She may not have been aware of that, though. And if she did that and the father chose to raise the baby, she would have been liable for child support (and likely wouldn't be able to regain custody in the future). So in terms of financial obligation, she would have still been on the hook.
A week after I started a new job, I met a coworker who had been away on her honeymoon. I oohed and aahed over the beautiful wedding photos with the rest of the staff. There was an adorable little flower girl with one earring in a photo. I asked who she was and the woman replied that it was her four-year old daughter. The woman was very young (early 20's) so I didn't ask many questions, assuming she was a single, teenage mother who had found love.
A few weeks later, she told me that her new husand was actually her daughter's father and she needed to take time off to have the adoption papers finalized by the court system. I wear my heart on my sleeve, so she saw my confusion and explained that she was a high school senior when she found out that she was expecting. She wasn't sure if the father would be part of their lives, so her father's lawyer advised her to write "father not known" on all the paperwork.
That way, he had no parental rights to surrender and couldn't block an adoption or fight for custody/visitation. He was too young and didn't know if he wanted to be tied down, etc., etc. Her family was 100% behind her keeping the baby and supported her choice and helped her get her own apt, job, etc. The main responsibility for the child was hers and he didn't really step up to the plate.
It worked out in the end since I saw the wedding pictures, but she was incredibly strong and smart during the ensuing time: they went to couples counseling, went on dates, had unofficial visitations, etc. so she could be sure that he was committed to the family. She was very open and honest about the entire situation. They took four years to decide that they did want to be married. They filled out the adoption paperwork when they became engaged.
The "one earring" story was just as cute: the daughter was just as strong-willed as the mother. One morning, the mother was changing the daughter's earrings and the kid just refused to let her put in the second earring. Turned out that the hole was infected. By the time the infection was cleared, the hole had closed up and the DD decided that "being a pirate" was more fun than having matching earrings, lol.
Going back on topic: I think the parents are suing just to help cover the costs of raising the child. I think every single test I had while expecting twins at 35 included an escape clause that nothing is 100% reliable. The OB/GYN's discussed amniocentesis testing several times with us, but the only benefit would have been that we could have known of problems in advance. The risk of the test causing a miscarriage was about the same as the probability of identifying possible genetic anamalies. We decided that it wasn't worth the risk and just did the monthly sonograms, which had other ways of identifying some, but not all, of the possibilities. There was never a question of terminating the pregnancy for a "birth defects" reason; that would never have been our choice.
We have three healthy kids, but had one been born with a handicap, we would have dealt with it, not done away with the child.
Last edited by FigureSpins; 03-11-2012 at 05:51 AM.
"Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."
from Speedy Death
Hello -- are people really advocating that women should be allowed to have a child, and simply because the father doesn't agree to relinquishment for adoption and wants custody that the woman should be able to either force an adoption or not have to pay child support???? Think of it the other way: woman tells her bf that she's pregnant. He says, "You need to have an abortion or give the kid up for adoption." She says, "No, I'm keeping the kid." He says, "Well, then I'm not paying child support." Would this ever fly? If not, why would you expect or want it to fly if it is the woman who doesn't want to pay child support?
^^^ I most certainly wasn't
barbk, the father did. not. want. custody. That's what the initial comment was about. And I didn't mean to derail the thread. My only point was that there are many situations in which saying you would have had an abortion is not the same as saying you don't love your child and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
Kevin: He compared Scott to a disposable feminine cleansing product one might use on a summer's eve.
Meagan: Yeah, and the bag it came in. -The Big Bang Theory, performed by the Canadian WTT team and interpreted by Cyn.
Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. Because I was mighty perplexed at what I thought was the POV.
The point is that the guy refused to give up his parental rights AND he refused to take custody of the child. I suspect he can't really do this legally, but forcing him to do one or the other would probably take a lot of time, effort and money.
Every time you say something stupid on the internet, Tim Berners-Lee punches a kitten.
My SIL is refusing to sign over her parental rights to us, and yet she makes no effort to be involved with "her" son. She has never seen the boy since leaving the hospital, did not room with the boy at the hospital (CPS would not allow it), has never changed a diaper or fed the boy, and lives out-of-state.
Not only does she not pay child support, she still has the nerve to call us asking for money!
We have cared for the child since birth. A court granted us emergency custody at that time.
Ironically, if we had let the baby go into the foster care, SIL's parental rights would almost surely have been terminated by now. CPS would have pushed the courts forward.
We, on the other hand, are $6k in, and have only a Conservatorship. My understanding is that trying to terminate her parental rights is going to make a fairly dramatic difference in our quality of life for the next 5+ years.