radical common sense, HOWLINWOLF's Blog

ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL 17, Virginia Law, FATHERS MUST REGISTER
big brother wuvs ya
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1101
New Column: New Virginia Law Says If You Have Sex You Must Register with the State or Forfeit All Rights to Your Child
August 28th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks
My new co-authored column, Virginia’s New Putative Father Registry Violates Fathers’ Right to Raise Their Own Children (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star & others, 8/16/07) criticizes an outrageous new anti-father Virginia law. The law has been debated in the press, but commentators have missed its central purpose--to remove fathers' rights to prevent their children from being put up for adoption against their will. The law asks any Virginia man who has had non-marital sex to register with the State. Men who fail to register waive all parental rights to children they may have fathered. The column, co-authored with Mike McCormick of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, appears below. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star regarding Fatherhood rights being stripped away (8/16/07), write to letters@freelancestar.com.
Virginia’s New Putative Father Registry Violates Fathers’ Right to Raise Their Own Children By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks Virginia’s controversial new Putative Father Registry law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex in Virginia to register with the State. Supporters say the law will help connect fathers with their children before the children are put up for adoption. Critics see it as another example of the erosion of citizens’ privacy. Both sides miss the real point of the Registry--to remove a father's right to prevent his child's mother from giving their child up for adoption without his consent. Incredibly, under the new law, putative fathers who fail to register waive their right to be notified that their parental rights are being terminated. They also forfeit the right to be notified of the adoption proceedings and to consent to the adoption. Rather than being required to make a legitimate effort to find and notify the father, the state can now simply check the Registry and, if the man has not registered, give his child away. Such violations of fathers’ rights are common. For example, in the widely-reported Huddleston adoption case, Mark Huddleston’s baby boy was adopted out when he was three days old, but Huddleston didn't know the baby existed until two months after his birth. As a New Mexico court later found, the private adoption agency did not notify Huddleston of the pending adoption, thus denying him the chance to raise his son. In an adoption case, the burden of identifying the father should be on the mother. It is the mother, not the father, who is certain to be aware of the child’s birth, and it is the mother who knows (or should know) the baby’s parentage. However, when states have tried to craft measures requiring a mother who seeks to put her baby up for adoption to find and notify the baby’s father, there has been opposition from the National Organization for Women and other women’s groups. Defenders of the Registry justify disregarding fathers with numerous unfair assumptions about men and their intentions. For example, Kerry Dougherty, a prominent Virginia newspaper columnist, asserts: “I think we're being too kind to these men. Guys who don't stick around long enough to find out whether they've caused a pregnancy have terminated their paternal rights. If they know a baby's on the way and then disappear, they aren't fathers…the General Assembly ought to look for ways to strip these irresponsible Romeos of their rights, not invite them to record their random copulations.” One wonders if Dougherty knows anyone who has dated within the last 40 years. It is absurd to think that in modern relationships, when there’s an out-of-wedlock birth it must be because the father ran off. In reality, most unwed biological fathers do care about their children, but often do not know of their existence or are unsure that the children really are biologically theirs. There have been countless adoption cases where these fathers have struggled desperately for the right to raise their own children. One also wonders why a woman who wants to avoid the responsibility of raising a child (and of paying child support) is viewed sympathetically, while a man in exactly the same position is a villain. There are numerous other problems with the Registry. A registrant must provide his social security number, driver's license number, home address, and employer, as well as details about the sexual affair and his sexual partner. This sensitive, personal information will be available to the baby’s mother, the lawyers involved in the adoption, court employees, and anyone able to hack in to the computer system. The law should instead require that an honest, exhaustive search for the father be conducted before an adoption can proceed. This search should include use of the Federal Parent Locator Service, which contains a vast array of information, including the National Directory of New Hires. The FPLS is used to enforce child support, find children involved in parental kidnappings, and to enforce child custody and visitation. State systems are tied into the FPLS, and they are often remarkably effective at finding parents. Fathers have the right to raise their own children. Virginia’s Registry is a shameful attempt to circumvent that right. This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 28th, 2007 at 12:04 am and is filed under Family Law, Fatherhood, Fathers' Rights/Noncustodial parents' rights, Children's Rights, Men and the Media, Sexism, Adoption, Misandry, Gender Issues (Misc.), Bills/Initiatives, Elections, Politics, Court Cases, Single Fathers, American Coalition for Fathers & Children (ACFC). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Related Posts His Side with Glenn Sacks Radio Commentary: New Virginia Law Says If You Have Sex, You Must Register with the State
I Discuss the 'Elian Gonzalez II' Case on the Charles Goyette Show in Phoenix (Audio Available)
New Column: Biden’s Misguided S1515 Will Exacerbate Domestic Violence System’s Problems
Bert Riddick Finally Freed!
An Exception to the Rule--Reporter Does Fair, Honest Job Reporting on 'Deadbeat Dads'
Dad learns about putative father registries the hard way--by losing his son (Part II)
Dad learns about putative father registries the hard way--by losing his son (Part I)
We take rape seriously but refuse to take false accusations of rape seriously
A Feminist's Opinion of This Blog
Shared Parenting Bill 'Exemplifies American values, is held up in Legislature for all the wrong reasons'
Senator Biden Wants to Give Your Ex-Wife a Free Attorney...
Michigan Shared Parenting Activists Ask for Your Help
New Column: Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan’s Kids, Overburdened Court System
Syndicated Columnist Kathleen Parker: Fox's 'Bad Dads' Is a Bad Idea
Bill 'Slaps criminal charges on those who falsely report child abuse in order to influence a custody case'
California Lawyer Magazine: NOW Leader Calls Fathers' Movement 'Dishonest and Dangerous'
Blowback over Our Hillary Clinton/Child Support Reform Article (Part II)
Blowback over Our Hillary Clinton/Child Support Reform Article (Part I)
New Column: Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads
Newspaper Wrings Hands Over Abused Pets While Ignoring Lack of Services for Abused Men
Norwegian Gov. Minister Attacks Shared Parenting, Pushes Feminist Family Law Policy
From 1903: Another Example of How Our Society Never Valued Women or Saw Them as Fully Human
Massachusetts Joins CA., CT. in Passing Legislation to Protect Hamsters Caught in Abusive Relationships
California NOW Launches 'I Love Consensual Sex' Campaign
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part VIII/Conclusion)
Some Thoughts on the New California TV Gay Marriage Ad
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part VII)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part VI)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part V)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part IV)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims These Ads Are 'Offensive to Women'--Are They? (Part III)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims These Ads Are 'Offensive to Women'--Are They? (Part II)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part I)
NOW Leader Slams Glenn over Column on False Rape Accusations
Schwarzenegger Acts to Protect Goldfish, Hamsters Caught in Abusive Relationships
'Even in divorces where a mother has been the family breadwinner and the father has stayed home, a lot of women insist on fighting for sole custody'
The Marriage Movement Is 'Very Dismissive of Non-Custodial Fathers'
An Announcement Regarding Fathers & Families
Feminist Susan Estrich Has a Point About Katie Couric/Middle East Controversy
NOW Sues to Stop Fatherhood Programs
ACFC/NDSPI Removes Key Flaw from North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative
More Eyewitness Accounts of this Weekend's Rally in Washington DC
Speeches from the 'Bringing Children and Families Back Together' DC Rally (Video)
Robert Pedersen's Eyewitness Account of this Weekend's Rally in Washington DC
Activist Jennifer Kuhn's Eyewitness Account of this Weekend's Rally in Washington DC
DC Rally Update: Mike McManus of Marriage Savers Speaks Today
Fundamental Rights Supporters Gain Momentum as Thousands Plan to Rally on Lincoln Memorial
Women & the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative
ACFC Brings Back North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative
Warren Farrell on the Pay Gap: 'If It's About Discrimination, Why Are Young Urban Women Earning More?'
NOW's National Conference July 13-15--'Women Victimized in Family Courts'
Annie's Mailbox: 'My mother is still mad at my father...Mom makes me feel like I can't love them both'
NOW's National Conference July 13-15--'Fast Forward: Women Take Charge'
In Defense of Stephen Baskerville
More Thoughts on Cadillac's Anti-Male TV Ad 'Khakis'
New Column: Fighting NOW's Assault on Parents Targeted by Parental Alienation
Help for Everybody but Us
NOW Portrays Immigrant Men as Wife-Beaters
My Column on the 'Women's Equality Amendment' in Philadelphia Daily News
New Column: Equal Rights Amendment Yes, 'Women’s Equality Amendment' No
'Women are finally figuring out how weak-kneed men really are and are putting them in their place'
New Column: CA Legislators Vote to Protect Pets from Domestic Violence but Deny Services to Male DV Victims
Kim Basinger is Happy with Today's Custody Hearing, and That Probably Means...
NOW Scolds Media for Allowing Alec Baldwin to Talk About Parental Alienation
CANOW Blasts Baldwin, Says Fathers' Groups Support the Patriarchy & Want to Take Away Women's Right to Vote
Warren Farrell on the ’Wage Gap’
Authors of 'Legalizing Misandry' to Speak on 'Coming of Age as a Villain' at Men's Equality Congress
Do You Have a Post-Divorce Parenting Question? Ask Shared Parenting Expert Warren Farrell
I Enjoy Watching Birkhead Gloat a Little--Here's the Video
The Link Between Abortion and Domestic Violence
Boys and the Boy Crisis--Third National Men’s Equality Congress, July 13-14 in Washington D.C.
Helen Ubiñas Gives NOW a Dose of Reality over Its Opposition to Fatherhood Initiatives
Fatherhood Activists to Protest Pizza Box/Deadbeat Dad Campaign
Do Men’s Corporate Bathrooms Constitute Sexual Harassment?
Feminist Domestic Violence Group Equates Child Support Debtors with Batterers
Fathers, the Left and Spitting in the Wind
Warren Farrell's Case for Shared Parenting (Video)
'Fathers' Rights' Used Almost Exclusively by Batterers to Gain Custody of Their Child Victims'
NOW Leader Tells Women to Divorce Their Husbands for Valentine's Day, Take Their Money, 'Hit Them Where It Hurt$'
In Defense of NOW President Kim Gandy
Father Stops Mother from Putting His Son up for Adoption, then Bails
Washington Shared Parenting Bill to Be Heard in Committee This Friday
A Slightly Different 'Blog for Choice'
What Legislators Can Learn from the Movie "Pursuit of Happyness"
False Sexual Abuse Accusations in Divorce: Heads Mom Wins, Tails Dad Loses
New Column: Shockome Syndrome
When Boys Fall Behind in School, Is It 'Breaking Male Dominance'?
Does NOW Believe Mothers Should ALWAYS Win Custody?
Detroit News Readers Discuss CAPA, My Debate With Michigan Right-to-Life
Glenn Discusses CAPA on Radio (Audio Available)
Tags: adoption agency, American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Federal Parent Locator Service, Kerry Dougherty, mark huddleston, National Directory of New Hires, national organization for women, out of wedlock births, Putative Father Registry, Virginia’s New Putative Father Registry
Related Tags: Alex Penelas Arte Moreno Bill Clinton Cuban American National Foundation Elian Gonzalez Fidel Castro his side His Side with Glenn Sacks Janet Reno Jeri B. Cohen Joe Cubas Juan Miguel Gonzalez KLAA Lazaro Gonzalez Maria Perez Marisleysis Gonzalez Rafael Izquierdo
    Email this page Sign-up for Glenn's weekly E-Newsletter   
 
   
 
142 Responses to “New Column: New Virginia Law Says If You Have Sex You Must Register with the State or Forfeit All Rights to Your Child”
Note: The views expressed by readers in the reader comments do NOT necessarily reflect those of Glenn Sacks. The fact that the comment is posted on this blog does NOT signify that Glenn Sacks agrees with it. Posters' views are those of the posters alone--Glenn's views can ONLY be found in the blog post itself, not the comments.   While blog commenters are given great freedom on this blog, there are some rules of moderation. To read those, click here. AnonymousPampleteer Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Seems to me that the mother should be burdened with the legal responsibility of identifying all possible fathers to "her" child. Then the state could contact each and offer him DNA testing to determine paternity. If the mother fails to identify the father accurately (and honestly), then she should be compelled to pay child support to the state to defray the costs of caring for the child and/or pay child support to the adoptive parents. By the way, does the following seem fair: -When a "mother" decides she doesn't want her child, she simply puts the child up for adoption and walks away, no strings attached. -When a "father" says he didn't want to be a father, they attach his paycheck for 20 years, and throw him in jail if he doesn't deliver cash continuously for 20 years. What is wrong with this picture? ze german Says: August 28th, 2007 at 4:11 am
"waive all parental rights to children they may have fathered." Does this include child support? Will he be eligible for child support even if he is said to have forfeited his rights to be a father? Ken Brewer Says: August 28th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Just how far out of balance will we allow the scale of justice to become? Robert Says: August 28th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Men have responsibilities, woman have choices in the best interest of the children. Bring on the next "Strenghtening Families" program that will encourage "responsible" fatherhood and prevent fathers from "abandoning" their children. Michael McCanles Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:27 am
This law is only nominally concerned with identifying paternity. Inst ead it follows a well-worn track used by feminist groups and feminist lawyers: triangulation. You get from angle A to angle C by way of angle B. The point of this out-in-the-open dishonest maneuver is to get what you really are after while diguising the move behind something else. Here, the point is to discourage heterosexual relations between unmarried men and women. There is no question that feminists since the 1960s have been doing their best to separate heterosexual males from heterosexual females. They've been doing this by propagandizing in colleges--now in highschools--for the hatemongering notion that heterosexual males are all rapists, wife-beaters, and murderers (which is why men fight wars). Hostile environment sexual harassment regulations, which are universal from the federal level on down, treats sexual approaches by males to females as presumptively guity of the crime of sex discrimination. That's right: you show your anti-female sex discriminatory intentions by asking a woman out for a date. What this law requires is that males "fess up" to screwiing a female who isn' t his wife by registering with the state. Okay guys, every time you drop your pants, you have to inform a bureaucrat. I'm sure this regulation is challengeable on discriminatory grounds itself--because it doesn't require the same response from females, as well as violating applicable federal and state privacy laws. My point is that too many of the "fathers' rights" advocates keep butting their heads against the issue of legal attacks on the subject of child possession. This misses the point that this is simply another triangulation tactic invented by feminists to support their (pretended) "concern" about mothers. It isn't. These people are anti-male hatemongers and they use and will use any tactic they can find--and they're very cunning in discovering how to do this (they're mainly lawyers after all) to exploit the coercive power of the law in order to do males damage. I suggest a redeployment of mens' groups away from the arguably "sucker" diversion of rights to children to the real enemy, which is organized feminist anti-male hatemongering. Don't be deceived: these women hate you and they've been at war with you since the 1950s and publication of the first feminist tracts in this country. Duy Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Is this registering to be a potential father or registering to be a potential Child Support payer? Savagebongos Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Laws like this one are a cancer that is spreading. And it starts somewhere and in this case, the state of Virginia.
If equal protection under the law cannot / will not be enforced in ANY state....then by all means, let the Feds come in & "help" those misguided states "correct themselves"...is what I would think should be done.
Unfortunately, I think the Feds would ( given their propensity to boil the frog whenever the opportunity presents itself ) side with this constitutional violation. This kind of stuff is big business.....follow the money trail !! george Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:41 am
AP, The problem, as we've seen, is that biological proof or disproof of fatherhood is not useful in family courts. More than once a man has lost rights to children who are biologically his or has been forced to pay for those who are most certainly not his. Why? The case I recall reading about here was that the man hadn't filed an objection or protest early enough. Interesting that 'criminal' cases seem to have little or no limits on when/what can be appealed. But when it comes to 'civil' cases, there are all sorts of rules that must be adhered to. (But only if you are a man. A quick perusal of my divorce/custody situation will show that at least two states are willing to ignore their own procedural rules if it helps my soon to be ex wife.) Now a lawyer will tell you that civil and criminal proceedings are two different things. Which would be a fine argument if it were not for the fact that men (and statistically speaking ONLY men) face jail time and other criminal penalties for a violation of civil decisions. Judi Cochran Says: August 28th, 2007 at 11:01 am
First a caveat : I haven't read the new VA law. However, I can comment that for the most part "putative father registries" are a large benefit to fathers. They do NOT require that a man register just because he had extra-marital sex but rather that he register at the time of the birth of the child if he wants to establish his parental rights from the beginning. When the dad fills in the paperwork for registration at the hospital the child can legally have his last name on the birth certificate, does not have to go through establishing paternity beyond this acknowledgement, and it curtails the ability of the mother to later say "father unknown" and insures that IF the mother decides to place the child for adoption the father will be immediately notified. I hear, on a regular basis, men angry because they've been served with paternity papers or child support notices, men who were never told that they even have to establish custody rights (many think the establishment of child support automatically means they have immediate custodial rights), anger that their name isn't on the birth certificate..............all avoidable for those dads who know there's a baby on the way, those who accept the responsibility of becoming a father, those who are truly interested in raising their child even if the mom can't or doesn't want to, etc. Dads who step up to the plate from the birth of the child, register to protect their rights, want the child to bear their name, ......... in other words, ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY, should have no problem and indeed be grateful that their interests are being looked after. The registries DON'T require that a man register just because he had sex. Actually, it is voluntary and dads complete the registry because they want to be fathers in the full sense of the word. Bluntly put, if a man doesn't want to produce a child, doesn't want the responsibility of parenting and support, then the responsibility needs to start long before the birth of a child............perhaps by buying a box of condoms. If a child is conceived through irresponsible sexual behavior, the pregnancy is not known to the father because the sex was so casual (hey guys....if you actually have a "relationship" with a woman you actually notice she's pregnant) or the dad simply doesn't want to acknowledge the child then what is the problem with having a registry that allows him to say "This is MY child and I want all the rights afforded to me as his father!". If a man suspects he may have impregnated the woman he has the right ... and the responsibility ... to establish himself as the father. Of course the registry, just like any birth registry, requires BOTH parents to fill in the blanks including all the identifiers as they will appear on a birth cetificate and they BOTH sign the paperwork TOGETHER. Neither has to provide intimate details of the sexual contact. I don't quite see the complaint here that it is somehow evil that a father who WANTS his rights, wants the child to bear his name is being "forced" to identify himself. My birth certificate and my children's birth certificates.......and probably all of yours.......identify both parents: SSN, DOB, job titile, address, mother's maiden name. Registries, establishment of rights, acknowledgement of paternity; all these REPLACE birth certificates that say "illegitimate, bastard, father unknown" etc. Don't you think this will all be known if a putative father is served with a paternity action? If you want to conceal your identity from the woman you're having sex with, then perhaps the condom purchase is wise. If you perhaps had irresponsible sex but would choose to parent a child, then the Registry protects that right. If you're a man holding his breath that maybe you'll have to pay support for a child you didn't want the word is still condom. If you're concealing your identity and involvement then exactly how does anyone do an "honest, exhaustive search" to find you? If you know your sexual partner is pregnant you still have the right to acknowledge the child, you still have the right to challenge paternity, and you still have the ability to accept responsibility for the child. This is 2007, there is no reason for "unwanted pregnancy" except the irresponsibility of the two adults. Somehow the reasoning for this column escapes me: Either you want to acknowledge your child and have rights or there is extreme anger that the easiest path to that is offered. If dad is registered (just like he would be if the child were conceived in a marriage) then cases like Huddleston wouldn't happen. What's sad is that it IS 2007 and we're still seeing large numbers of "accidental" pregnancies. If a woman lists "father unknown" on the birth certificate, perhaps she's telling the truth........the responsibility is on both people to at least know who you're having sex with, but today that responsibility isn't there. You're addressing the narrow issue of adoption placement which is an extremely small percentage of all out of wedlock births. Most women keep their babies, and of course they may seek out the father for his share of the responsiblity. If that occurs, then dad has two choices: acknowledge his child, accept responsibility and elect to be a father to the child, or opt out of the father role and complain for 18 years that he's helping support a child he "didn't want". There's no middle ground once a child is born. If a "dad" doesn't want to legally establish himself at the time of birth, then he doesn't have to register, doesn't have to acknowledge the child and doesn't have to give his name to the child. Of course if you think that conception is SOLELY the mother's "fault", then perhaps Sex Ed 101 wasn't offered in your school. I just came back from holding my new granddaughter in the hospital and can't imagine how I'd feel if her father was "unknown", if her father wanted no part of her, if she didn't bear her father's name, if my daughter were very young and faced with raising a baby on her own or if her husband denied being the father or was angry at the responsibility I'm lucky.....I raised responsible chldren. There will never be a question of who my grandchildren's parents are. kjhm Says: August 28th, 2007 at 11:03 am
If you register, please take note of who will have access to your registration. (from the GAQ section of the Virginia Putative Father Registry) If I register with The Virginia Putative Father Registry will this prove that I am the biological father of the
child?
Registering with The Virginia Putative Father Registry does not prove that you are the biological father of the child
that you registered for. You must establish paternity to prove that you are the biological father of the child. Who has access to my registration? The Virginia Putative Father Registry is a confidential database, only the following entities can have access to obtain
information from The Virginia Putative Father Registry: the mother of the child; an attorney representing a party in a
termination of parental rights or an adoption proceeding; a party to an adoption; a child-placing agency; court or
person designated by the court; other states putative father registries; support enforcement; and any agency
authorized by law. Duy Says: August 28th, 2007 at 11:44 am
"Who has access to my registration?" Just about anyone I guess lol Mark Says: August 28th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I'm sorry, but the notion that unwanted pregnancy automatically stims from having "unprotected" sex is the stupidest thing that anyone could possibly say. Unwanted pregnancy is largely the result of people, like you, that promote the myth that condoms are armor for your penis. The reality is, as consumer reports demonstrate, failure rates on condoms (even name brand top of the line) over regular usage is 100 percent. Meaning if you regularly use condoms it is certain you will experience condom failures and that certainly could lead to unwanted pregnancy. No form of birth control can offer 100 percent assurance that it will work. As such unwanted pregnancy is still very much an issue in 2007. Andy S Says: August 28th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Dear Ms Cochran: Your arguments are disingenuous, and blithely ignore the fact that the law will obligate a man to register to protect rights that should not be questioned or come with an expiration date in the first place. Remember that this registry is only useful in circumstances where the parentage is either in doubt or hidden to begin with; in the cases where a birth is planned by both parties and hidden by neither, this law does nothing. In cases where the paternity is in dispute or hidden, the failure to register could cause harm in more cases than adoption. When a mother separates from the father before he learns of the pregnancy, she could marry another man and the true father would never have rights to his child; a court could expediently reference this law to deny his involvement (right to time with the child) after the child's existence is known, ensuring the mother has maximum time which equates to maximum economic benefit for such a mother; a mother who moves away and chooses to hide the pregnancy, with the father learning only when the child is two months old, then the mother dies in an unrelated accident, and the father legally has no rights (then Anna Nicole's lawyer would have won his gambit, and the real father would have been shut out); adoption is just one more case. Your argument is not helped by saying that adoption is too small a percentage for us to be concerned about the injustice. Like it or not, many pregnancies are not planned. Also, whether you agree or not, potential mothers can and do deceive men to become pregnant; they can and do deceive men regarding the parentage of a child. Women who deceive in this fashion should not be given legal cover after a nine-month window, essentially a nine-month statue of limitations for paternity fraud. Unless a man registers, which, especially in these circumstances, is unlikely. In non-parenting law, it would be equivalent to electing a president for twenty years, just because he or she managed to keep a convincing fraud for nine months. Evil deceptive people exist in both sexes; none should be given a pass just because they are skilled at not getting caught for a year. Andy S Says: August 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Glenn- A link to the law would be useful here. Kris Di Francesca Says: August 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
It seem's that most of you against this Law have been Ill informed and should be greatful such a law is passing in another state. What you see as a harmful law is actually a step towards family law reform. My situation is one that amounts to the tallest roller coaster in the world I went through the highest of high's and the lowest of low's with my ex. I was lucky enough to be on one of the upward streches at the time my son was born and she allowed me to sign the birth certificate and the Paternity affidiavit and be a part of the birth of my son. However this putative fathers registry would have saved me in ohio from having to climb an even taller mountain in my custody case. It would have been very simple for my ex to not allow me at the hospital for the birth of my son however because of the putative father registry should could never have prevented my son from carrying my name or from my name and signature being on his birth certificate. This system does not force any unwilling father to sign up but instead it helps those of us who want to be part of our childs life, be part of our childs life. It eliminates the costly expenses of DNA testing for a child you know is your's prior to being able to start and fight for child custody. It eliminates the ability for a mother to put a child up for adoption with out your knowledge. No one should stand against this passing, in fact if you have children or every want to be an active parent you should stand behind this law because someday it might just help you, a family member or perhaps even one of your children. Andy your argueing against your own point. I agree that we should not have to register for something that should be our right with out registering. But the fact is we dont have those rights, and if the first step of progress is to set up a register to protect and provide rights to fathers who normally would have had no rights under current law, then stand behind it. Its taken a long time to get to this point so lets let progress occur instead of harming something helping the progress we want. What you dont understand is this registry has no negative points for fathers if you do not register you are in the same boat you were in prior to this law passing. Meaning you have to go request DNA prove you are the father and then procede. How is it a bad thing that someone says father's should have the right to sign there birth certifiate and let it be know legally that they are the father of a child even when the mother wants you to have no part? Mark, I have a child that came from an unintended pregnancy and the fault lies on my self and my ex. We could have taken measures but we did'nt. If she says she was on the pill I should have used a condom, the list goes on, but I do believe that using both probably makes the odd's 100,000 to 1 that you end up with a child, in any event its possible to still end up with a child using condoms and the pill, and thats were responsability falls into our laps, we still chose to have premarital sex. kjhm Says: August 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Andy this may help: Who Created The Virginia Putative Father Registry?
The 2006 General Assembly passed into law Section 63.2-1249, which established the Putative Father Registry with
the Virginia Department of Social Services. The purpose of the registry is to protect the rights of a putative father who
wants to be notified in the event of a proceeding for adoption of, or the termination of parental rights regarding a child
he may have fathered. Andy S Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Thanks, kjhm. Kris- The biggest problem with this is the obligation to register, and forfeiture of rights if the registration is not done. If you truly are in the same boat, without registering, as before, then my difference is quibbling. (As a libertarian, though, I don't like new governmental obligations to register, though--- in your own case, if the register did not exist but you knew the pregnancy existed, you could challenge the birth certificate or petition a family case prior to the birth, something which I bet you would have to do even if you had registered and had been kept away from the hospital.) But some mothers actually work to hide their pregnancy, go to live in another city or state, or deceive men (and themselves) into believing the child is from another man. The deceived men, some of whom may suspect the deception but some of whom may have no idea, should not forfeit any rights because they fail to sign up--- in advance of the ability to detect the fraud, mind you --- on a government list. If it is optional, and does not waive rights by failing to register, then I agree with the usefulness. But Glenn's article here (and all others that have seen) mention the waiver of rights if it is not done, which just seems an invitation for those who want to abuse the legal system--- if they cover their tracks for nine months, the other side loses. That's bad. And if you had been deceived, or if you were not informed of the state registry, you would have had zero rights ten days after birth. Do you still think it's a good idea? Andy S Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Here are some other spooky problems with the registry--- which I copied and pasted straight from a blog that I got 3 or 4 clicks away from here. I'll stop posting for a while, that's enough of my voice and postings for a while... Re: Favorite new Virginia law (Coming in July 2007)
Posted by: the weatherman (IP Logged)
Date: April 04, 2007 09:51AM cool ill register myself against several child-baring age women and if they have a kid ill says its mine and theyll have to pay me to go away Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message
Re: Favorite new Virginia law (Coming in July 2007)
Posted by: Lurker. (IP Logged)
Date: April 04, 2007 10:47AM How do I prove that I had sex with her? Do I have to bring pictures\videos? LOL I should of registered the last time Anna Nicole Smith was in town. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2007 10:49AM by Lurker.. Lane Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I can't see how this registry connects fathers to children. If you really want a registry then require women to do so. After all, they are obviouslly aware of their own pregnancy. Is it possible the state has come to relize that they can't trust a women to be honest or that expecting her to know who she slept with is to much to ask. Why wouldn't a woman know the mans name if he knows hers? penumbrook Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I've sent my letter off to the Free Lance Star. I used to be a Virginia resident. I left because Virginia failed to protect my rights as a Father when my ex abducted our children. It seems as if the Nut-Wing political party has only solidified their hold on the Commonwealth that once was home to the Founding Fathers of this country. Lane Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
To the person who thinks we should be greatful for this law. As Glenn has stated, many men have fought adoption agencies. They have ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY (Cochran) and it didn't mean a thing. If you think this registry changes that you are ill-informed. They could jump on a trampoline waving their arms as they pass the window yelling I'm the Dad. If begging to raise your child isn't an acknowledgement then what is? Andrew Day Says: August 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I don't see how legislation like this leaves the desk of the feminist out basket without the next stop being the trashcan when presented to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense. There are already very good points made as to how this negatively affects Fathers. Using their own logic against them though; wouldn't it be fair to say that women need to register all of their sexual encounters as well, and if they fail to do so, they will not be eligible to collect child support? I'm not advocating the flip-side here, because in both cases; the children lose. Aren't there any legislators left who remember that these laws were meant to better the lives of our kids? Al Says: August 28th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Judi Cochran said: "Bluntly put, if a man doesn't want to produce a child, doesn't want the responsibility of parenting and support, then the responsibility needs to start long before the birth of a child............perhaps by buying a box of condoms. If a child is conceived through irresponsible sexual behavior, the pregnancy is not known to the father because the sex was so casual (hey guys....if you actually have a "relationship" with a woman you actually notice she's pregnant) or the dad simply doesn't want to acknowledge the child" From this statement that you listed above in your comment, I am to assume that you think that just because a man had casual sex and didn't think that he would be a father, then if he finds out later on in time that he produced a child, and he wants to have paternal rights to that child, that he should be denied that because: a.) he had casual sex and didn't think that he produced a child, and or b.) He didn't have a relationship with the woman to notice she was pregnant. Basically, you are saying that because a man didn't have a relationship outside of a sexual one with the mother, that he would be a bad father for a child and therefore should not have any parental rights to a child. WTF?!?
Nobody says that a woman who just has casual sex with a man and gets pregnant (even if she had no intention of having a child) should lose custody of that child when it is born because she didn't think that she would become pregnant and ..."the sex was so casual". The problem here is that, while a woman WILL know that she is pregnant and can make a conscious decision about what she wishes to do in regards to her parental responsibility (i.e. abortion, adoption, motherhood), a man can easily be unaware that he is a soon-to-be father. A man shouldn't be denied paternal rights and responsibilities just because he didn't know that he helped make a child and thus didn't register for this potential result. If he was not informed about the pregnancy, then he may very well be unaware of it. And if he is unaware about it, that fact does NOT make him less deserving of his rights as a father. One could say that a woman should be responsible for informing all her lovers of their potential "fatherhood" when she finds out that she is pregnant. After all, one would think that she knows all the men that she slept with during the time of conception. Basically, it all boils down to this. You think that every man should have to register as a potential father when he has sex with a woman, and if he does not do this, then he forfeits his rights as a father if that said woman becomes pregnant and gives birth. Well, I think that if a man is not informed of the pregnancy and birth, then he has had no consent as to his paternal rights or the forfeit thereof. Dismayed Says: August 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
What idiot proposed and/or sponsored this choice piece of legislation? We should start a nationwide movement to impeach these imbeciles. Every elected official swears an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. If they don't, they're eligible for impeachment. The dolt who drafted this bill probably has never even READ the constitution. I say, let's get rid of the bums. Sometimes, when I read Glenn's column these days, I feel like I'm ready a treatment for a way-out, wacky hollywood screenplay that no one will ever produce because it's just to stupid and far-fetched. What's this nation of ours coming to? Michael McCanles Says: August 28th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Judi Cochran says: "First a caveat : I haven't read the new VA law. However, I can comment that for the most part "putative father registries" are a large benefit to fathers. They do NOT require that a man register just because he had extra-marital sex but rather that he register at the time of the birth of the child if he wants to establish his parental rights from the beginning. " However the Sacks article clearly states the following: "Virginia’s controversial new Putative Father Registry law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex in Virginia to register with the State. Supporters say the law will help connect fathers with their children before the children are put up for adoption. Critics see it as another example of the erosion of citizens’ privacy. Both sides miss the real point of the Registry--to remove a father's right to prevent his child's mother from giving their child up for adoption without his consent." In short, the situation is precisely what I described in my comment above: the law requires that the state be informed every time a male has extra-marital sex. The issue of fathers, child access, etc. is at best secondary , and is arguably what I said it was: the attempt of the state to place a barrier between males and females having sex. It doesn't require that a female so register, so of course we have a possible 14th amendment violation as well as a violation of the First Amendment protection against bills of attainder--two things I add to my description above. I repeat my adjuration: forget the child access issue for the purposes of reading such laws: they're not about child support, etc. Whatever use moms may have for such laws for their own purposes, their purposes are not the purposes of the anti-male hatemongering feminist lawyers, activists, and politicos who put such laws in place. I've spent 11 years researching how "dominance" feminists think and operate--having prevoiusly spent 25 years living with them in academe close up and personal (both as faculty and as feminist students in my classes: a very ugly experience with some very ugly people), and am preparing a list of articles once my "sting operation" against the Office of Civil Rights of the Dept. of Education re: hostile environment sexual harassment regulations is launched, demonstrating from some of the incredible mass of academic feminist publications that they hate heterosexual males' guts and that they act accordingly. A number of them are lesbians, with their own particular brand of sexual politics to pursue. When I see how fathers on the various Glenn Sacks sites react to the things done by the state in the name of "protecting" the rightrs of females, my heart bleeds for them. But they have not got the right snake by the tail. Feminist legal theory and feminist lawyers are by this point in time a major force in lobbying anti-male hate regulations into being, and likewise staffing the federal and local regulatory agencies that administer them. I recognized the Virginia law the moment II caught a whiff of it. Make males more responsible? Yeah, sure. Make males think twice before having sex with a female--that's where the smell truly emanates from. Lorraine Says: August 28th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Virginia isn't the only state with bizarre laws-Kentucky is the worst. They condone parental kidnapping and whoever has the child-loses ALL their rights. The problem of custody, child support & parental rights are NOT exclusive to men. Kris Di Francesca Says: August 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Its sad to see and its harder to accept that the reason we have made such small steps in family law reform has to do with the fact that we fight for progress and then fight the progress because its not the area we want. First of all if you are not married and your long time girl friend, new girl friend or one night stand gets pregnant, as a father you have absolutly no rights. She can choose to have the child and raise him/her, choose to abbort the child and choose to put the child up for adoption, she can choose to let you be part of the birth, she can choose to keep you informed and allow you to participate in the childs life. As a man you can choose to hide from the situation and let the courts eventually get child support from your monthly income, you can choose to actively seek legal custody, but aside from either running and hiding from responsabilities or facing them through court you cant choose to do anything else with the child that the mother will not allow... If the registry offends you that much then simply dont register. If you are a soon to be father and the women won't let you have anything to do with the child against your wishes then its in your best interest to register. While I did not have to use the registry to get my name on my son's birth certificate the fact that I signed the birth certificate and the paternity affidavit associated with the registry saved me allot of head ache. My ex first tried to have the court dismiss the custody case saying that I had never established paternity. If the registry did not exist in ohio its true I never would have established paternity because with out the registry its the expensive DNA test. Why would any of us when things are going well pay for a DNA test of a child we knew was our's? But because the registry exists in OH, all I had to do was submit my paternity affidavit number to the court to show her sworn affidavit was bogus and the case is still pending. Other wise the case would have been dismissed I would have had to request a DNA test and instead of being a good deal into my custody case I would probably still be waiting on the first hearing Bobby Says: August 28th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I am not a father and will probably never be at the rate things are going. However, I have very strong feelings about issues like this. A very close friend has been deeply affected by the unfair, discriminatory, and anti-male family law regulations in Washington State. That said, I wish to only remind folks of a situation that arose here in California many years ago that had nothing to do with family law. When California outlawed assault rifles they "accommodated" those who already owned them legally by requiring them to "register" their guns with the state. A concern was raised that the registration records would be used in a later confiscatory effort. Supporters of the registration program promised that no such thing would ever happen and that the records were strictly confidential. Now let's fast-forward to about eighteen months after the registration deadline. A state legislator proposed a law that would use the aforementioned registration records to identify everybody in the state with an assault rifle and demand that they surrender their guns to law enforcement. In other words, the records were now going to be used to confiscate the guns. State legislators were in favor of this law and it was gaining support. Then law enforcement agencies across the state started asking who would go out and confiscate the guns that had not been surrendered. The new law required those same local police to be the ones who would be saddled with that task. When law enforcement heard this they gave a resounding "NO!" and, eventually, the law was rejected and hasn't come back to my knowledge. To get to the point of the above story, today the gathering of these data are "said" to be for noble purposes (yeah, right), but what such personal and private data could be used for in the future by both government and non-government groups is, perhaps, what scares me most. Extra-marital relations are among the questions asked about during an investigation for a security clearance. If an applicant has been playing around and people tell an investigator about it, then an applicant will almost certainly be denied a "Secret," "Top Secret," "Q," or "QQ" level clearance. And the agency investigating never has to tell the applicant why they were denied. It is also a topic of investigation for people applying for various state and federal licenses (like real estate licenses here in California). A database such as described would be an ideal place for investigators to look and it would only apply to men (read that as discriminatory against men). Such laws are the tools of POLICE STATE governments all over the world. Be scared, be angry, exercise your responsibilities as a citizen of this nation and tell legislators that voting for laws like this one will assure that you will vote and campaign against them. They do respond to those kinds of threats (promises). Sorry if this dragged on, but I consider the parallel issue of government data gathering to be of critical importance. Right up there with FATHER'S RIGHTS. Kris Di Francesca Says: August 28th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
AL Simply put, you missed the point! if you you were an unmarried father you have no rights.... Your rights begin when YOU petition the court for custody. The paternity affidavit gives you rights that you did not have prior to the paternity affidavit like being able to sign the birth certificate.... If you choose not to register you are in the same boat you would have been in prior to the law passing.... All this does is put you one step higher in the family law system then you were prior to the registry, if you choose not to your start at the bottom and its a long climb so I will take the free stair and be happy for now. I still want more progress but this is atleast a step in the right direction Kris Di Francesca Says: August 28th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Bobby the gun registration and this one are not even on the same page..... A gun owner who wants to be legal followed the registry and it possibly screwed them, the criminal who already has an illegal fire arm did not register and when he is caught he faces felony charges. the registry, is for father's who want to be father's and want to have rights from day one, its for fathers who want to be part of there childrens life and are either going to live out there days with the woman as a family or are going to end up in family court battling it out... The registry DOES NOT require every father on the planet to register so for those of you who want nothing to do with a child you created simply dont register... On the child's birth certificate fathers name will be blank and if the mother goes for child support or welfare she will simply list you and you can be upset when they garnish your wages Andy S Says: August 28th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Yes, but Kris, it eliminates your rights if you do not register. Registry is a real issue for people who care about a free society, but it isn't the biggest problem with this. The biggest problem is that your rights are stripped by inaction. All it takes is a person who is unaware of the law, or a computer glitch one day, or a person who is sincerely fooled, for him to lose standing as a parent. The law ELIMINATE the rights if a father does not register within 10 days of birth. It is good that it helped you. But someone in your exact situation with less knowledge of the government process would have been screwed. The option to be proactive can have its uses. The stripping of rights by not registering is diabolical. Bobby Says: August 28th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Kris, Perhaps the gun thing seemed a bit off-topic, but, in fact, I believe it illustrates a very important point and that is why I presented it. The point being made was absolutely not about guns (as should have been obvious from the next paragraph) but about the fact that the government data gathering represented by this new law is just one more example of how some law that is claimed to be helpful to a group is, in reality, an opportunity for future government and legal system abuses. If only males are being "registered" then what is to prevent, in the future, some government agency or lawyer from obtaining these data and using them against some guy who registered in good faith but had the fact that he registered used as evidence against him in some future litigation? No matter how one tries to color such laws, they still stink and smack of totalitarianism. Wearing blinders to this issue will only lead to the further erosion of privacy and our rights. In other words, this is a Constitutional issue. "A people who would trade their liberties for security shall have neither." - Ben Franklin DanH Says: August 28th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
To Kris Di Francesca:
It’s clear you feel your situation went the best it possibly could. I and many others do not agree your advice is all that sound. First, stop with the carping on the cost of a DNA test. It’s less than all but one month’s most meager child support payment. It is the cheapest money you can spend. Second, with a DNA test, you are assured you are the biological father, which is the cornerstone of this whole deal, is it not? Third, Lord help you if a year from now in an argument she says you are not the father and you go down the path of trying to force a DNA test at that point. Fourth, laws exist that allow a man to determine, by DNA testing, if the baby is his or not.
(However, this only applies to those men who put in the time to retain skilled representation willing to stand up to a family court judge, such as Jerilyn L. Borack, sister to California State Senator Sheila Kuehl, who is also a real piece of work, and force her to follow Section 7630 (c) as it is written and do the DAN test per Section 7551. The Uniform Parentage Act of 2000 allow this but Judge Borack rules in favor of the mother no matter which way it is then issues an unrequested injunction preventing DNA testing in the future. Judge Borack then tells you to get counseling before again coming before her court.) DanH Mike Says: August 28th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I think men should CONSIDER providing their DNA only after he has seen that the mother has. DanH Says: August 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Mike,
A DNA paternity test to legal standards is $350 and is routinely done between only man and child. The mother’s participation is purely optional and not worth any hassle trying to secure when the results are to the fourth decimal place between just the two participants. If you are planning on any action to include yourself in the child’s life, this is the document to start with, not some ratty piece of paper from an idiot state agency. The next piece of paper is the child's birth certificate with the biological father's name on it, which the court can order, not some ratty piece of paper from an idiot state agency. Courts Rule. DanH Robert Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
This law, like "the best interest of the children" law that the "family" court uses every day is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The rights of parents to the car, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247: U.S.D.C. of Michigan, (1985). Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982). The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538. D.C. Conn. (1981). Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NF. 2d 858; 68Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977). Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205: US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984). Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973). The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952). No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child. Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976). A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S. 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983). A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983). Kris Di Francesca Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
If you do not register what rights do you have? None Before the registry if you do not register what rights do you have? None Its simple it only helps a father in a situation were he wants to be a parent and the mother is unreasonable and will not allow him even the simplest involvement of signing the birth certificate.... The cost of the DNA test could be 1$ its the fact that prior to a registry a father who wanted to gain any form of custody over his child had to petition the court for a DNA test. Once that was approved he could move on.... With most contested custody cases taking well over a year why would a father who wants to be involved and is willing to go through the court process to assure his involvement not be thankful that any new law can remove atleast 1 road block from his path? Again its simple if you dont want to be involved or aknowledge paternity or that you are the father of the child you simple do not sign up... DanH Says: August 28th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
To Kris Di Francesca
You are totally full of bull BLEEP.
Registering is an attempt at an end-around of men's rights.
Try to pull it off with the wrong man and it will be thrown out of court.
It's simple: Ignore this piece of crap and the people who are trying to shove it down your throat. DanH Mark Says: August 29th, 2007 at 12:42 am
The issue is really very simple. Family law, espeically as it relates to parental rights, was designed to deal with the break up of an existing marriage. As we all know it has failed to even do that correctly. Much less does it deal with issues related to modern soceity like wide spread casual sex and the bastard children resulting from the occassional birth control failure. Laws like this registry are merely half assed attempts by law makers to try and "catch up" with the times. The reality is instead of further incursion into family life the state merely needs to remove itself from family life completely. Judi Cochran Says: August 29th, 2007 at 2:00 am
OK. I have read the VA statute and the case commentary. (Article 7 - 63.2-1222 and 1249 ) and I have looked at the form. "Men who have been sexually active with someone who they are not married to are required to register........IF....they want to know if the potential child is being put up for adoption or if the mother is looking to terminate the father's parental rights." "A possible father has 10 days from the child's BIRTH to register, though there are other circumstances in which that timeframe differs." NOTE: Within 10 days of BIRTH, not 10 days of having sex. If he is certain of his role in a pregnancy and wants to protect his rights to the child at birth, in VA he can register in advance of the birth and INSURE against the mom placing the child for adoption or in any way obstructing his rights if he has chosen to invoke them. To register, men are asked to fill out a one-page form or register online. The form asks for information such as SSN, thnicity and information on where and when they think they conceived the child. (NOTE: They are asking that they be acknowledged as the father within 10 days of the birth.) The form asks the father to state the city and state and approximate date of conception of the child. This is merely to further establish that he has reasonable belief that he is the child's father. It does not establish paternity, only DNA does that, but it does establish that he may have parental rights to the child. (However, a dad can sign an affidavit of paternity at the time of birth, agreeing to forego DNA testing.) The form also asks for all the same information on the mother and further asks for identifying information on the child. This moves dad further up the ladder if mom is saying he couldn't be the father. Sen. Jay O'Brien, the patron of the VA legislation, states that while the registry shifts responsibility to the fathers, it also protects their rights. It protects the paternity interests of the father. It means that NO adoption attorney can proceed without checking the registry and a birth mother can't go anywhere in VA to gat an adoption if the putative father has registered. You all jumped on Kris about the fact that the Ohio Registry saved him a from a long legal climb regarding his parental rights. Without it, he would have had to first establish paternity, even though there was no question he is the father, then be immediately hit with a child support order and THEN and ONLY THEN he would have had to file for custody. Because of the Registry, instead of a year into the process and possibly getting some temporary visitation with his son, he instead was able to counter the claim that he "had established no rights" and proceed very quickly to temporary orders, extended summer visitation and is moving through the courts toward a solid custody order no matter what games the mom has tried to play. He may or may not be ordered to pay child support in the future but that will depend on the outcome of the custody case. Is it fast enough for any dad who wants to be part of his child's life. No, it's never fast enough. But that long climb without the Registry would mean that he could have lost a year or more in his baby's life and a longer period of time attempting to have his son bear his last name. Some of you pulled bits out of context with what I wrote earlier. If you read it you should note that I put equal blame on both parents. Of course I am aware that birth control fails, that casual sex isn't the only cause of "accidental" pregnancy, that relationships fail, etc. However, before the mom held ALL the cards, and the Registries are finally dealing a hand to dads. Some might lose their rights if they know nothing of the pregnancy and there will be those dads who learn of a child years after an adoption. The Registry is free. A DNA test is not terribly expensive and is the definitive answer for dads who wish to deny the paternity or who may be uncertain. They can still have a DNA test and register within the allotted time if they choose to parent the child. At least their rights are protected. I don't know of any jurisdiction that tests ONLY the putative father and the child........DNA testing is done on all 3 parties.....mom, dad and child.....in all 50 states. It is definitive (unless one parent happens to be a Chimera). As Kris said, if you don't want to be a father, don't believe you could be a father and/or don't think your rights need to be protected, then by all means don't register. I've skimmed large number of documents and opinions regarding the Virginia and other states registries. There appears to be a running thought in many of the articles that says, "The problem with the registries is that most people don't know they exist." I'm rather confused: There is, on one prong, the desire to empower un-wed fathers and protect their rights. On prong 2, there is anger that legislation is actually being written to address this issue. Prong 3, dads lose children to adoption because they had no ability to make themselves known. Prong 4, there is anger that legislation is actually being written to address this issue. Prong 5, a dad comes forth and says the Registry protected his rights. Prong 6, there is anger that the legislation helped him and how dare he try to explain the value. My confusion: Do you want your rights protected or is it more productive (?) to rail at any progress that appears to be attempting to balance the scale. That's a rhetoric question. DanH: I do believe you have to have access or rights to a child BEFORE you can have a DNA test without the mother's involvement. Keep in mind that your "ratty piece of paper" just might enable you to have the right and the ability to accomplish your goal of being a part of your child's life no matter how obstreporous the mom is. Robert Says: August 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Virgina or any other state, according to the Constitution, can't "grant" or take away custody or parental rights without due process! deborah Says: August 29th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Here is a blog posted on MySpace - From: Father fighting to stop adoption of his baby girl
Date: Aug 26, 2007 3:32 PM My friends site - who was looking for the identity of the people who have his son - has been taken down due to the request of Larry from Wood Crapo Law firm. Me thinks this is "Larry Jenkins" from Wood Crapo. Larry Jenkins is the lawyer representing the Adoption Center of Choice. The Adoption center of Choice has Cody O'Deas child. This makes three. Cody, Bryn, and now Joshua. The pattern with this agency is starting to come out into the open in my opinion. To me, it looks like this agency is not interested in a child being with a father who wants to raise them - but rather the "adoption" sale of the baby. (these are only my opinions and in this country we have the right to have opinions and free speech) These are only THREE men that I personally know about and are in contact with. There are many more that have already been to court and have lost - and possibly more going through the process right now. Some of you may not know about Bryn. He contacted the ODea family about a week ago and is also trying to get his daughter back from this particular agency. Please find it in your heart to write to uag@utah.gov on behalf of all three of these men and repost this to spread the word. Their links are below. Bryn is in the process of creating a website for himself. He will temporarily be on the babyselling site as well. The text posted was a letter written by him to his state government. Cody http://www.myspace.com/babyselling
Cody http://www.babyselling.com/
Bryn http://www.babyselling.com/
Joshua http://www.myspace.com/CanYouNameThesePeople deborah Says: August 29th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Joshua http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.vi
ewprofile&friendid=171124679&MyToken=57ebcb8a-ed1e-4d24
-9211-cbb4faf6e9ce george Says: August 29th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Robert, Quite wrong, or have you never sought nor been on the receiving end of an ex parte motion? Robert Says: August 29th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Yes George, I have.
But, because the laws are in place dosen't make them Constitutional.
The domestic violence laws allows the family courts to circumvent the Constitution by lowering the standards for arrest and prosicution. It's now up to the accused to prove that the accusation isn't true.
The fact that our government has abandon the Constitution as a guide is the REAL issue that we should ALL be concerned with. george Says: August 29th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Sorry, I missed the phrase "according to the Constitution" in your original. I agree 100% with you that family courts are a travesty, and the judges would have been first in the stocks (or gallows) following the American Revolution. Michael McCanles Says: August 29th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Judi Cochran says: (Quoting Virginia statute under discussion here) "Men who have been sexually active with someone who they are not married to are required to register........IF....they want to know if the potential child is being put up for adoption or if the mother is looking to terminate the father's parental rights." "A possible father has 10 days from the child's BIRTH to register, though there are other circumstances in which that timeframe differs." NOTE: Within 10 days of BIRTH, not 10 days of having sex. If he is certain of his role in a pregnancy and wants to protect his rights to the child at birth, in VA he can register in advance of the birth and INSURE against the mom placing the child for adoption or in any way obstructing his rights if he has chosen to invoke them. The "IF" condition of course puts a different light on the requirement, andt that means that the original McCormick/Sacks article generating this string was at best incomplete and at worst misleading. There is still, however, the point to be made that the phrasing of the opening sentence--focusing on whether or not the male has had extra-marital intercourse and tying informing the state of that fact to some hypothetical future (not all intercourse leads to pregnancy)--which raises the suspicion that what the state is trying to do is regulate extra-marital sex. I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough feminist-inspired legislation and the feminist arguments and commentary published in the law journals supporting same to recognize the kind of sleazy link-ups spawned by legal requirements that in themselves don't explicitly mention them. I'm referring to the current state of hostile environment sexual harassment laws and regulations. Nowhere do we find explicitly stated in promulgated regulations that the purpose of these regulations is to discourage heterosexual males approaching females. However, all one has to do is read the academic feminist literature to learn that these people are in fact not simply anti--heterosexual males but against heterosexual intercourse. Only fanatics like Dworkin and MacKinnon and their followers among current "dominance feminists" are willing to come right out and say that all heterosexual activity is a form of sadomasochism. The 1970s brouha about feminist lesbians being sadomasochistic ultimately undercovered the notion that so-called "radical" faminists were convinced that male-female sexual relations necessarily involve sadistic sexual practices is the real source of all this in later feminist literature and activism.. My point is that reading the Va statute the way Judi Cochran does--presumably taking it as a harmless legal if-then requirement--is simply naive. The fact of the matter is that feminist lawyers are as shiftly and dishonest as the day is long. Never, never will you find them saying in public that sexual harassment law is intended to drive a cultural barrier between heterosexual males and females. Instead they hide this under the strained interpretation that deduces sexual harassment from the Civil Rights Act's forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex. MacKinnon in her groundbreaking 1979 book on the subject , however, made it clear:: hetersoexual intercourse is all a form of male "domination" and the use of that domination to impose sexual intercourse on unwilling females for the purposes of sexual pleasure derived from domination and inflicting sexual pain on females. Does SM appear explicitly in any sexual harassment regulations? What do you think? And it gets worse--and funnier. The main model that 1970s feminists were invoking for describing heterosexual male sexual activity were the novels of the Marquis De Sade. The great unaknowledged foundation of current anti-male dominance feminism is the novel "Justine." If was from this novel pre-eminently and from other writings of the 18th-century French "sexual experimenter" that 1970s feminists derived their notion of what heterosexual sex is all about. It's about males dominating females--and that means (what else) sex discrimination! So when MacKinnon published "Sexual Harassxment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrmination" which was used by then chair of the EEOC committee that first introduced sexual harassment as a form of violation of the Civil Rights Law of 1964, namely Eleanor Holmes Norton, what that committee read was a legal text full of ersatz social psychology in which the (unnamed) Marquis De Sade was tacitly referenced as the ultimate authority on what males do to females when they have sex with them. So when some state legislature tells every male to register with the state after he sleeps with a women he's not married to, I immediately skip over the supposed "purpose" of doing so, and look to the kind of thing that feminist lawyers and politicos do , all in the name of "equity" and "justice." Whatever is to be gained by such registration vis-a-vis paternity issues is--in my earlier "triangulation" metaphor--merely a side trip or feint in one direction in order to go in another. The real purpose of such a requirement? To put a significant burden on the male that he has to think about the next time he goes hom with a woman after bar time. Judi Cochran Says: August 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Michael... I am not being naive or "interpreting" the statute. The "IF" is there for the putative fathers who want to assert their rights to a child. The statute is for those fathers. I see too many dads who weren't married to the mother of their child and learn pretty quickly that they have no legal status. The registries allow those dads to have that status, which puts their foot in the door to custody rights. If a man does not want rights to a child he may have fathered, is not interested in pursuing his rights or doesn't care what the mother does with the child, then simply put he doesn't have to "sign up". Somehow Registry has gotten twisted into Reporting Sexual Activity. You register IF you think you fathered a child and want parental rights. You register IF you think you fathered a child, want parental rights and are concerned that the mother may place your child for adoption without your knowledge or consent. What part of protecting fathers' rights and giving them a mechanism to assert those rights do you find so distasteful? The statute is simple: If you have sex with a woman you aren't married to and want your parental rights protected, then you register. If you have sex with a woman you aren't married to and DON'T want parental rights then you don't register. Now I hear "If you don't register you waive your parental rights." If you don't want to assert your rights then what's the problem? If you don't want to have to "think" after last call, nothing is compelling you to. It's also sad that the females in the picture don't want to have to "think" either. It's also sad that if you're in VA and you think this statute means you have to register after each sexual encounter then you haven't even grasped the intent. Interpret the "purpose" any way you want. But "think" for a moment about how many men who would welcome the opportunity to be in a child's life just might have a new way to assert their rights. If a woman chooses to place a child for adoption and the father would like the opportunity to say No and be a father, registering this intent means he will have that opprtunity. Judi Cochran Says: August 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
For Lorraine in KY: Kentucky DOES NOT condone parental abduction. (KY.REV.STAT.ANN 509.070) It is a felony and has been since 1984. In 1991 the custodial interference laws were boosted by a stronger extradition statute for parental abduction in 1991 (KY.REV.STAT.ANN. 440.375) Kentucky has been actively prosecuting this crime since the statute was enacted, and was an early driving force in establishing clearing houses, training law-enforcement and boosting the remedies for the pattern of behavior in the family court. There have been some revisions and "boosts" to the code since 1991. So, you must be referring to a case where either one parent had no legal status to begin with or where the "left-behind" parent had absolutely no knowledge of the laws. Pull up the Missing Children in KY lists and look at all the parents who have been charged with felony custodial interference. Yes, whoever has the child "wins" if the other parent does nothing to invoke the remedies and assert his rights. I can't imagine what the Kentucky "bizarre law" that you refer to is. Michael McCanles Says: August 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Judi Cochran says: ". . .i f you're in VA and you think this statute means you have to register after each sexual encounter then you haven't even grasped the intent." I think the statement is at best ambiguous on the number of times you have to register. I see nothing in the statute that negates my interpretation. "What part of protecting fathers' rights and giving them a mechanism to assert those rights do you find so distasteful?" I've already stated at length why I find it distasteful. That is because I find the "purpose" of the statute (as you distinguish from "intent") to be at the very least suspect. You haven't responded to my main argument, which has to do with the quarter-century-old campaign of feminist lawyers and law professors to carry out a war against heterosexual males using the weapons of legal process. I don't know whether you're a feminist and I don't care. Eleven years of studying academic feminist anti-male literature and anti-male feminist legal theorizing (not to mention a previous 25 years living with professionally with academic feminists, who are simply impossible to work with and who insult you to your face with regularity) leaves me convfinced that when they say what they say as often as they say it, then they mean it. The "intent" may or may not be what the statute says it is (or you say it is), but for me the default position is that when a feminist "purpose" is detected, the burden of refutation rests on the person who argues that an anti-male political agenda is not being served. Kris Di Francesca Says: August 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
DanH you might want to pull your head out of your A$$ and breathe for a second then take a moment to rethink things. First of all I am all for fathers rights, and today of all days I feel like putting on a spiderman costum and crawling up in lincolns lap to bring notice to our cause. I am not saying that the registry perfects family law and that we should let is rest at this. I am simply saying that this law is progress, a step in the right direction. I am willing to bet that the majority of people apposed to this are in the middle of a custody dispute and this new law has no benefit to them. No were in this law does it require you to sign up at any time, it is there if you know someone you were involved with is pregnant and know she will not allow you involvement to your child. This law is a benefit to all future fathers because it puts them one step ahead. To be honest the VA law is better then the one in ohio because it allows you to do this prior to your childs birth.... The whole family law system is still in the stone ages but look at state with out the paternity registration law, and a man having a child with an women who wants him out of the picture. An unmarried father will have to petition for a DNA test, HOW LONG DOES THAT TAKE? lets say 2 months. So now this father has been out of his childs life for 60 days, he then has to go to the appropriate family court and petition for custody, how long does it take to appear for your first court date? Mine was a little over 4 months so now that father has been removed from his childs life for 6 months. This allows a father to save precious time and countless dollars in legal expenses. Yes I believe a father should have more rights, but how do you have rights if your not even on the birth certificate? Your not even the stated father. This law is giving all unmarried fathers the ability to stand at the plate and take the pitches by putting a bat in his hand... Its been extrememly difficult for me to understand and see why its not 50/50 from birth but the simple fact is. If only one parent is on the birth certificate why should any man be allowed to claim that child? And its more likely that the unmarried mother leaves and care's for her child then goes home alone and sends it off with the unmarried father because they parted ways. So of course the mother has legal rights from the begining. If you want to start on an level field get married or understand we start down in the count. The only way we are going to make progress is to not fight the small steps given to us, instead we need to keep focused on making the additional changes. Judi Cochran Says: August 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
For Glenn: How does one do an honest, exhaustive search for a man unless the woman can or will supply some solid information on the guy? Or, for that matter, if mom simply says "His name was Joe but that's all I know.". FPLS needs identifiers beyond a name. Are you suggesting that a photo of the woman be posted with a caption "Did you have sex with this woman on or about December 15? She had a child and we want to know if you want any rights." Yes, if dad is registered FPLS can probably find him because the identifiers are there, and at least in VA, if dad has registered they will find him even if mom lies. There are no other protections except for dad knowing about the child and making himself known. Finding out years down the road that he fathered a child who was placed for adoption does not produce a solution. Of course dad can step in and start a long expensive battle to attempt to reverse an adoption because he wasn't notified, but we only see those rare cases where there was a ruling in favor of dad. Those cases usually go to "best interests" and the adoptive family prevails because they were not party to fraud and by the time the case would have exhausted the appellate channels dad would be dealing with an angry psychologically scarred child who was abruptly removed from the only parents he has known since birth if the adoption were reversed. Yes, dad would "win"..............something. Do you really believe that every man who "might" have fathered a child wants that child, wants the rights and responsibility? Some of the angriest dads in this country are angry because they feel that reponsibility, especially financial, has been forced on them, including many dads who are divorced and feel "forced" to help support their child. Are you aware that most women who seek abortion are driven to the clinic by the father and the father pays for all or at least part of the procedure? If reality isn't going to be the major part of the whole picture, then none of the discussions are of any use. Your thought is a decent, honest one, but totally lacking in reality. Unfortunately, too often when the adoption card is on the table, mom may not even have a clue who the guy was or know anything which might identigy him. The adoption proceeds as "father unknown" and no one can force a woman.....or a man.......to provide a list of any and all sexual partners from around the time of conception. When adoption isn't the keyword, the mom can't track the dad for child support either if she has little or no information on his identity so FPLS can't help her either. You are working under the assumption that 1. Woman gets pregnant and gives birth. 2. Woman can always identify man she slept with and give his "name, rank and serial number" so to speak. (Or at least know his name and where he lives.) That was more a reality in 1960 than in 2007. In 1990 there was more "Thinking about last call" because of AIDS but by 2000 we've forged ahead to tipping the scale on the side of out of wedlock births. This is the reality. Advocate Says: August 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
lets not forget that VA is a commonwealth, and they make the laws as they go in court. Va believe they are above all others in this Nation. DanH Says: August 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
To Judi Cochran, who says: “DanH: I do believe you have to have access or rights to a child BEFORE you can have a DNA test without the mother's involvement.” California Family Law Section 7630(c) states:
"An action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship with respect to a child who has no presumed father…may be brought by the child…the Department of Child Support Services…the mother…a man alleged or alleging himself to be the father…" As mentioned previously, the Uniform Parentage Act of 2000 also supports a man’s request for DNA testing. All a man has to do is allege he is the father and not get Judge Jerilyn L. Borack who will rule in the mother’s favor no matter which way it is, and the DNA test is all but automatically ordered by the court (Section 7550). For the mother to object…doesn’t that set off alarm bells??? DanH Jose Says: August 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I went to the site the poster posted above re the three men - although it doesn't say on there why they posted it - I see it now. Those men were all losing their children due to a registry that was not of their own home state. Agencies will have women come in from out of state, induce them and Adoption agencies use these registries in that state to intentionally deny men access to their children because "hey - the registry is there - we don't need to notify them. Serenity Now Says: August 29th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Judi- You are rapidly losing credibility. You seem to want to base the rule on the exception- that a woman who carries a pregnancy to term won't usually have a good idea who the father is. If she really doesn't know, than the State cannot find or notify the father (obviously). I'm probably not alone in thinking that MOST women who become pregnant without knowing who the father will get an abortion. I believe most women in this situation very definately knows who the father is. In the cases where she delivers a baby and has no idea who the father is (or even knows who he is but he is not aware she is pregnant, or maybe is but she said she was getting an abortion, or she disappears, etc., etc.), well, how would the father know to register? While the law does not force a man to list all sexual partners, a State often compels an unwed mother to put a man's name, any man's name, on the birth certificate so that child support charges can accrue to him rather than be paid for by the State. There is a 6-month period for him to contest paternity, and since they didn't receive notice in time, they were conclusively presumed to be the father. He doesn't have to be the father or receive actual notice of his obligation- the child support, and State penalties, start piling up, and the 6-month period had lapsed. Eventually the State catches up to them and puts a hold on their passport application or whatever. There was a recent snafu in LA about this- cut rate process servers claiming process was served to men who weren't fathers, and then the "fathers" getting soaked, with no opportunity for recovery of any money they paid, and, of course, no penalty for the lying mother. Don't forget, these "fathers" are Deadbeat Dads. I'd much rather see a law giving parental rights (and by that I mean equal to the mother's) to any man paying child support, even if he's not the actual father. The VA registry does NOTHING for fathers in situations where he is unaware of her pregnancy. Even with registration, so what? He's NOTIFIED that his child is being put up for adoption. Great. And yes, you are right, some men are angry that fatherhood was forced on them, often by a conniving, lying woman. Lying about birth control, fishing used condoms out of the trash to self-inseminate- where does it end? You can count me among the men who believe a truly "accidental" pregancy in a woman over the age of 22 is very, very rare. And the probability that a truly accidental pregancy is carried to term is even more rare. DanH Says: August 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
"Virginia is for Lovers!"
“Men, please register with the State every time you have sex here.” 99.97% of the time the Registry will be used by Child Support Services when she decides to raise the child in a one-parent, no income home. 0.03% of the time it will be used to locate the biological father for adoption proceedings. As it is the mother who will be attempting to raise the child in a government-funded non-income home, logic would dictate that SHE should be the one registering every time SHE has non-marital sex. Many states require notification of the biological father in adoption proceedings and cannot proceed until this has been achieved (an announcement in the back of a newspaper doesn’t cut it). If this is what the Virginia legislators wanted to accomplish, they could have enacted the same statutes. This is NOT what they wanted… A small advancement in men’s rights?!? No, an attempt to legislate the discarding of men’s paternal rights. The Registry is misguided, mis-labeled, and legislated misandry. On court challenge, it will get dumped. DanH Judi Cochran Says: August 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Michael - I haven't responded to your "feminist" arguments because I have zero interest in them. In this discussion you insert a paranoid thought that "this must be about the feminists" and you believe that there is a hidden agenda other than to protect father's rights. Personally, I had no interest in the "movement" when it started 40 years ago either. I felt, and still do, that feminism was a blow to those of us who were intelligent, professional and still liked to be treated like women. There were easier and more intelligent ways of fighting for more equality in the payroll department and a better ability to climb the ladder through merit than demanding to be "treated like a man". I am obviously not a feminist. And I never needed a "label" to hold my own professionally. If I had wanted to debate feminism it would have been when I was in my 20's at the start of that "war", not today. Back then I had no desire to "burn my bra", act like a man or whine about the fact that I might make a few dollars less than my male peer. I was too busy to whine and too confident in my own skin to bother with a bunch of wailing bimbos. I still like the door held open for me, I don't want a man to ask me to dinner and expect me to pay "my share", and, at my age, I can still be quite pleased when a man isn't afraid to pay me a compliment. An honest woman will say that a catcall or compliment isn't "sexual harrassment" but a little boost to her day AND a large boost to her ego. I do wonder if the feminism movement hadn't come so far if 99% of my clients today just might not be the dads. Bluntly, I care much more about the children subjected to today's custody arena than I do about any of the adults. That allows me to have a clear concience and open mind when I help someone. Judi Cochran Says: August 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
DanH...... Yes, the action can be brought by any of the above. The test requires mother, father and child and either parent can abe compelled to be tested through court order. Your earlier statement was that "dad can take child and be tested without the mother......". Judi Cochran Says: August 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Serenity - I have no fear of losing my credibility. No state compels a woman to put a man's name on the birth certificate. In fact, in all 50 states a woman can't put a man's name on the birth certificate unless he signs an affidavit of paternity and signs the birth certificate application at the hospital. Of course the state can compel a woman to list the father if she applies for welfare or child support. A dad served with a paternity action/ child support action has only to respond to the paperwork if he truly believes he isn't the father and if he truly didn't get notice how why would he start paying?. You didn't read my prior posts DanH Says: August 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
To Judi Cochran,
The DNA Paternity test does NOT require the mother either by code or test procedure. 7630(c) is father and child only. The Q-Tip cheek swab between father and child is accurate to the fourth decimal place (99.9997). Compelling a mother and child DNA Maternity test is a different statue (Section 7650). It also only requires those two and is similarly accurate. DanH Judi Cochran Says: August 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I said in my earlier post that there is little reason for "accidental" pregnancy today. Of course, men don't lie to the women they have unprotected sex with. They are just tricked into it by conniving women. I thought men wanted to get rid of that image. DanH So you're saying that 99% of children born to unwed parents today are on welfare? Why is it that every time fathers' parental rights are on the table, every discussion slowly comes back the child support agenda?
