, you know, “nice” but no big deal? People make mistakes, and people have to live with the consequences sometimes. The law in this state was easily determinable. “It’s a bad law’ is a rationalization. Not getting married made the bad law relevant, otherwise it wouldn’t have applied.Whose fault is it that Preston was caught this way? Who could have prevented the situation?
What about the rights of the CHILD??? Why do all of these discussions never consider the fact that the child is a PERSON who should have the right to be with family, if there are any members willing and fit to raise her? We adoptees don’t stay children forever. We grow up and then are faced with the task of having to sort out our past. Many of us discover that we were loved and wanted by at least one parent and could have avoided being adoptees entirely.
What are you talking about? The interests of the child are paramount in all these decisions. You reduce a complex decision to a simple one, which is no service to the issue, and doesn’t help at all. Where do you draw the line at “family,” for example? Say that the parents want to give up the child to adoptive parents who are loving and fit, but one set of grandparents think the child should be raised by “family.” Can they trump the parents wishes, since the child should “have the right to be with family, if there are any members willing and fit to raise her?” What if the parents, or one parent, think that the grandparents are too old? Too frail> Too poor? What it it’s cousins or uncles or in-laws, not grandparents? (I would rather have had my son raised by wolves than most of my cousins or aunts.) The pro family bias you declare in absolute terms is a recipe for disaster.
That isn’t me btw — I need to come up with a new name as Beth is too generic.
I knew it wasn’t—I see the email addresses.
try Steve on for a while, I think there are 4 of us that comment on here now…..
You want Beth to use “Steve”???
well not really, just poking at her a bit for her generic Beth, besides I have read her comments…….it is amusing as the Steves (including SMP) on here often have opinions or views that are similar, hell there are times I would comment but a “Steve” has already made a similar comment to what I would have.
“…the problems all arise from the unethical and irresponsible act of having children out of wedlock,”
Please, since no one has apparently already done so, allow me to be the first to invite you to join the 21st Century. Babies have been born – to use your archaic expression “out of wedlock” from the start. You think Adam and Eve were “legally married”? It is not ethical to determine a parent’s fitness based on YOUR personal moral compass. It takes two to create a child – in or out of marriage.It’s time the LAWS recognize that both parents have rights from the child’s first breath. If a father is truly abusive or unfit, then the mother should be taking steps ahead of time to prevent him from receiving custody – filing an order of protection, opening a case with CPS, etc. It’s NOT the mother’s call whether a father is fit – she is simply NOT objective in the matter if she is no longer with the father. In other words, she may have an agenda for desiring the father not have the child that has nothing to do with his ability to love and care for that child. By not recognizing the rights of unmarried fathers, the door is being left open for the rights of unmarried mothers to be stripped at the birth of the child as well. “Oh, Miss Smith. We see you aren’t married. Therefore, as soon as you deliver this baby, we will be handing it to this nice infertile married couple because they will be better parents than you can be.” Or perhaps that is what your 15th century moral determination is suggesting SHOULD be the case?
1. Ducking the issue, Kay, and simultaneously arguing “it’s always been this way,” and “hey, man, it’s cool! Get with it!” Yes, it’s always been this way, and it’s also always been this way that kids without a stable family unit are at risk, in peril, and begin life with two strikes against them. When two parents have equal rights to custody, aren’t married and have different plans, you are talking either cutting the child in two or litigation. Nice. Irresponsible, Kay, and irresponsible to have a chile who you know is at risk of this unstable situation. “This is the 21st century” is a rationalization–“it is what it is.” Well, it IS irresponsible, was, AND is. The century doesn’t change the needs of kids.
2. “It’s NOT the mother’s call whether a father is fit – she is simply NOT objective in the matter if she is no longer with the father.” Then whose call are you recommending? More litigation? Government Parenting Czar? The problem doesn’t arise if the parents are married. See #1
3. “By not recognizing the rights of unmarried fathers, the door is being left open for the rights of unmarried mothers to be stripped at the birth of the child as well.: Tow can play the slippery slope game. By letting a third party, not the mother, decide that the father is unfit, that “opens a door” for the same party to find the mother unfit. Marriage solves this dispute too.
4. Sure. Recognizing that stable family units are superior to unstable ones for raising children is “15th Century” reasoning. You are absurd.
