I have come to expect the following statement to be a first line of defense in any contested adoption, or when the father is not “on-board” with an adoption plan. I really do expect it, and grit my teeth, and move on – but – when it is said about the current Utah saga about the married father – its ludicrous…
“That the prospective adoptive parents would have tried to work out an open adoption plan with the father – so he would agree to the adoption.”
I don’t understand how any father, let alone this particular married father, who wants to parent their child, and is contesting the adoption, would consider the following to be the ideal solution:
- Give up any, and all rights, to his child, including, providing his family name.
- Legally sever his child from himself, so the child had no ancestor in common with him.
- Become a “Legal Stranger” to his child.
- Has no legal recourse, or incredibly limited legal recourse, to keep an open adoption with his child – open.
- Only see your child when you are allowed to, by the “real” parents.
- Not have any say whatsoever – in making any parenting decisions for his child.
- Not have any say in the adopting parents relocating to another state, or even, a different country.
- Not being THE DAD…
And anything I have left out.
How is that the “Ideal” solution when a father wants to parent their child? Because the prospective adoptive parents become the parents? How is that about the best interests of the child?