Which is it: "I want to be a father" or "I want to be a father as long as it doesn't mean I have to have any financial responsibility" ? What I am hearing is "I don't want to register my intent to have a role in my child's life because the evil women and the evil government might make me have to help support my child." If a man doesn't want any role in the child's life and doesn't want any financial responsibility, he is free to terminate his parental rights at any time. Judi Cochran Says: August 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
DanH - You just went back to what I said before: Dad has to have "access" to the baby. I don't mean legal access but sans kidnapping if mom isn't cooperating how does dad get to the lab with the child - or even get close enough to the child? I think it's silly to say mom and baby need a stand alone test unless there is a question about whether mom actually gave birth. When a DNA test is ordered by CSEA or the court, all 3 must be present. I "assume" you're talking about sneaking a child off for independent testing. DanH Says: August 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
99% of the new mothers who decide to provide a single-parent, government-supported, non-income home to raise the child will have the state agency make a bee-line to the Registry file cabinet. 0% of the adoption papers that come in will cause the agency to even glance in the direction of the Registry file cabinet. Does that make it clear what the intent of the Registry is? DanH DanH Says: August 29th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
To Judi Cochran,
Again, NO!
The court orders whoever has the child to report to the testing facility with the child. If the child does not appear, the child's custodian is in contempt of court. It is then a criminal matter and you can take a breather with the legal costs as the State takes it from there to get the child's cheek swab. DanH Kenyatte Hay Says: August 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
The intent of the registry is very clear. Title IV D.... and the hundreds of billions in collections... now they will have a sexual history on most woman... Child Support fraud will skyrocket with the states collection percentage, amount and bonus. If its not joe blow 1 its joe blow 2.. if not 2 then its three. Guarnteed state income as your the father til proven otherwise... All states do it with the mothers word now VA has a list to work through. This is insane. Kris Di Francesca Says: August 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
DanH you really need to stop... An adoption agency will have to check the registry but I think you miss the point most men who use this registry are soon to be fathers who want to be fathers and they will use this to skip one of many steps in the family law system. Next the welfare department already requires the mother to state the fathers name, if she does not know she better make one up... Its simply dan dont use the registry and be the deadbeat you obviously intend to be.. Sorry but I had to express how I truely feel... Being a MAN who has used the OHIO VERSION of this law to my benefit I can speak from experiance this helps unmarried fathers gain rights they did not have prior to this My belief is simple as an Unmarried Father in the Family law system we are placed into a boat with taking on water...this registry is not the fix for our leaking boat but atleast its a plug to slow the leak till we can do something better Kris Di Francesca Says: August 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
kenyatte it does not require you to registry because you have had SEX with a women.... What this is, is if you know she is pregnant you know the child is yours you register to gain rights you did not have before. Now if you know your the father I highly suggest you only register if you want to be a father. It will benifit you only in this situation... However registering or not registering makes it does not make it any easier for the mother to list you on the welfare papers and have the state bring action against you. All she has to do is list you on those welfare papers and its up to you to protest her claim..... Hell she could say her baby's dad is micheal jordan it would be up to him to prove its not his The registry is only there for upcoming fathers who want to be fathers that want to knock out a step in the family law system... If its not you dont use it but dont harm the people it will help by fighting something good Andy S Says: August 29th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Kris- The problem is still the same. I agree that on pure pragmatics, a list can help a father who signs up. Your insistence, however, that without the registry, a father has no rights anyway, so removing them by law doesn't matter, is simply mistaken. Are the rights difficult to enforce? Yes, I'm sure. But still the rights exist. With the registry, you have a convenient, ironclad and permanent stripping of rights for fathers --- just for failing to sign up, regardless of the reason! Defensible reasons for fathers not to sign up include a) being a naive, normal person instead of a family law hack; 2) living out of state, even if the potential mother moved there; 3) being duped into thinking the child was from another father; 4) a potential mother (aka "woman") who simply did not tell the real father (maybe they told someone else); and there are probably more. The bottom line is, it is for the convenience of those who want to disregard the rights of fathers, who want to put a short time limit on any rights that might apply to them. And a law that facilitates the withdrawal of rights is no friend to those whose rights are threatened. And Judi- dismissing accidental pregnancy is nothing short of naive. And the problem is not that the list can be useful, it is that the list can kill a father's relationship and legal rights as noted above. Michael McCanles Says: August 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
The number of comments--mainly in calling into question the reasoning of "Judi Cochran"--that ferret out the downsides of the registry idea lead me to think that there's an awful lot of loose garbage ready to be generated by this requirement, so much so as to calli into question the integrity of the thinking that went into this idea in the first place. This is exactly what has happened as case law has proliferated in the wake of making sexual harassment something a woman can not only complain about but sue for damages for. What has happened is that the the operable definition of what constitutes hostile environment SH has simply been sent spinning into outer space. Nothing is simpler than doing an analysis of the semantics of definition lying behind one after another decision--whether pro or against the complainant--and coming up with the irrefutable conclusion that SH regulations are quite vulnerable to a constitutional challenge by reason of creating regulations that are constitutionally void for vagueness. I.e., SH is in any given case is simply the definition which the last authority in any legal procedure--administrator, committee, judge, jury, appellate court--happens to say it is The similarity to the present issue? Not difficult: there's simply too many unresolved side-issues chasing this idea, something which the remarkably focused and canny comments on "Cochran's" thinking in this thread have made amply obvious. In both cases, we have the well-nigh inevitable creation of "unforeseen consequences" that usually result when politically motivated regulations are put in place that are intended to do just one thing well, and end up doing a lot of things badly, and if allowed to go on long enough will end up being constitutionally challengeable, as some have already indicated re: this registry thingy. DanH Says: August 29th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Does the Ohio or Virginia Registry document have this phrase:
“This agreement can be declared null and void at the sole discretion of the signer anytime until the child’s 21st birthday if DNA testing shows the signer not to be the biological father, or the mother or courts prevent DNA paternity testing.” Signing the document creates a very high hurdle (more a brick wall) to challenging paternity should it later become an issue. Did you really intend to agree to be the father regardless of who is actually the biological father? You do know you can still be pushed totally out of the child’s life but be stuck with paying $350,000 over 18 years regardless of who is the biological father or the Registry, don’t you? Use your head: Don’t sign away your rights for absolutely nothing in return. First do the DNA paternity test, then get your name on the birth certificate, then, and only then, if you think it has any meaning (it doesn’t), sign the damn Registry. Declaring your intent is not worth the paper it is written on except for locking you in when the little lady is committing paternity fraud. Everything you believe you gained was already available to you without the leg irons you willingly signed up for. Drink the Kool-Aide if you want to, but please don't shill it as a small but important improvement in men's rights. It's not. DanH Kris Di Francesca Says: August 29th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
DanH I know that Ohio has either a 90 day or 1 year limit on the paternity registry. In that time frame either the father or the mother can dispute the registry, but once it goes beyond that from my understanding you are the father and not even a court can contest it..... Thats why I have said so many times if you KNOW you are the father sign, it will provide rights you did not have before.... But dont just go register because you had sex with someone and think it could be your's or one of 10 other guys... If you are unsure and want the responsability if you are the father then I sugest you wait till the child is born and request DNA... What your missing is for those of us who knew beyond the shadow of a doubt the child is ours these registry's clear a small part of the road block other wise known as family law...To me every day I have with my son is precious so I am greatful that it exists and shortened this already long process by a few months You obviously have never gone through the rough custody dispute that I along with many other fathers have. Yes I could have gained all the rights the registry provided me with in time, but you miss the point that this makes it instant. I filed for custody january the 11th, and my first court date was april 27th.. I saw my son a total of 5 hrs in that time because its all my x allowed...And on april 27th I was granted visitation on temp orders... Had the registry not existed or I chose not to sign, on january 11th I would have had to petition for a DNA test say that took the same time frame for my court date, I would have had to wait 4 months with out contact, then they probably would have said the DNA testing had to be done within 30 days and set a new court date. My next court date is september 12th and was set april 27th... if it did not exist I would have had to wait 8 months before being able to get a temp order for custody... This is a small step you just need to open your eyes and stop making it into something its not and see it for what it is Kris Di Francesca Says: August 29th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Michael M If I read your message right you believe this registry requires a man to register because he had sex with a women, am I correct? If I am correct, you are wrong this is there for men who know beyond the shadow of a doubt they are about to be a father and want to make sure the woman can't block them from rights we as fathers should have even prior to a court order or custody case. If you know you are the father and dont care about your rights you simply dont register and deal with it the old fashion way Lane Says: August 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Kris said "if she does not know (the name) she better make one up" how does 'John Smith' sound? I'm sure their are only a few million by that name. Kris Di Francesca Says: August 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Andy I understand your concerns about the registry but its a little different then you think. I filed for custody my ex filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact that I had not established paternity... My attorney provided my registry affidavit and the case was not dismissed....This piece of paper is worth its weight in gold to a father and its stands up in court The problem is your creating negatives that are not there.... What rights can this registry kill for a father? I am really interested in hearing what rights you believe it removes for an unmarried father Michael H Says: August 29th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
There are NO fathers' rights until there exists a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting. Kris Di Francesca Says: August 30th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Michael H, you are one of many who believe its all or nothing... Unfortuently I can see your side... But I can also think of everything I have ever accomplished and remember it was not all or nothing I accomplished them one step at a time and each step was progress.... This is a step towards progress, not a huge step but a step And yes Lane when a mother signs up for welfare they have to state who they believe is the father.. Thats it just who they believe.. Nothing stops them from being able to name anyone they want even if they know its not true, then its left up to the man to dispute it when the state comes after him for child support to repay the welfare she has collected... And we could only wish that some of these women are nice enough to make up a name like john smith, but we know how most of them are... This has nothing to do with the registry and is so far off topic its no