It is 100% apparent to me that you will entertain no other viewpoints but your own. But I will end with this. I am not the absurd one here. People have sex, they create children, they are not always married. They should not HAVE to be married just because YOU or outdated and archaic laws say so. What about divorce? Should fathers lose their rights in a divorce? Or maybe both parents should so an adoptiraptor can swoop in and “save” the child from a broken home? Divorce happens, and it happens to adoptive parents at LEAST as often as it happens to people who conceive their children naturally. Your attempts to force your morality on others is ethically depraved. You would give mom “first dibs” and when she dips out, give dibs over a true father to adoptive families, as deemed necessary by the birth mother, who may have an axe to grind with the father, or who may actually be unstable herself whereas the father is not. Adoptive parents have a particular sense of entitlement that is very hard to fight, but fight it we all will – it takes TWO to create the child and even if they are not together, two need to make life-altering decisions for the child they created. These children are not puppies being rehomed; they are people who have rights of their own, and when one parent makes a unilateral decision to cut the other parent out of the child’s life, that child is being denied HALF of who he/she is. You cannot just decide that you will make a better parent than someone else because they don’t follow your belief system.
It is 100% apparent to me that you will entertain no other viewpoints but your own.
That’s bullshit, frankly, and an insult. I “entertain” all viewpoints here. That does not mean I have to think all of them especially silly ones like yours, have validity.
I am not the absurd one here. People have sex, they create children, they are not always married.
And you say you are not absurd? You write as if being married is like eye color, something that individuals have no control over. What’s the matter with you? Seriously. This is deranged.
They should not HAVE to be married just because YOU or outdated and archaic laws say so.
Who cited laws? This is about ethics—what is right, as in responsible, fair, and in the best interests of society. Why don’t you do some research on Ethics Alarms and bone up on the disitinction between morality, law and ethics? In your current state of confusion, you can’t possibly puzzle this out.
What about divorce? Should fathers lose their rights in a divorce? Or maybe both parents should so an adoptiraptor can swoop in and “save” the child from a broken home? Divorce happens, and it happens to adoptive parents at LEAST as often as it happens to people who conceive their children naturally.
You are ranting. Divorce has nothing to do with the post or the issues involved, unless you can point me to a couple that intentionally had children AFTER their divorce.
Your attempts to force your morality on others is ethically depraved.
Kay, I’m sorry, but you are an idiot. My writing about ethics doesn’t impose anything on anyone. My analysis doesn’t impose anything on anyone. Morality has nothing to do with the post or the issue. I’m willing to be patient with ignorant people, but not if they are going to just flail around like this.
You would give mom “first dibs” and when she dips out, give dibs over a true father to adoptive families, as deemed necessary by the birth mother, who may have an axe to grind with the father, or who may actually be unstable herself whereas the father is not.
I never wrote she was right, and never said that she shouldn’t have allowed the father to take the child. I said that if he had married her like a responsible parent should before having children, he wouldn’t have been in this fix. That is true. You just want to bash adoption. Highjack your own blog. That wasn’t the post.
Adoptive parents have a particular sense of entitlement that is very hard to fight, but fight it we all will – it takes TWO to create the child and even if they are not together, two need to make life-altering decisions for the child they created. These children are not puppies being rehomed; they are people who have rights of their own, and when one parent makes a unilateral decision to cut the other parent out of the child’s life, that child is being denied HALF of who he/she is. You cannot just decide that you will make a better parent than someone else because they don’t follow your belief system.
I didn’t decide. You are making blanket statements like “Adoptive parents have a particular sense of entitlement” that are neither true nor fair. I would not oppose laws that made a father the required default parent in this situation, and I wrote that, but you apparently can’t read. I still don’t see how a father has no say when the mother of his child wants to kill that child in the womb, but suddenly has co-equal status once the baby is born. If the mother gets 100% power to have the baby or not, then she is the primary care-taker. Reconcile that paradox, please.
Incentives for parents NOT to get married before having children is bad social policy, bad for kids, bad period. Unethical. And no, I don’t “entertain” a contrary position on that point, because there is no valid one.
I still don’t see how a father has no say when the mother of his child wants to kill that child in the womb, but suddenly has co-equal status once the baby is born. If the mother gets 100% power to have the baby or not, then she is the primary care-taker. Reconcile that paradox, please.
