DAD Barred, but still pays.

[Percy]

So many times we hear about dads who avoid responsibility. The Feminist mantra. Lies. Mendacities.

It is when a dad steps up and gets knocked back that the REAL TRUTH comes out.

A woman can give her baby away to others and not even tell the dad, and when he seeks to be the dad, the adoptive non-parents get the nod and he gets the bills.

(below, my emphases and small, bold italic comments)

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/04/30/another-dad-loses-his-baby-in-adoption-scam/

Glenn Sacks

Another Dad Loses His Baby in Adoption Scam
April 30, 2008 at 1:20 pm · Filed under Vox Populi
Background: In my recent blog post Father of Newborn ‘Did Everything One Would Hope a Man in His Position Would Do’–but It Wasn’t Enough, we discussed the case of an embattled California father, Jorge C., who fought a long, hard and ultimately unsuccessful battle to be a father to his baby boy.

The boy’s birth was hidden from him and the mother gave the child up for adoption after, according to one judge, she had “engaged in a web of lies.”

The case reminded me of this remarkable story– From Sask. adoptive parents win custody of baby boy (CTV, 1/29/07):

“The biological father of an infant boy in Saskatchewan has lost a battle for custody, after the court decided the child should stay with the adoptive parents he has known almost all his nine-month-old life…

“The biological father launched a legal battle last year to get custody of the baby, arguing he hadn’t agreed to the adoption. He said he hadn’t even been aware he was the child’s father and once he found out, he sought custody.

“The adoptive parents argued they followed proper procedures in adopting the baby. In testimony heard last year, the biological mother said she chose the couple to raise her son because she already knew them and knew they couldn’t have children of their own.

“In a 35-page judgment released Monday, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench said the unofficial adoption had served in the child’s best interests and should be maintained…

“As well, the court found the biological father was capable of having a positive presence in the baby’s life, but not in a parental role. So in order to give the child a year of ‘familial calm’ to promote bonding and attachment in his current home, the court banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a year.

“‘My concern is [the boy] could have immense difficulty, particularly in the early stages of his development, in reconciling all the complicated adult relationships in his life. In the interests of [the boy's] stability, it is best that he have intermittent exposure to [the biological father], rather than structured continuous access,’ the court said in its ruling.

“Although this case has generated considerable heartache and stress, it cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong. (!!!!) Although lives have been disrupted, the turmoil arose from the often complex circumstances that flow from the unfolding lives of real people with human frailties.”

A few comments:

1) I do recognize that the judge was in a very difficult situation here. I would’ve allowed the father and his new wife to raise the boy but given the adoptive couple liberal visitation time with the baby. But the judge is correct–there’s no easy or completely satisfactory solution here. (P. As though that 'correct' was any more correct than allowing the father to be the father)

2) I would disagree with the judge’s assertion that “it cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong.” The mother was wrong–she should have allowed the father to raise his own child, instead of sneaking behind his back to put the child up for adoption. (P and she should have been jailed for child kidnapping and effectively selling it)

3) While the judge insists that mom didn’t do anything wrong, (P. Not wrong? Not wrong? God help us all. The Judge is a fuckwit and should be shot for feminist fuckwittery) I wonder why nobody mentions the obvious possible motive she had to surreptitiously adopt out the baby – the desire to avoid paying child support to the biological father for the child. This may not have been her motive but I know one thing–if it had been the father in her position, everybody would have assumed from the beginning that this was his motive.

4) The judge “banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a year”–nice. And what a jerk the dad is–wanting to impose on the adoptive couple by visiting his own child. I wonder if the mother–who caused the whole problem to begin with–has been “banned” from seeing her baby, too? Somehow I doubt it. (P. Shoot her too, after a month of starvation in the Town Square stocks)

5) According to this story the father apparently has to pay child support to the adopted couple to raise the child he should’ve been allowed to raise. So he gets the financial responsibility for his child without having any parental rights to his child – what a cynic might call one of the core principles of modern family law.

[Dylan MacVillain]

This is absurd. If I were the judge, it would have been very easy for me to make a decision. That decision would have been to give the baby to his biological father, whether or not he had a new wife. The mother and adoptive parents were and are acting selfishly. They are not thinking of the best interest of the child. What is going to happen to the poor kid when he is told down the road what happened? Some kids react poorly when they are adopted under normal cirucmstance; however, to have knowingly been deprived of growing up with his real father and being barred from seeing him will most likely emotionally devastate the boy.

