Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Why does the father need to show he supported the mother during pregnancy in order to have the right to raise his child?

I just don't understand this. What if she didn't need his financial help because she had plenty of money and he didn't. What if they hated each other? What if she gave him royal hell every time he came over? What if he was only a one night stand?
Lets say she wanted adoption and he didn't, then Isn't that by definition not supporting her emotionally? What does any of this have to do with him and his child?
This is purely hypathetical, so lets not get heated.

Answer Question

Asked by onethentwins at 6:02 PM on Mar. 7, 2009 in Adoption

Level 22 (12,497 Credits)
Answers (10)
  • Well, I've never dealt with this, so I can only answer in theory. My theory, then, would be that it's not so much that he needs to show he "supported" the mother, either financially or emotionally, but that he has to prove he was around and wanted this child from the start. There are men, my ex-husband being a prime example, who will go against the mother on any issue simply for the sake of arguing or making her life more difficult. Those type of men would not want to raise a child, but would argue that they do and try to prevent an adoption, simply to make her life more complicated and not let her "have her way". So they would need to prove that they have been there, have wanted the child and have tried to prove to the mother that they are serious about wanting the child. Again, I'm speaking in theory here b/c I've never dealt with it, so I'm just guessing.

    Answer by tropicalmama at 6:07 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • I don't think it's very fair either, however, I think they have these laws so that it makes the process of terminating the birth parents rights easier, faster, and cheaper.

    That's just my theory.

    Answer by rainfalls at 6:18 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • I agree with rainfalls, I think when it comes to such laws, which only are in affect for domestic infant adoption and nothing else to justify terminating rights, it's about making it easier to terminate the father's rights so the adoption can go through.

    My son's bdad - and now my husband - didn't pay anything while I was pregant with our son but we were only sixteen and his parents did call my parents to offer financial support which my parents turned down. So would this make him lose his rights under some of the laws that pertain to infant adoption because he didn't financially help and was in California for the last couple months of my pregnancy.

    I think, my opinion of course, that it is very likely that there are dads out there that, just like the moms, are terrified of the pregnancy and don't react in the way others expect but do change their minds and honestly and truly want to raise their children.

    Answer by casjoh at 8:05 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • Wow, I never heard of this before. This wasn't the case with my children, it was a long hard process to terminate his rights long after the mom terminated her rights. He didn't support her one bit through the pregnancy, he was jailed for beating her until she hemorraged while pregnant with the twins and didn't support the child they already had together. Anyway, maybe it was different because the state was involved by removing the children from the care of their parents, not a voluntary placement.

    Like I said, I've never heard of this before but it sounds like it should be illegal. I can't believe they can get away with that.

    Answer by MommyAddie at 10:22 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • It is about responsibilty. If you have sex with a woman you need to be man enough to make reasonable attempts to know she is not pregnant. If she is, and she gives you no access, you need to make it known you want to take responsibilty. Buy baby items - have reciets proving you bought the items. In writing by certified mail, and keep a copy of your letter and reciet of delivery, that you want to parent this child. However you can then you must. It proves you were interested even if the woman was not interested in you. If a man cannot reasonably prove he attempted and contributed to the care of this unborn child, he cannot be found at the time of birth, and all reasonable attempts to locate have him have been made - then it is reasonable to terminate parental rights. I do not subscribe to the theory that the man is a innocent victim and the birthmom and evil bitch who tricked him.

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:02 PM on Mar. 8, 2009

  • One night stands? You still have an obligation to know who you are having sex with and that there was no child created that night. It is also part of being a real man and adult. Know who you have sex with. Men are not victims in this. Get drunk, hook up, have a good time, leave....well that adds up to you should have known the woman, where she lives, her number at the very least, and try to at least call a month later to verify no strands of your DNA will be carried out through her. If you want to parent that child do the above suggestions. But take some freakin responsibilty. Raise your sons to be aware of their responsibiltiy towards a child or a woman.

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:06 PM on Mar. 8, 2009

  • I dont know for sure but I wonder if a rule like this is for a Mom who wants to place her child for adoption, yet the bfather doesnt want this... but also doesnt want to parent either. This was the situation in our adoption. The bdad had 5 other kids he wasnt supporting, the bmom had her own issues that made an adoption necessary. He originally didnt want it but also was not going to help her or the child either. If he didnt sign, the child likely would have been sent to Foster care.
    He gave the bmom a very hard time but they both signed.

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:25 PM on Mar. 9, 2009

  • Lets say she wanted adoption and he didn't, then Isn't that by definition not supporting her emotionally?

    I think you are confusing emotional support with a rubberstamp in this statement.  It also depends, if the baby is being placed for adoption at birth every effort needs to be made to locate the father and once located if this child is news to him then his actions after he is informed have got to carry weight.  Men aren't mind readers.  Now if he clearly knew about the baby and walked away, then he needs to be held responsible. JMO


    Answer by Anonymous at 12:28 PM on Mar. 9, 2009

  • I think that this is in a way is like a woman's right to chose. A father cannot say that he is against abortion but then refuse to help with the baby when the baby comes out. I think there are some dads who want it both ways.

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:21 PM on Mar. 14, 2009

  • This happened to me. I got pregant by a guy who said he never wanted kids, hated them, would never pay child support for them, etc. Well I decided toplace my child up for adoption. I found a nice family, met with them, he did the same and approved of them. He was there at the birth and changed his mind about the adoption. He started having a fit, yelling and screaming at the adoptive parents, and ultimatley wouldn't consent to the adoption. He took off two weeks later, leaving me to raise the child on my own which was not what I wanted. This was wrong and it makes me sick that the law allows for these situations.

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:16 AM on Mar. 18, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.