The father has no say because the child is being formed in the mother’s body. It’s not that he has no right over the child, it’s that the woman has 100% control over her body, so she has the choice to carry or terminate. However, once the child is born, draws its first breath, should she decide to keep it, the father has absolutely no choice – he WILL pay child support. And that’s as it should be. He helped make the child, so he’s responsible for taking care of it. But if the mother has 100% say over her keeping it and making him pay, or her giving it to strangers, that is where the inequality comes in. All I am stating is that a father must play a father’s role – equal responsibility AND equal rights. It needs to be a decision both parents come to together as to whether to raise a baby or give it away.
I know the reasoning, and there is no way a woman could be forced to carry a child to term that she did not want, wrong though an abortion may be. Nonetheless, once a woman has had live and death power over a being, it is hardly surprising that she would feel that she should have the primary decision-making power regarding adoptions as well, and that some states would agree.
Equal responsibility AND equal rights for the (unmarried) mother and father will never happen as things stand now. But if focus is placed on committing to a relationship, a partnership, then many of the issues go away. If I want to protect my rights as a father then I will enter into a contract prior to conception.
“Equal responsibility AND equal rights for the (unmarried) mother and father will never happen as things stand now.”
And this is exactly what needs to change, and why there is a movement to provide for unmarried fathers to preserve their rights. Because stuff happens. Sex happens. Babies are made. And no about of preaching abstinence or birth control will completely end this. I am not anti-adoption. What I am against is private adoption of newborns in which birth mothers are paid hefty sums in cash and gifts as opposed to truly just deciding along with the father that they are not ready to parent or co-parent, without any coercion or monetary gain. I am against adoptions in which adopters pay far in excess of reasonable attorney fees and court costs to secure an infant, where adopters decide they are somehow better, more entitled (sorry, I know you hate that word, Jack, but it’s a prevalent attitude among many adoptive parents) to a child without even meeting the natural father or knowing anything about him except what is gleaned from the mother (who may just have an agenda such as getting back at the father or financial). I am against adoptions that are simply not necessary. And I will forever contend that when a parent steps up to raise the child he/she created, this is something to be admired, not fought over. A father who wants to be responsible after he has made the mistake of having sex with a woman who gives his baby away should not have to fight strangers for the opportunity TO step up. What you said about not having children outside of marriage is true, but it is short-sighted and limited. The situations in which adoptive parents find themselves falling in love with an infant only to discover a perfectly competent, fit, and loving father who desires to raise the child and is fighting for that right, can ALSO be avoided by requiring BOTH parents sign off on the adoption. It may take longer to adopt an infant if both parents must sign off, but adoption should be a necessary option, and as long as at least one fit parent is willing, it’s not necessary. Abortion/no abortion choice was never about the right of the mother to decide for the baby. It has been and still is about the mother’s right to choose what happens with her body. That is why, once the fetus becomes viable in terms of being able to sustain its life outside the womb, abortion is no longer her option.
My pastor has a saying – the seven deadliest words for growth in the church (also applies to life): “But we’ve always done it that way.” So, just because (unmarried) fathers’ rights have not been considered up to now does not make it right. Things must change. The only way to affect change is to seek it.
Oh to have marriage be the way to ensure a father has rights to his child. You better look up the Terry Achane case where he was married, giving financial and medical support to his wife (including her child from a prior relationship) and yet she put up the baby for adoption and he had to fight for two years in order to have his child back. Yes, adoption when done morally is a wonderful thing pairing up needy children with homes filled with love and security but the INFANT PRIVATE ADOPTION industry is flawed and skewed against men. This billion dollar a year industry is not pairing up needy children with waiting families, its only finding womb wet babies for rich infertile couples who can afford the 40K+ it costs to have a healthy white infant. When birth mothers who go on the record and say they received brand new SUVs and 10K cash from prospective adopters (see Veronica Brown court testimony), how can a father compete with that? The birth moms are given financial incentives to lie about the fathers on paperwork and to the fathers about the child (see Baby Adalynn where the mom told the dad she had a miscarriage the same day she gave birth prematurely and handed the child to its purchasers). Until and unless the INFANT PRIVATE ADOPTION industry is revamped you will have children being sold to the highest bidders over the objections of qualified and fit fathers that have tried to follow legal routes prior to the child’s birth (see Rob Manzares and Baby Hailey cases).
