LilMtnCbn
01-06-2005, 06:38 AM
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4073.html
What to Do About Daddy?
by Wendy McElroy, ifeminists.com
06 January 2005
By ignoring the father's rights at the outset of the Evan Parker Scott case,
the court set the stage for a needless tragedy.
By court order, 3-year-old Evan Parker Scott of Jacksonville, Florida, is being
separated from his adoptive parents and returned to the biological mother who
surrendered him at birth.
Why? Because something was missing from the adoption process: the father's
consent.
In 2005, family courts will confront a question head-on: "What to do about
Daddy?" In the case of Evan, the question is, "what to do about the "birth
father"? -- a term that properly denotes the biological and often unmarried
father of an adopted child.
The media has discussed Evan's case as a tragedy caused by the court validating
"father's rights" at the expense of a child's welfare. Whether the rights of
Evan's biological father were in fact violated remains a point of debate in
this specific case, but overall, a good argument can be made for the opposite
view: By ignoring the father's rights at the outset of an adoption proceeding,
courts set the stage for this kind of needless tragedy.
When custody is contested, the child's welfare should be foremost. Accordingly,
commentary has centered on Evan. The children's advocacy site Hear My Voice
offers poignant coverage of the transfer to his birth mother. In the Boston
Globe, Jeff Jacoby writes, "Only a legal system that believes ties of blood are
the truest expression of parenthood could order a boy stripped of the parents
who have raised and cherished him from birth."
Jacoby misses some salient points.
One: Evan's situation did not arise because his father suddenly appeared after
three years. Five months after Evan's birth he filed papers with the court and
has mounted a continuous legal battle.
The tragedy occurred, at least in part, because the court transferred Evan's
guardianship (with a presumption of adoption) to the Scotts before the father's
claim had been resolved. In doing so, I believe the court acted
inappropriately, and with tragic consequences.
Two: the court acted inappropriately because, when both parents are known, they
are both responsible for the child's welfare and they possess an equal claim to
parenting. If parental responsibility is to be legally binding -- e.g. for
child support -- so, too, is the parental claim. Before an unwed woman can put
a child up for adoption, the father should be given the opportunity to raise
his child.
Four: saying that a child's welfare should be foremost does not negate the
rights of the two parents. The appropriate action is one that preserves the
rights of all involved through negotiation if at all possible. Only if a parent
is a clear threat to the child should his or her rights be summarily abrogated.
Good Morning America compared Evan's case to "'Baby Richard'...a (1995) court
battle that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court." In that case, a
4-year-old was taken from adoptive parents and given to his birth father.
However, the cause of birth fathers' rights might not fare well if 'Baby Evan'
becomes a test case. Evan's biological father was convicted of and served a
jail term for assaulting and hospitalizing his birth mother while she was
pregnant. This, unfortunately, lends credibility to the image, in these types
of adoption cases, of the "birth fathers" as uncaring, unstable and unfit for
parenthood.
Moreover, it is a widely accepted belief that in cases where there is a history
of domestic violence, fathers bid for custody as a way of harassing the mother.
These are two common objections to birth fathers' involvement in adoption: they
are uncaring or unfit parents; and, they will use the courts to harass mothers.
Without question, a number of birth fathers richly deserve such criticism. But
it is improper to deny rights to an entire category of people because
individuals within that category behave badly.
The birth father I met at a conference of the National Coalition of Free Men
may very well be as "typical" as Evan's. He and his mother had driven across
several states to attend the meeting in the hope of making contacts to help his
case. A serious young man of about 20-years-old, he explained that his
girlfriend left town without telling him she was pregnant. She put the child up
for adoption after running the public notice to the birth father, which is
legally required; the notice was an ad in the back of an out-of-town paper to
which he did not subscribe.
By the time he discovered his fatherhood, the window for claiming parental
rights had expired. Now, he and his family were desperately seeking a way to
gain custody and raise the child themselves.
How can courts help to prevent heart-wrenching father-child reunions, like the
one Evan is now experiencing?
They should acknowledge at the very beginning of an adoption proceeding that
both responsible parents have an equal voice. Each parent must be presumed
responsible until shown otherwise. And no adoption placement should occur if
either parent wants custody.
Moreover, the notification process should meet a high standard of diligent
effort before parental rights can be suspended.
Evan is now in the custody of his mother who filed specifically to block the
father's claim; the latter has been granted liberal, but supervised,
visitation.
The court's misconduct, of course, extends beyond whatever original slighting
of father's rights it may have allowed to occur. To correct that "error"
humanely, the court and adults involved might have arranged liberal visitation
for the father with Evan's adoptive parents. But the mother's filing precluded
that very possibility.
The saddest irony is also the worst indictment of the family court system. Evan
was desperately wanted by the Scotts, and his father also very much wants him.
The only person who didn't want him is the one who now has custody: the mother.
