|
Adoption News - 18 -
Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption
by Mothers
[
Gay Couples
sue over Okla. Adoption Law
] [
Children's Groups appeal overturning of Florida Gay Adoption Ban
]
[
Britain
Parliament Oks Gay Adoption
] [
Lesbian Couple from VT Prevail in Adoption Suit
] [
Out of the Shadows ]
[
ACLU
Dismayed by 11th Circuit Appeal Upholding Floridas Anti-Gay Adoption Law
] [
US Adoptions Get Easier ]
[
Supreme
Court Lets Stand Floridas Gay Adoption Ban
] [
Experts Dispute Bush on Gay Adoption Issue
]
[
Adoptees
Deserve Access to Family Health Histories
] [
Committee Defeats Bill to Ban Gays from Adoption
]
[
Civil
Debate Over Civil Union ]
[ Study
Says Foreign Children Adapt Well
] [
Custody After Civil Union Pits States and Judges
]
[
Birth
Mothers vs Egg Donor Decision Upheld
] [
Hello I'm Your Sister - Our Father is Donor 150
]
[
Lund Family
Center Capital Campaign Remarks
] [
Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers
]
[
Adoption
Institute Supports Gay Parents
] [
Gays See Shift in Momentum Toward Acceptance in Alabama
]
[
Judge
Rejects Law on Gay Adoptions
] [
Perdue vs Mississippi ] [
Gay
Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue
]
[
Gay Couple
Awaits Adoption Ruling from US Court
] [
China Tightens Adoption Rules, U.S. Agencies Say
]
[
A Taste of
US Family Life, But Adoption in Limbo
] [
Gay Couple Win Lawsuit Against Adoption Web Site in Arizona...
]
[
Significant
Victory for Same Sex Couples in Oklahoma
] [
Report Urges States To Open Adoptee Records for Adults
]
[
State Court
Recognizes Gay Marriage From Elsewhere
] [
Miami Judge Rules Against Florida Gay Adoption Ban
]
[
House
Passes Bill Restricting Birth Certificates For Adoptions By Unmarried Couples
]
Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption
by Mothers
by TAMAR LEWIN
Published March
19, 2006
Photo
by: Jeff Topping for The New York Times
Jeremiah Clayton Jones, who
failed to file with a state registry for unwed fathers, is appealing the
termination of his parental rights.
Jeremiah Clayton Jones
discovered that his former fiancée was pregnant just three weeks before the
baby was due, when an adoption-agency lawyer called and asked if he would
consent to have his baby adopted.
"I said absolutely not," said Mr. Jones, a
23-year-old Arizona man who met his ex-fiancée at Pensacola Christian
College in Florida. "It was an awkward moment, hearing for the first time
that I would be a father, and then right away being told, 'We want to take
your kid away.' But I knew that if I was having a baby, I wanted that baby."
Mr. Jones has never seen his son, now 18
months old. Instead, he lost his parental rights because of his failure to
file with a state registry for unwed fathers — something he learned of only
after it was too late.
Under Florida law, and that of other
states, an unmarried father has no right to withhold consent for adoption
unless he has registered with the state putative father registry before an
adoption petition is filed. Mr. Jones missed the deadline.
Although one in every three American babies
has unwed parents, birth fathers' rights remain an unsettled area, a
delicate balancing act between the importance of biological ties and the
undisrupted placement of babies whose mothers relinquish them for adoption.
While women have the right to get an
abortion, or to have and raise a child, without informing the father, courts
have increasingly found that when birth mothers choose adoption, fathers who
have shown a desire for involvement have rights, too.
But to claim those rights most states
require a father to put his name on a registry. While about 30 states now
have registries, they vary widely. In some, fathers must actually claim
paternity; in others, just the possibility of paternity. The deadlines may
be 5 days after birth or 30, or any time before an adoption petition is
filed.
And registries are a double-edged sword: It
remains an open question whether they serve more to protect fathers' rights
or to protect adoptive parents, and the babies they have bonded with, from
biological fathers' claims.
"My specialty is contested adoptions, and
the most common contest is where the mom wants to place the baby and the dad
objects," said Martin Bauer, president of the American Academy of Adoption
Attorneys. "Registries can protect men against birth mothers who won't
disclose the father's name or actively lie about his identity."
Adam Pertman, executive director of the
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit research and education
group, sees it differently. "It's all smoke and mirrors," Mr. Pertman said.
"How can registries work if no one's heard of them? And it's just not
reasonable to expect that men will register every time they have sex."
In the early 1990's, the two-year fight
over Baby Jessica and the four-year battle over Baby Richard highlighted the
wrenching dramas of birth parents winning custody of babies placed with
adoptive parents years earlier. The spectacle of those children being taken
from the arms of the only parents they had known raised an outcry about the
need for speedy, permanent placement.
While some states have long had putative
father registries — New York's registry was upheld by the
United States
Supreme Court in 1983 — most were started in the last decade to head off
late parental claims.
In many states, fewer than 100 men register
each year — not surprising, adoption experts say, because most young men
have never heard of the registries. One exception is Indiana, where men are
notified of the registry when a birth mother names them as the father, and
50 men register a week.
Adoption lawyers say some birth mothers
refuse to identify the father to forestall interference. There are no
statistics on how many unmarried fathers seek to raise babies the birth
mother has relinquished.
Mary Beck, a professor at the University of
Missouri School of Law, said the burden of registering should be the
father's.
"There are men who complain, 'What, I have
to file for every woman I've had sex with?' " Professor Beck said. "But men
are on notice of possible pregnancy by virtue of having had sex, and the
alternative is leaving it up to the women to chase them down."