Yes, marriage is nice and gives children a feeling and sense of security they wouldn’t have otherwise. And yes, I am going to encourage my children to wait until marriage but BECAUSE I am a married homeschooling Christian mom of three boys that is planning on adopting I want (nay, DEMAND!) the routine sale of children to be stopped and better measures put in place so that ONLY those children who would benefit from adoption are adopted and those who have fit and worthy fathers are allowed to stay with their natural families.
Very well said and I 100% agree.
Where are you getting your data? Everything you just said is illegal. Maybe my own information is skewed since most of my friends are attorneys, but they were very careful about their adoption processes to make sure no laws were broken.
Private adoptions (here and abroad) however, are indeed very expensive. I have friends who paid over $60,000 for a child from a former Russian province.
I adopted my son from Russia, with two (US and Russian) foundations involved. Nothing illegal about it. Expensive, yes, because of the paperwork involved, the investigations (from local Social Services to Interopol, the needs of the orphanage, etc. Nevertheless, had I been able to have my own child my health insurance would have covered at least what we spent in cash to adopt our beloved son at six months old.
My son has seen all the paperwork on this adoption, including a heart-breaking letter from his unmarried mother, who only hoped some American would adopt her child and give him the life she never could in the former Soviet Union.
By the way, my son’s birth certificate shows my husband and I as his parents, and he was a US citizen the moment we landed back at JFK. No promises, but no, not one regret. More on this later.,,
Lovely story
Google Terry Arcane – it’s been all over the news.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/drill-sergeant-reunited-baby-mom-gave-adoption/story?id=18329713
Good thing the father was an estranged husband rather than an estranged NON-husband.
I’ll always feel badly for having brought the Wyatt’s story to your attention. https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/10/love-isnt-enough-the-baby-emma-saga/ That was a family that really needed support, not bashing. I actually felt so badly that I contacted them and heard back from Emma’s grandmother. She was a lovely woman who thanked me warmly for my concern and said not to worry about bloggers or the media. It wasn’t the first time they had an ugly response to a request for help. Sadly, she (John’s mom) passed away more than a year ago. She had an especially agressive form of cancer which took her soon after her diagnosis and passed without ever seeing her granddaughter. As far as I know Emma (who the would be adopters call “Gabby”) is still with them. At almost six years old, I doubt she’ll ever be able to see her father before she is grown. If there is a silver lining on Emma’s story it is that her father, John is still a young man and will only be around forty when she reaches eighteen so God willing they will have many happy years together. I hope and pray that Rob and Wyatt are reunited soon and don’t have to go through what John and Emma did.
I don’t understand your reaction, Claire. I was very clear. The problem is that this ISN’T a family. John’s romantic blog meanderings about the love of his life show how deluded the young are regarding the importance of having a stable household and income before having children. Have a baby first, get married first, hey, what’s the difference? Actors and rock singers do it both ways, all the time. Yeah, and they are millionaires, and their children end up a mess as often as not. This story–that’s the difference, Claire. You can deny the problem, but you can’t change the facts. AS I SAID, John was screwed. And maybe some kids like him will learn from his mistakes.
“Both of them were irresponsible to plan on having a child together without formalizing a mutual commitment to form a family and raise the child together…that apparently archaic institution known as ‘marriage.'” A little quibble here. I believe in marriage — I am in fact married, but I think the real test is a strong commitment to each other. I’ve been with my husband for 13 years, and I have to say that the marriage certificate changed nothing. We just did it to make our parents more comfortable with the situation and we wanted our kids to avoid explaining an alternative strong partnership to their peers. In any event, I don’t believe anyone under the age of 21 has any business having children, with or without a marriage certificate.
You go on to say, “The problem doesn’t arise at all, however, if the couple commits to staying together as a family before having a child.” I assume that your comment presumes that the couple otherwise is stable and mature? Because many of the potential ethical reasons for adoption that you listed in your post, such as abuse and dependency, exist all the time in marriages. The ethical issue then just morphs into a legal one — if a woman tries to give up a baby while in a legal (albeit abusive) marriage, it will be a serious uphill battle for her because the legal spouse has automatic legal rights to the child . And, if the abused wife had the emotional courage to fight that legal challenge re adoption to put the child in a healthier environment, she probably would have left the marriage already. So, doesn’t it stand to reason that the child would be worse off being raised in that abusive married family, even “if the couple [had] commit to staying together” as opposed to adoption?