I retract my former statement: perhaps this would make a good test case.
-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown
What to Do About Daddy?
by Wendy McElroy, ifeminists.com
06 January 2005
By ignoring the father's rights at the outset of the Evan Parker Scott case,
the court set the stage for a needless tragedy.
By court order, 3-year-old Evan Parker Scott of Jacksonville, Florida, is being
separated from his adoptive parents and returned to the biological mother who
surrendered him at birth.
Why? Because something was missing from the adoption process: the father's
consent.
In 2005, family courts will confront a question head-on: "What to do about
Daddy?" In the case of Evan, the question is, "what to do about the "birth
father"? -- a term that properly denotes the biological and often unmarried
father of an adopted child.
The media has discussed Evan's case as a tragedy caused by the court validating
"father's rights" at the expense of a child's welfare. Whether the rights of
Evan's biological father were in fact violated remains a point of debate in
this specific case, but overall, a good argument can be made for the opposite
view: By ignoring the father's rights at the outset of an adoption proceeding,
courts set the stage for this kind of needless tragedy.
When custody is contested, the child's welfare should be foremost. Accordingly,
commentary has centered on Evan. The children's advocacy site Hear My Voice
offers poignant coverage of the transfer to his birth mother. In the Boston
Globe, Jeff Jacoby writes, "Only a legal system that believes ties of blood are
the truest expression of parenthood could order a boy stripped of the parents
who have raised and cherished him from birth."
Jacoby misses some salient points.
One: Evan's situation did not arise because his father suddenly appeared after
three years. Five months after Evan's birth he filed papers with the court and
has mounted a continuous legal battle.
The tragedy occurred, at least in part, because the court transferred Evan's
guardianship (with a presumption of adoption) to the Scotts before the father's
claim had been resolved. In doing so, I believe the court acted
inappropriately, and with tragic consequences.
Two: the court acted inappropriately because, when both parents are known, they
are both responsible for the child's welfare and they possess an equal claim to
parenting. If parental responsibility is to be legally binding -- e.g. for
child support -- so, too, is the parental claim. Before an unwed woman can put
a child up for adoption, the father should be given the opportunity to raise
his child.
Four: saying that a child's welfare should be foremost does not negate the
rights of the two parents. The appropriate action is one that preserves the
rights of all involved through negotiation if at all possible. Only if a parent
is a clear threat to the child should his or her rights be summarily abrogated.
Good Morning America compared Evan's case to "'Baby Richard'...a (1995) court
battle that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court." In that case, a
4-year-old was taken from adoptive parents and given to his birth father.
However, the cause of birth fathers' rights might not fare well if 'Baby Evan'
becomes a test case. Evan's biological father was convicted of and served a
jail term for assaulting and hospitalizing his birth mother while she was
pregnant. This, unfortunately, lends credibility to the image, in these types
of adoption cases, of the "birth fathers" as uncaring, unstable and unfit for
parenthood.
Moreover, it is a widely accepted belief that in cases where there is a history
of domestic violence, fathers bid for custody as a way of harassing the mother.
These are two common objections to birth fathers' involvement in adoption: they
are uncaring or unfit parents; and, they will use the courts to harass mothers.
Without question, a number of birth fathers richly deserve such criticism. But
it is improper to deny rights to an entire category of people because
individuals within that category behave badly.
The birth father I met at a conference of the National Coalition of Free Men
may very well be as "typical" as Evan's. He and his mother had driven across
several states to attend the meeting in the hope of making contacts to help his
case. A serious young man of about 20-years-old, he explained that his
girlfriend left town without telling him she was pregnant. She put the child up
for adoption after running the public notice to the birth father, which is
legally required; the notice was an ad in the back of an out-of-town paper to
which he did not subscribe.
By the time he discovered his fatherhood, the window for claiming parental
rights had expired. Now, he and his family were desperately seeking a way to
gain custody and raise the child themselves.
How can courts help to prevent heart-wrenching father-child reunions, like the
one Evan is now experiencing?
They should acknowledge at the very beginning of an adoption proceeding that
both responsible parents have an equal voice. Each parent must be presumed
responsible until shown otherwise. And no adoption placement should occur if
either parent wants custody.
Moreover, the notification process should meet a high standard of diligent
effort before parental rights can be suspended.
Evan is now in the custody of his mother who filed specifically to block the
father's claim; the latter has been granted liberal, but supervised,
visitation.
The court's misconduct, of course, extends beyond whatever original slighting
of father's rights it may have allowed to occur. To correct that "error"
humanely, the court and adults involved might have arranged liberal visitation
for the father with Evan's adoptive parents. But the mother's filing precluded
that very possibility.
The saddest irony is also the worst indictment of the family court system. Evan
was desperately wanted by the Scotts, and his father also very much wants him.
The only person who didn't want him is the one who now has custody: the mother.
I retract my former statement: perhaps this would make a good test case.
-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown
