What are the rights of a biological parent?

[Galactus]

With all the different cases popping up in the news, I was wondering what most people here think the rights of the biological parent are.

Along with the Goldman case there is this one where a the biological mother was ordered to surrender the child to her former lesbian partner. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Of course the court made the correct decision.

Are your children little more than your offspring and nothing really special beyond any other child you come in contact with in your life. Are your rights concerning your children not any greater than any other person. Should children be allowed to say what they want or do we just let a judge decide what is in the best interests of the child.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Biology does not trump all other issues. Each case is, as it should be, decided individually. It is perfectly reasonable to say that in some cases, a child awarded to adoptive/foster homes are FAR off than they would be with their biological parent(s).

 

[Miss Chicken]

With all the different cases popping up in the news, I was wondering what most people here think the rights of the biological parent are.

Along with the Goldman case there is this one where a the biological mother was ordered to surrender the child to her former lesbian partner. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Of course the court made the correct decision.

Are your children little more than your offspring and nothing really special beyond any other child you come in contact with in your life. Are your rights concerning your children not any greater than any other person. Should children be allowed to say what they want or do we just let a judge decide what is in the best interests of the child.

The case which you quoted (i.e. the lesbian case) is no different than if a heterosexual couple decided to have a child by using donor sperm if the man was sterile. The man would be as much a parent to the child as the mother would be.

This would also apply if donor eggs were used if the woman was infertile and father's sperm was used. Though the man would be the biologival parent the woman would be as equally a parent.

Ot do you think that the sperm/egg donor should be allowed to make a claim on the child because he is the biological parent.

In fact, in that case the biological mother has kidnapped the child in the same way as Bruna Goldman kidnapped her son.

 

[Galactus]

That is a tough one yet to be decided in the US even though the Supreme Court has refused to hear any cases. I guess my thinking is just like adoption. Unless the donor clearly in writing gives up their parental rights then they retain them.

For me if all things are equal then biology should trump all. For me the natural parents share a special bond with their children. It is the cornerstone of families and really our society. I don't see why it should be different now.

 

[Miss Chicken]

That is a tough one yet to be decided in the US even though the Supreme Court has refused to hear any cases. I guess my thinking is just like adoption. Unless the donor clearly in writing gives up their parental rights then they retain them.

For me if all things are equal then biology should trump all. For me the natural parents share a special bond with their children. It is the cornerstone of families and really our society. I don't see why it should be different now.

I disagree. Generally speaking, people who adopt love their child just as much, and bond just as well to them as they would to a biological child. Also, I have seen quite a few biological parents who don't give a shit about their child.

My ex-husband is a good example. He has 6 biological children and has abandoned at least 5 of them. He has never made any effort to visit them despite the fact there is no court orders denying him the right to see his children. Nor has he paid a single penny in child support.

His first wife remarried after her divorce and her new husband has been the father to my ex-husband's two eldest children. Those kids call him Dad and regard him as their Dad.

 

[Galactus]

Well I said all things being equal. In your case they are not equal. I know many people that say they have two fathers or two mothers because they view their step parents as their parents. This really is what should happen when you have adults being responsible and loving.

Unfortunately that is not how humans are. I have seen where the two parents can not even be in the same room together without someone being hurt. Ex parents generally do not get along well.

So I am saying when you have a natural parent and an adoptive parent, and both are loving individuals who both are able to provide for and take care of the child/children, who do you give custody to?

 

[Miss Chicken]

Well I said all things being equal. In your case they are not equal. I know many people that say they have two fathers or two mothers because they view their step parents as their parents. This really is what should happen when you have adults being responsible and loving.

Unfortunately that is not how humans are. I have seen where the two parents can not even be in the same room together without someone being hurt. Ex parents generally do not get along well.

So I am saying when you have a natural parent and an adoptive parent, and both are loving individuals who both are able to provide for and take care of the child/children, who do you give custody to?

Joint custody.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'd say it depends on how long the child has been separated from the biological parents and how adapted they are to life with the adoptive parents.

 

[Misfit Toy]

For me if all things are equal then biology should trump all.

The reality of it is that in these situations, all things are almost never equal. That's why it's handled on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Galactus]

I would actually say in most cases everything is equal between the parties involved. They all generally love the child/ren, can provide for them, the child/ren love them, and they have a good support system and can provide a good home. The cases where something is a clear cut difference are exception not the rule, which is my divorce/family law attorneys get paid so much. When there is a custody fight it is not going to be pretty.

 

[RoJoHen]

I would actually say in most cases everything is equal between the parties involved. They all generally love the child/ren, can provide for them, the child/ren love them, and they have a good support system and can provide a good home. The cases where something is a clear cut difference are exception not the rule, which is my divorce/family law attorneys get paid so much. When there is a custody fight it is not going to be pretty.

