The article, posted March 12, 2004, adoption.about.com, unfairly furthers the image of unwed fathers in contested adoptions as irresponsible trash, while unwed mothers are sacrificing martyrs. While the author acknowledges that there are responsible men as well as irresponsible men, she fails to acknowledge that there are irresponsible mothers--and it is the irresponsible MOTHERS and their families--who are the major problems in contested adoptions. That is, to a mother who wants to place the child for adoption, it is not the irresponsible man, who will obviously be terminated whether he "cooperates" or not, but the responsible man, who will not be terminated, who poses the real "problem" for everyone. (For example, the article states: "She was asking how she can complete this adoption without his cooperation since he wouldn't even acknowledge it was his child.") But a man cannot prevail in a contested adoption without acknowledging the child as his. His consent is not needed in such a case.
The substance of e-mails and communications I receive from birth fathers and their families differ greatly from the communications the author claims she regularly receives from pregnant women. Women and men both contact me with the following general question:
< I (or my boyfriend, grandson, fiance) have supported or tried to support the mother ever since learning of the pregnancy, but the mother is trying to place the child for adoption without involving me. Mom's family is telling me to get lost and mom is already arranging for a private, or out-of-state, adoption. What can I do? I can't find any information. Lawyers cost a fortune. >
Who exactly is the real "problem" here? While the article's author and I may differ in our assessments of what percentage of actual adoptions involve the type of responsible bio-parent I portray, (actually, I do not know the comparative numbers) at least I acknowledge the variations regarding BOTH sexes. The author makes NO MENTION of how many dishonest mothers and lawyers exist in adoption scenarios--and there are plenty. American society profits off of portraying men as sexual predators and women as sexual victims. Yet it amazes me how often, in my experience, it is the birthdad's girlfriend, mother, or wife, etc., who sees through this nonsense more than birthdad does, or even men in general seem to do. In fact, I have noticed that older women with grown sons seem most acutely aware of it.
The article also seems to have little to do with "birth father registries" as titled. One can only conclude that the author--like the lobbyists who promote registry and other deceptive adoption statutes--sees registries more as a way to exclude any opposing father, than to preserve the rights of responsible fathers. It is the typical "feel good" law. Why else would a man who did, or tried to do, everything a responsible father should do except sign a registry he did not know about, still be considered an abandoner?
In addition, the article, like almost every other article written by adoption service providers and facilitators, never mentions the many circumstances under which putative father registries are NOT searched, and what rights signing the registry actually entitles the man to. No registry, in any of the 20-25 states that have a registry, "ensures" a putative father will get unconditional notice of an adoption petition. Yet governmental agencies and adoption professionals regularly represent that registries ensure this. (For example, compare Ohio Department of Job and Family Services website "frequently asked questions" with Ohio revised Code Chapter 3107.01 through 11)
The article is also unethical in its statistical claims A professional must cite her sources specifically when making the kind of statistical allegations and estimations the article makes. Not a single source beyond the author herself is cited. Yet the author talks about percentages and other statistics at will. ("...85% percent of [contesting fathers] say they don't want the child placed because it will make them look bad") I have never heard that comment from any of the birth fathers or their families I have known who have contested adoptions, nor have I ever read as much in any court opinion I have ever read. The author may have heard that herself 85% percent of the time. But implying that the above representation is true generally is irresponsible, and unjustly fosters the harmful prejudice the public has against unwed fathers.
I am not an adoption expert. I do not know how many responsible men there are versus irresponsible men--however those terms are defined, and by whom. But I am certain of one thing: If men were presumed initially as valuable contributors, instead of how MOMS unilaterally portray them to opportunistic adoption facilitators, then, whatever the true numbers, we would see more responsible fathers than we do. That's what we want, isn't it?