Unlike some of the others commenting on this post, I do think marriage is the ideal — but only because most societal “norms” are easier on the child, but only if that marriage is safe, healthy, and between grown-ups. And even if the marriage ends in divorce, healthy adults will still make sure that their children are raised well, although just about every study on the planet demonstrates that two co-habitating parents are better. (Gender being unimportant in my opinion.)
Finally, one last point — I now know quite a number of deliberate single parents. They are all women who decided to have children on their own (some biologically and others through adoption) because they never met Mr. Right. They are terrific parents, and are using their extended families and friends to fill any voids for their children that they feel might be missing because of their choice. In a few ways, they might be better parents. Lots of children — even born in marriages — are unplanned or their parents were not financially or emotionally ready. These single parents, much like same gender and/or adoptive parents, had to jump through a lot of physical, emotional, and sometimes legal hoops to get their children. I only wish that all parents put so much thought and planning before taking on the important task of raising the next generation.
I agree.
1. “but I think the real test is a strong commitment to each other.” If you are not willing to accept the legal obligations of marriage, the “commitment” isn’t strong enough. Read the original Baby Emma story. He was committed, she wasn’t. He wanted to have the baby anyway. Wrong. Also stupid.
2. “So, doesn’t it stand to reason that the child would be worse off being raised in that abusive married family, even “if the couple [had] commit to staying together” as opposed to adoption?” Sure. What does that have to do with the post?
3. “I do think marriage is the ideal — but only because most societal “norms” are easier on the child, but only if that marriage is safe, healthy, and between grown-ups.” Name one situation where having a child without marriage is preferable to not having the child OR betting married first. Social norms exist for a reason. Especially this one. Kids need to know who their parents are and that they belong to a family, not a random assortment of acquaintances. Do you dispute that?
4. The intelligent, careful, mature single mother can raise a great kid—my father was such a child, and bristled at any criticism of single mothers. That also has nothing to do with the post. There are responsible single mothers, and irresponsible ones, just like there are responsible and irresponsible pet owners, home buyers and business managers. I don’t dispute that, and nothing I’ve written does. But mothers should not be deluded into thinking its easy—e.g. “Murphy Brown.”
“Why shouldn’t an unmarried mother have the right to unilaterally place the child up for adoption, if all states agree that she must have the constitutional right to abort the child without any consent from the biological father?”
Because no state allows a child to be adopted until it is actually born, and even then there is waiting period (it varies) from state to state. Once the child is here — and viable — it is legally and ethically abhorrent to not recognize that both biological parents have rights. (I believe the husband may be able to assert rights even if he isn’t the biological parent of the child for those happy marriages out there.) Even the abortion laws hinge on the viability of the child — and those timetables may be scaling back as technology continues to improve.
Not the point. The mother has the unilateral right to terminate the life, but not the unilateral right to determine who keeps it alive once it survives our abortion legal fiction that it’s not alive. No wonder mothers think otherwise. The policies are inconsistent.
What? They are entirely consistent — viability is the key. Just like a mother doesn’t get sole custody automatically in the event of a divorce. Once the child is viable, both biological parents have a say — and the State can also override poor decisions whether it is a 6 month-old fetus or 6 year-old neglected child.
Viability may be the legal dividing line, but it is arbitrary. The mother has the sole right to keep it from becoming viable.
Wow — talk about your slippery slopes Jack, that’s just crazy. To the extent you accept living in a world that has to allow abortion in certain circumstances, yes the mother can keep it from becoming viable. She does the same thing if she takes the Pill, which prevents the pregnancy or the morning after pill, which prevents a fertilized egg from developing. Some argue that it is even wrong to use any form of birth control (including condoms) because of where this argument inevitably leads. So, unless you want to hang your hat with the Pope, the viability test is a very bright dividing line that most people understand.
And that’s a great discourse on the limitations of the slippery slope argument. At some point it’s ridiculous and useless for analysis-we disagree about when in this case.
Sure. But I think there are many people out there (I am one of them) who agree that abortion in most cases is ethically wrong but legally right. And when we are talking about adoption, it is mostly a legal discussion because if a person has been making ethically sound choices in his or her life, the legal question usually never comes up.
