January 31, 2012

Birth fathers want rights, too

An article recently ran in the Salt Lake City Tribune about a birth father, Rob Manzanares, who was lied to by his girlfriend about their child’s birth when she set up an adoption plan in another state and traveled there to deliver their baby without his permission. Although she had already set up the adoption proceedings, once Manzanares realized that his child had been born and that he had no clue about this adoption process, he went to the court system to try and reestablish his rights.

“While Utah’s law does not permit an unwed father to use fraud by the birth mother as a defense for failure to protect his rights,” the article says, “the birth mother’s actions and statements are material in determining what he knew about her plans and when he knew it — and thus whether he was required to act before the birth mother gave consent.”

Because Manzanares had suspicions about his girlfriend, Carie Terry, traveling to Utah to have her baby the high court instructed the lower courts to determine whether Manzanares was an adequate parent, and whether or not he had shown a full commitment to his parental duties. But none of this, including his desire to parent his child and the fact that his rights were relinquished unbeknownst to him, automatically allowed him parental rights of his child.

Unfortunately, cases like this are happening more and more often — the birth father wants to have parental rights, not wanting to give his child up for adoption, but due to hidden technicalities, is unable to properly establish his rights as the baby’s father.

Cityweekly ran a lengthy article in 2009 about this phenomenon, with an assertive subheader declaring: “How Utah’s Adoption Law Takes Babies From The Nation’s Unmarried Fathers.” This article details the many ways in which Utah is much harder on birth fathers, and their freedom to establish their rights as parents, than other states, including:

“That court petition must state a plan for care of the child, that the father offered to pay pre-birth costs related to the pregnancy and that he is willing to pay child support. If he fails to mention either of those last two, it’s gone-baby-gone, even if he actually did pay pre-birth costs and is willing to pay child support. Simultaneously, fathers must also place their name on the Putative Father Registry in the Utah Office of Vital Records and Statistics. In many cases, they can do this any time prior to the birth of a child until the time the mother relinquishes her rights to the child and places it for adoption, which under Utah law can happen 24 hours after the birth. Ohio, on the other hand, gives fathers a minimum of 30 days after the birth.”

There are countless cases that have ended terribly for the birth father, including that of Nikolas Thurmwald, who didn’t realize his girlfriend had an adoption plan until the baby was born on a Saturday. Although he only had 24 hours to appeal the adoption and plead his case, offices were closed on the following Sunday and Monday, which was Labor Day. Utah courts ruled that he didn’t appeal quickly enough and he was left unable to gain parental rights for his child.

It’s a devastating issue, considering how many birth fathers are affected. Of course, countless adoptive parents are ready and willing to love any child that is available for adoption, but no child should be placed for adoption when a willing, fit parent wants, and has been expecting, to raise his child.

What are your thoughts on this issue? What can be changed to make this situation fair for BOTH birth parents in the adoption process? How can agencies help?