Even for registered men, the system is
flawed. Because the registries are state by state, a registration means
nothing if the father or mother has moved — or if the baby was surrendered
for adoption in a different state specifically to avoid a challenge.
In one case, Frank Osborne of North
Carolina challenged his 5-month-old son's adoption in Utah. The Utah Supreme
Court rejected Mr. Osborne's claim, but a dissenting judge found it unfair
that Mr. Osborne lost a child he had lived with and supported until the
mother "unilaterally and clandestinely" took the boy to Utah.
Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of
Louisiana, will address that problem in the Proud Father Act, which would
create a national registry and is to be introduced in Congress later this
year.
"In a perfect world, everything would be
linked so that everyone could find out if a man had registered or filed for
paternity," said Jim Outman, a lawyer in Atlanta who consulted on the
legislation. "But in the real world, the left hand doesn't always know what
the right hand is doing.
"If there's nothing in the records in their
county, their state, how is an adoption agency supposed to know there's a
father who's going to come forward in two years? There has to be some
security for the adoptive parents and the child."
One self-made expert on the registries is
Erik L. Smith, an Ohio paralegal who fathered a son in Texas and fought for
paternal rights after the baby's placement with an adoptive family. In an
unusual resolution, the boy, now 13, lives with the adoptive family, while
Mr. Smith, a noncustodial father, has visiting rights. Mr. Smith was
naturally intrigued when he heard of the Ohio registry in a class where the
professor explained that babies born to unwed parents could be adopted
without the father's consent unless he registered within 30 days after the
birth.
"I asked if that meant that, to protect his
rights, a man should register every time he has sex with a new partner, and
he said yes," Mr. Smith said.
So he tried. "I called information and
asked how I could contact the Ohio putative father registry, but there was
no listing," Mr. Smith said. "I searched the Internet but couldn't find any
address."
While Ohio's system has improved, he said,
"as long as registries aren't publicized, I think they just work as a way to
get rid of fathers like me."
Glenn Spraggs, a 22-year-old Cincinnati
man, was recently caught short by ignorance of the Ohio registry. His
girlfriend, Sharicka Watson, had a baby boy, Thomas, on Dec. 2, and Mr.
Spraggs, who also has a daughter with Ms. Watson, was with her when he was
born. Ms. Watson has told reporters that she discussed adoption with Mr.
Spraggs, but he said he had no warning that less than two weeks after the
birth, Ms. Watson would surrender Thomas for adoption.
"No one told me anything," Mr. Spraggs
said. "When I found out he was gone, I called the police to see if they
could help get him back, or file kidnapping charges or something, but they
said there was nothing they could do because it was an adoption. By the time
I heard about the registry, it was too late."
Although the Ohio registry gives men 30
days to file, a judge terminated Mr. Spraggs's parental rights when Thomas
was 19 days old. After Mr. Spraggs hired a lawyer, the adoption agency
returned Thomas to Ms. Watson, who now wants to raise him. A custody hearing
in the case is scheduled for tomorrow.
Carol Sanger, a professor at
Columbia Law
School, said registries reflected a deep societal belief that unmarried
fathers are irresponsible.
"If we want registries to mean anything,"
Professor Sanger said, "we'd have to teach them in every sex education
curriculum in every school, and publicize them everywhere."
In Florida, the 2003 law creating the
registry requires the State Department of Health "within existing resources"
to distribute pamphlets on the registry at every office of the Health
Department, the Department of Children and Families and the Bureau of Vital
Statistics.
But when Barbara Busharis, a professor at
Florida State University, sent students to find the brochures, they had no
luck. "They couldn't find anyone who knew anything about the putative father
registry," Professor Busharis said.
Mr. Jones's case illustrates the dangers of
ignorance. The identity of his former fiancée is confidential, but Mr.
Jones's court filings detail his struggle to prevent the adoption.
He tried to contact his ex-fiancée, who
disappeared from his life when her parents took her from school and to
another county. He called her friends, her brother, her pastor. He hired a
Florida lawyer and filed a paternity petition the day before the baby was
born, in the county where she previously lived. But that lawyer, now dead,
apparently knew nothing of the putative father registry, and never mentioned
registering.
Mr. Jones is appealing the termination of
his rights. "I don't think there's any greater right that you could trespass
on than a parent's right to his child," he said.
In her brief, Allison Perry, Mr. Jones's
lawyer, called the Florida registry "a well-kept secret," with just 47
registrants for the 89,436 out-of-wedlock births in 2004. Mr. Jones, living
in Arizona, had no reason to know of it. The adoption agency that alerted
him to the pregnancy never mentioned it, and when the agency later sent him
a letter, it enclosed information on a Florida registry for birth parents
interested in a reunion when the children grew up, but nothing on the
putative father registry.
Jeanne Tate, a lawyer for the adoption
agency, said that because it represented the birth mother's interests, it
could not advise Mr. Jones of his rights. Even the call to Mr. Jones went
beyond the agency's legal obligations, she said.
"What's good about the law is that it
provides clear guidance on whether a baby is or isn't free for adoption,"
she said, "so you don't get into those heart-wrenching situations where a
baby who's been placed has to be removed."
Generally, fathers who have missed registry
deadlines have lost their court cases. But Ms. Perry argues that the Florida
law, applied as mechanically as in the Jones case, is an unconstitutional
intrusion on men's fundamental rights.
"Jeremiah Jones did everything he could
reasonably do to establish a relationship with his child," she said. "It's
just inconceivable that the government can take away his child because he
missed a filing deadline."
Back to top
|