Ethically wrong but legally right? THAT’s a tiny category, if one that exists at all. Legal but unethical, sure. But legally right? Let me chew on that some.
No contradiction there Jack. While pregnant the woman takes on all physical risk. After the child is born there is no physical risk.
Who made your “physical risk” rule? Because there’s no physical risk, the father’s love, commitment and desire for a family doesn’t matter, counts for nothing? Why?
1. It depends on the commitment. Here, they weren’t, but my husband and I were just as committed before and after our decision to get married. I’m also willing to bet that 99% of all prom couples have a deeper relationship than any of Kim Kardashian’s past or future marriages. And yes — social norms are worthwhile — that’s why I have a marriage certificate. 3. I agree with you. I was just adding that the marriage has to be healthy and stable or there really is no added benefit to the child. (Typo there with betting.)
Married, which is meant to indicate committed, biological parents is the gold standard. That is not to say it cannot be done any other way, married adoptive parents is the ideal for children who need a family. Isn’t the debate over gay marriage about allowing gays to certify the level in which they are committed to each other? Certainly that comes with benefits, but those benefits, especially before no fault divorce, were intended on rewarding and strengthening the the family unit. Too often it seems guilt free gratification and not individual responsibility is now held to be an more admirable trait. Getting divorced should be discouraged and stigmatized, that is not to say that when the marriage is dangerous or poisonous that it should but marriage should be promoted as the first step in having a family.
By your qualifications of marriage being the ethical criteria for not losing a child to adopters, I have to point out that many of your ancestors would have lost their first, second and sometimes third-borns. In my genealogy research, I have found many couples in Colonial times and even into the 1800s in rural areas sometimes did not marry until years after they started living together and having children. Most times it was because they had to wait for circuit preachers to reach their area or they were just too busy living and working to drive to the nearest town where there was a pastor. For the same reason, children were very often baptized years after they were born, sometimes three, four or more children from the same family at the same time. Even into the 1900s there were many “common law” marriages. So, with your standards, these couples, too, would have been disqualified from parenting. Tell us, too, what happens when adopters suffer the vicissitudes of life that can and do afflict us all – illness, job loss, alienation, divorce. Adopters divorce at the same rates as the general public, so will your ethics then demand that their adopted children be taken and given to (more worthy) still married couples? How absurd this could quickly become. The absurdity is further illustrated when we carry it to the obvious conclusion that, by your standards, only married men care about their children and should have parenting rights. How does that explain all the married men who abuse and abandon their children?
I’m sorry, Priscilla, but your comment exceeded this blog’s generous limit for nonsense and dishonest argument within its first few sentences, and I stopped reading:
1. If there’s any rationalization worse than “Everybody does it (did it, accepts it, etc.)” it might be “Everybody did it in the wilderness.” This is the silly Adam and Eve argument. Yes, the colonists were unmarried because there was nobody to marry them (this is why there are common law marriages, and were even then). I’m not sure you picked up on this, but Preston and John were NOT in the wilderness, and Justices of the Peace were minutes away in both their cases. The Jamestown colony resorted to cannibalism for survival: I suppose you view this fact as excusing modern day cannibalism for people withing walking distance of a Food Lion? Fascinating.
2.“So, with your standards, these couples, too, would have been disqualified from parenting.” Ding. Read the Comment policies. I frown on commenters putting words in my mouth: I never wrote this, don’t believe it, and the post didn’t suggest it. Either you are being dishonest, or you can’t read English. In either event, I’m not wasting my time seeing what foolishness you come up with in the second half of your comment.
Sorry. You have to do better than this if I’m going to take you seriously.
OK — I read her entire comment and it bordered on nonsensical, but didn’t you just put words in her mouth with the cannibalism crack? 🙂
No, the cannibalism is a logical analogy creating a reductio ad absurdum… each premise from her comment has an equal and parallel premise in Jack’s.
However, what she did with his words was not an analogy at all and was illogically extending his rule to a non sequitur conclusion…. and attributing that conclusion to him.
I also find it hilarious that she pulls out the “adopters” have same divorce rate as general public, even though the tiniest bit of critical thinking would tell you that Americans who give up their kids for adoption probably aren’t representative of the average (I hope, anyways).
I will only focus on the last part of your comment.