But I'd wager that most of these cases are between the childrens' biological and mother and father, not between biological parents and adoptive parents.

It comes down to what is best for the child. If the child has been raised by adoptive parents for a significant amount, it's not fair to them to suddenly give custody over to the biological parents just because of DNA.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I might be wrong but I thought that when he was talking about and natural parent and an adoptive parent he was referring to a relationship such as the case of the two women. One of them was the biological mother, while the other was her civil union partner who "adopted" the child.

 

[RoJoHen]

Ah, perhaps. I thought he was just giving that as an example.

 

[Misfit Toy]

I would actually say in most cases everything is equal between the parties involved. They all generally love the child/ren, can provide for them, the child/ren love them, and they have a good support system and can provide a good home. The cases where something is a clear cut difference are exception not the rule, which is my divorce/family law attorneys get paid so much. When there is a custody fight it is not going to be pretty.

I work with those who, on a daily basis, make it their business to ensure the safety and well-being of children in adoptive, foster and biological homes. Ideally, the family court system takes all factors into consideration before placing a child. Keep in mind that a problem must exist in order for a case to have made it family court in the first place. The days of simply awarding custody to a biological parent based simply upon their status as "biological" are fading - rightfully so.

 

[Galactus]

As you said though, those are the cases where all things are not equal because something has happened. So you are saying that biology has nothing to do with being a parent?

And I am talking all cases. The common one today is when a person marries another person who already has a child. They live together as a family for a number of years but then the couple splits. So then you have a step parent that may want custody of the child over both biological parents. I am guessing you guys have no problem giving the child to the step parent.

 

[Misfit Toy]

As you said though, those are the cases where all things are not equal because something has happened. So you are saying that biology has nothing to do with being a parent?

And I am talking all cases. The common one today is when a person marries another person who already has a child. They live together as a family for a number of years but then the couple splits. So then you have a step parent that may want custody of the child over both biological parents. I am guessing you guys have no problem giving the child to the step parent.

I have no problem if the court finds that the step parent is the better option, no.

Biology - in and of itself - should not be the sole determining factor in placing the child.

 

[Miss Chicken]

As you said though, those are the cases where all things are not equal because something has happened. So you are saying that biology has nothing to do with being a parent?

And I am talking all cases. The common one today is when a person marries another person who already has a child. They live together as a family for a number of years but then the couple splits. So then you have a step parent that may want custody of the child over both biological parents. I am guessing you guys have no problem giving the child to the step parent.

If it is in thr child's best interest I would have no problem with the stepfather getting the child.

I actually know one child (now an adult) who decided to stay with her stepmother when her parents marriage broke up. The girl was a teenager at the time and she was old enough to make the choice herself.Her stepmother had raised her since she was about three years old.

 

[-Brett-]

In general I'd say whoever actually raises the kid trumps everyone else.

 

[RobertVA]

The biological parent(s) must have an opportunity to have custody.

If the biological parent knows about the child and doesn't make a reasonable effort to maintain a relationship with the child (emotional and material support) then other adults should have an oportunity to petition a court for involuntary termination of the biological parent's custody and visitation. Neglect, abuse and obstructing the other biological parent's custody or visitation should be grounds for court review. Inadequate material support should be considered a form of neglect. Concealing a child's existence or making little effort to notify the other biological parent about the child's existence (even during the pregnancy) should be considered custodial interference. Courts shouldn't permit unconditional adoptions until there is documentation that a reasonable effort has been made to contact both biological parents. Legal notices in newspapers shouldn't be considered adequate effort, petitioning parties should be required to hire investigators or process servers. The DNA databases generated from criminal arrests should be available when other means fail to identify the biological father.

Overnight and other unsupervised visitation should be available to any biological parent who hasn't shown indication they might neglect the child, abuse the child or interfere with the other parents' time with the child.

Petitioning parents shouldn't be allowed to jurisdiction shop. Only courts where the parents last lived together should have jurisdiction for custody or support hearings and judgments. If the natural parents conceived during a breif sexual encounter (no multiple night cohabitation) the jurisdiction where, as best can be determined, the conception took place should have jurisdiction.

 

[RoJoHen]

Concealing a child's existence or making little effort to notify the other biological parent about the child's existence (even during the pregnancy) should be considered custodial interference. Courts shouldn't permit unconditional adoptions until there is documentation that a reasonable effort has been made to contact both biological parents. Legal notices in newspapers shouldn't be considered adequate effort, petitioning parties should be required to hire investigators or process servers.

This is exactly how my buddy got custody of his daughter. His ex-girlfriend had gotten pregnant and given the kid up for adoption without ever consulting my friend. He found out after the fact and went to court to get custody. He won without any problem (the prosecution's main argument against him was that he had gotten a couple speeding tickets several years prior!). The adoptive parents had the girl for about a month before they had to give her up to her biological father.