What's more, based on this statement: "the biological mother said she chose the couple to raise her son because she already knew them and knew they couldn’t have children of their own" I would argue that the biological mother and adoptive parents acted in collusion to use, deceive, and manipulate the biological father. Use: his sperm; deceive: not tell him about the pregnancy; manipulate: get him to pay child support without having custody or even visitation rights.

And people wonder why fathers "kidnap" their own children!!!

[outdoors]

u can see where "fathers who kill" come from-shit like this!

[bobx23456]

u can see where "fathers who kill" come from-shit like this!

And he should start with the agent of Satan in black robes of hell who robbed him of his children.

Blessings

Bob

[yohan]

There is always something new to read in this forum, something I did not know before.

1 -
ADOPTION: should mean, that another person or couple takes a child legally as his/her/their own child/children.

These persons are considered like father/mother, and I ask myself how is it possible to pay child-support, when another man is taking the child over not for custody, but for ADOPTION.

Any child-support should be finished at the date of adoption, it is like the old father is gone, and the new father takes over any responsibility.

2 -
A child - up to birth - belongs legally to the pregnant mother (that I do not agree to that is a different matter) she solely has the right to decide for abortion - after birth, according to UN-child convention, the child does not belong to anybody, it is not like a property or merchandise of the mother/or father.

However a child might be given for adoption immediately after birth out of the decision of the mother, this is considered somewhat in the same sense as an abortion.

In such a case, the father is not relevant, but how can a child be given to abortion and at the same time the father has to pay for its upbringing?

I find however no information, that the biological father has to pay child-support AFTER the adoption was legally carried out correctly.

Generally, in the Western World, fathers have no rights related to their children, but only obligations. Mothers have all rights and no obligations.

Despite the father wants the child, the mother gives it away for adoption.
Even a married man has no claim whatever to children born by his wife, it is not relevant if he is the father or not.

SAD...but what to do?

SOLUTION for our next generation of young men: NO CHILDREN!

This is the only recommendation I can give to young men (despite I am married since over 30 years and I am a father of 2 daughters and take care of a fostergirl)

If you are a man and like children, look around in the poor world beyond your country, and act like a sponsor, offer some support to children, however without any legal obligations

Never sign anything regarding adoption, and never engage in such nonsense like sperm-donor...

The case is sad also by the view of the adoptive parents. They think, adoption is a final decision giving them legal power like real parents, and suddenly the biological father is showing up and is claiming his child back.

Such laws have to be changed...considerably changed. But in feminist countries I am very pessimistic... nothing will happen, only some men will complain to a court....some men will complain? And?....

[Stan]

Truly sickening. The Judge is mistaken...the child's Mom was wrong here.

Why can't cases like this get some help from activist groups and some pro bono legal help? That would encourage challenging laws and help set new precedents.

What is the legal status presently? This should not stand is my view.

[shaazam]

the feminit judiciary is infamous for such crass skewed and inequitable decisions against fathers - I would not hazard a guess as to when the whole "justice system" will be reformed but it won't be too soon

[Percy]

A reasonable chap has to recognise that even the most evil of people can occasionally say something that is right.

Chairman Mao, for instance : revolution comes from the barrel of a gun.

Glenn says " I do recognize that the judge was in a very difficult situation here; and, "I would disagree with the judge’s assertion; and," While the judge insists that mom didn’t do anything wrong; and, "The judge “banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a year".

Judges are paid a small fortune for dealing with difficult situations; their assertions are as usless and irrelevant as anyone else's turds; the mother was wrong as any damned fool disney friggin' cartoon duck can see; and the judge has no business banning a father from his child.

This judge needs a Mao solution to his difficulties. He is as usful to society as a poisoned bacon sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah.

We see these sorts of 'difficulties' every damned day, being dealt with by corrupt incompetents who rob the taxpayer while crucifying men. The lot of them should be shot. There will be no change until a few tens are done away with and a long list - with their names crossed off - circulated to all the other Judges so they know that they are next.