“The absurdity is further illustrated when we carry it to the obvious conclusion that, by your standards, only married men care about their children and should have parenting rights. How does that explain all the married men who abuse and abandon their children?”
You’re stretching well beyond reality.
Married men have better child outcomes than unmarried men. Choosing to marry shows, or should, forethought, dedication and a desire of being part of something beyond the individual. But the guy who had a couple dozen kids with several different women might not be your ideal as a man who cares about children. As things are now if a father wants to insure his rights to his children (he cares) then he should marry the women he impregnates. Generally speaking it works out better if you do the marriage thing before actually having kids.
“All” what men are you referring to? The ones who never married the mothers of their child? Not to minimize the cases of married men who abuse, but the unmarried fathers abuse at a much higher rate, and when unmarried parents cohabitate with other unmarried parents (non biological) kids the rate is higher still. These unmarried fathers are the ones who have almost no rights because they chose to have children out of wedlock. Or maybe you referring to the abysmal divorce rate and assuming that “All” those men are abusing and abandoning their children? Do you have no concern of the unmarried mothers who abuse their children at a much higher rate than fathers? Child abuse is significantly reduced by having two adults who choose to commit to each other in the child’s life.
The bottom line is that even though liberal society has done its best to destroy and discourage the institution of marriage and promote promiscuity, those who choose to marry and have kids (including adoption) have the highest child success rates. The additional benefit is that when things do go bad, the father has some say in what happens to his children.
SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, SHOW ME THE STATS! The number of fatherless children is increasing (talked about all the time) and their chances for a productive life and learning about “family” and how it works are reduced to almost nothing. Someone (I’ll try to do it myself) find me the statistics on the actual lives these one-parent children lead as they grow up. Find me the stats on how many prison inmates are from fatherless families, as well as the number of college graduates from same. This sounds so conservative, I know, and legal “families” can be as dysfunctional and damaging as one-parent families, but really, if a woman wants her child to have a better life than she can provide, it is within her purview to help that happen through the adoption process. And not incidentally, if she can kill that child in utero, without the father’s input, why does the egress from the vagina suddenly give that father rights he doesn’t have otherwise?
Two other things: (1) having children without being married is — in the upper classes and theater/movie world — “cool” for some reason; (2) having children without being married and NOT HAVING MONEY, A RESPONSIBLE PARTNER, AND A COMMITMENT TO THE CHILD’S FUTURE is not “cool” — only a clear path to misery for at least more than half of those children.
This should not be discussed just on ethical grounds. The stats are there (have to find them). There are reasons why our society is becoming one of more “takers” than “givers,” of more”unproductive” rather than “productive” citizens. I’m not saying that the single parent is unable to raise a caring, loving, inquisitive, thinking child. What I AM saying is that careless, thoughtless reproduction should not, in the 21st century, be considered just a “human” fact of life. Jeez, even lions mate for life!
“If the mother sincerely believes that the father isn’t fit to have custody and also that she can’t handle parenthood, isn’t adoption against the father’s wishes still the ethical course? ”
No. The responsibility of making that determination should be the state and should not be made unilaterally by the woman. The only time the woman has the ability to make the unilateral decision when it comes to if a man will be a father is during the 9 months of gestation. When she is taking on the physical burden of pregnancy, along with the risks, she should be the only one who determines the outcome. Afterwards, she should not have the right or the power to determine that the father would be a bad parent and make sole decisions about the outcome of the child without either approval from the father (tacit or otherwise) or a ruling from the state.
To a large extent I agree with Liberal Dan.
Also, because I dindnt get it right away, your talking about abortion with the 9 months thing right?
I was gonna comment. But then I saw someone set a bomb off here. I gotta read all these now to make sure I’m not covering ground that’s already been trampled….
Touched on in a few spots, but for the sake of redundancy, I’m gonna call BS on the ethical-to-skip-the-father option. Assuming we live in a society that does not discriminate rights based on sex (and we do*), if it is ethical for the mother to deny the father parental rights based solely on her presumptive opinion then it is equally ethical for the father to do the same. Everyone of those unethical conditions can apply to a mother and absolutely no one would legitimately argue that the child should be ripped from the mother’s hands by the father and sent directly to an adoption agency.
* We have the ideal of not discriminating based on sex, admittedly at times we’ve failed to live up to it, but this in no way makes the ideal any less valid in general or in this circumstance.