In In Interest of B.G.C.,10 the mother named her boyfriend as the father, when her ex-boyfriend was the true father. When the ex-boyfriend appeared, the petitioners argued he should have protected his rights upon learning of the pregnancy earlier. The court found that unrealistic because it would "require a potential father to become involved in the pregnancy on the mere speculation that he might be the father because he was one of the men having sexual relations with her at the time in question."11
The same occurred in Matter of Baby Girl T.12 There, the father and mother had a one night stand after they had broken up and while the mother was living with another man. The father later heard a rumor that the mother was pregnant, but assumed he could not be the father. The mother surrendered the child for adoption, naming her live-in boyfriend as the father. When DNA tests showed otherwise, the mother named the ex-boyfriend. When a social worker told the ex-boyfriend he might have a child surrendered for adoption, he was shocked, but immediately expressed his desire to parent. The adoption agency argued that the father should have inquired with the mother and protected his rights when he first heard the pregnancy rumor. The court quoted In Interest of B.G.C.:
- "This, of course, is unrealistic as it would require a potential father to become involved in the pregnancy on the mere speculation that he might be the father because he was one of the men having sexual relations with her at the time in question."13
Legal scholars too have criticized having inquiry and paternity claim requirements simultaneously:
- "This translates into the fact that a putative father...must initiate legal proceedings, not just list his name as a possible father in the putative father registry.... In essence, the statute requires that any man who has had past intimate relations with a woman...must determine whether his former lover is carrying his child (raising all sorts of interesting harassment issues) and must legally admit his paternity before the issue of adoption even arises."14
Two conclusions are clear: (1) Intercourse alone does not constitute enough knowledge for a man to declare paternity. (2) Whether a man shirked a duty to inquire with a woman depends on several factors, including the status of the adoption when the father filed his action, whether the mother concealed her location or pregnancy from the father, whether another potential father existed, whether birth control was used, or the father had some other reasonable doubt about paternity. Accordingly, the Soule's black-and-white outlook to paternal inquiry should be rejected.
________________________________________________________
10 496 N.W.2d 239 (Iowa 1992).
11 Id. at footnote 1.
12 715 A.2d 99 (Del.Fam.Ct. 1998).
13 Id. at 105.
14 Karin Dwelle, Comment: Adoption Without Consent: How Idaho is Treading on the Constitutional Rights of Unwed Fathers, 39 Idaho L.Rev. 207, 231-232 (2002). (Emphasis added).
