Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by ShugaPush:
I say shame on those who brought it here. I say shame on a boy who cares no more for himself than that. And the girl, what people must think of her. Is she still in school? How is she taking all these people airing her dirty laundry just to get what they want? I read where the boy's father has asked people not to discuss it in public anymore, but it looks like everyone is anyway.


I hate to say it, but this young father has been done wrong by the court systems and those of you who have come here to bash him for taking it public should be ashamed. Would you rather him sit by quietly and let the state give his child to someone else? Let this be tried by the court of public opinion. If I were in this fathers shoes I would be shouting it from the rooftops and speaking to every reporter who would listen to my story. The child, when older, will know how much the father loved them by what lengths he went to for custody.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by T S C:
This is just insane. If a man only has 30 days to claim paternity, then a woman should have the same 30 days to figure out who the father is to seek child support. What is good for the goose...


Or the state for that matter. If the state does not determine paternity within 30 days, they can no longer go after a father whose children are receiving state aid.

I bet the law would be changed if that was the way it was written...

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by Shoalanda:
I had never heard of any of these people until I was contacted by the young man's father. The grandfather has contacted me several times. His son has not. The grandfather has started a Facebook page on the matter. His son has not. I have not seen or received any communication from the son on the matter. That would have made some difference in my opinion of the young man's maturity.

I also have a screen shot of the young man's Facebook page in which he shows membership in many alcohol-related organizations, including one that advocates liquor be served 24/7 on college campuses. Remember, this young man has not attained legal drinking age as of yet. His father, again I say, his father contacted me about this saying his son was not aware he was a member of these groups and had removed them when they were called to his attention. If he doesn't know what groups he is a member of, how should we expect him to have the basic knowledge to raise a child.

A case from about two years ago is very similar. In that case, a couple, as I recall mid to late 20's, were not married, but were living together in what had been a committed relationship. They broke up, and the woman did not tell the man she was pregnant. When the biological father discovered the existence of the child, he went to court and had the adoption negated.

At that time, the biological mother stepped in and demanded custody, which she was given. Does this young man (or his father) not think the same will happen here?

I am extremely sorry for the boy's situation, but he showed no maturity when he used no protection during a sexual encounter with someone he cared nothing for. He's lucky he didn't contract AIDS.

If Judge Sandlin's decision is overturned, and if the biological mother does not then take the child, I certainly wish the young man well. He has a lot of growing up to do.

I want to add that I support committed, mature fathers 100% in their quest to attain joint custody. I support the person who initiated this post. It is an entirely different situation.


Your assumptions are ridiculous. Basing maturity on what facebook groups he may have been in, really? Is he not allotted the freedom to speak out, even if he isn't 21 yet?

You, yourself, said you didn't know him; yet you are so against him obtaining custody of his son, based solely on what you saw on one of the friend networking sites? That's absolutely ludacris.

I don't know the poor guy, nor the mother, nor any of the family members (at least to my knowledge), however, I still feel he has a right to his child.

How do you know, for certain, that the child was conceived through no usage of a birth control method? He might have used a condom, and we all know that those are not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy- not to mention if it breaks after the 'crucial' moment; odds go up on pregnancy. You seem to assume a lot on this post thus far, and I haven't read it all yet.

However, he might not have used a contraceptive, what does that have to do with this, really? Except for the fact that both the mother and the father, both young, were either not educated to use one, or thought "it'd be ok" (like many teens do).

It has absolutely nothing to do with this, or his maturity now. And should not have any bearing on this case one bit. The fact that you are mentioning it, is just a ploy to muddy the waters or cover up a bias that you seem to have.

The guy has already (from what I read) saved up over 30 grand for court costs, is attending college, and wants to be this child's father. How does that not scream maturity. It does to me, since he is /only/ 20 years old, and is doing all this for his child.

*shakes head*

I wish this man the best of luck in this case. I really hope that he is able to obtain custody of his son, and continues working hard to make life better for both of them. My hat is off to him.

~Amanda
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Shoalanda:

Kirk, the majority of all states have such laws. I believe they do have different time limits. If people in this state think 30 days is not enough time, I support any and all who will write their legislators in order to have this changed.

As I stated, I don't know the maximum amount of time in each state law, but they were written so that a man could not come forward ten of 12 years down the road and rip a family apart. They were also obviously written in order to free the state from providing for these children. In many instances (not this particular one), the infant is in foster care until adoptive parents are found. If this law is changed to 60 days or a year or whatever, remember, that means no prospective adoptive parents can take custody of the child until the time requirements are met.


The adoptive parents can take immidiate custody of the child as foster parents. There is no need to rush an adoption through the court systems to place the child in the care of those that wish to adopt them.

Fathers rights have been ignored for too long. If a mother fails to inform the father of the child, or fraudulently tells a father that someone else is the father, then any agreement she enters should be nullified and, IMHO, she should be held criminally liable for it.

Kirk


You're wrong on this one; everybody who is a foster parent in the state has to be approved by DHR. Would you want it any other way. That takes time and not everyone gets approved even if they're good folks.

BTW, the following states have putative registries,

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1putfather
Per Manda,

quote:
However, he might not have used a contraceptive, what does that have to do with this, really? Except for the fact that both the mother and the father, both young, were either not educated to use one, or thought "it'd be ok" (like many teens do).


Uh, what does this say about the boy. Think you made a good case against him and his family. BTW if you'd read it all you'd see the boys dad works at UNA in a good job (need an education for it). I know the boy was from a BROKEN HOME also. That doesn't say much.

I know I'm way older than these kids, but in the morning, if that girl is still in school, she's going to go into school and be called a **** behind her back, or worse, because of all this. The guy knew what she was and it doesn't speak well of his maturity. It's not much different that hiring a prostitute only he just had to buy her dinner. Doesn't say much for either of them.

We live is a sick society.
quote:
Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Shoalanda:

Kirk, the majority of all states have such laws. I believe they do have different time limits. If people in this state think 30 days is not enough time, I support any and all who will write their legislators in order to have this changed.

As I stated, I don't know the maximum amount of time in each state law, but they were written so that a man could not come forward ten of 12 years down the road and rip a family apart. They were also obviously written in order to free the state from providing for these children. In many instances (not this particular one), the infant is in foster care until adoptive parents are found. If this law is changed to 60 days or a year or whatever, remember, that means no prospective adoptive parents can take custody of the child until the time requirements are met.


The adoptive parents can take immidiate custody of the child as foster parents. There is no need to rush an adoption through the court systems to place the child in the care of those that wish to adopt them.

Fathers rights have been ignored for too long. If a mother fails to inform the father of the child, or fraudulently tells a father that someone else is the father, then any agreement she enters should be nullified and, IMHO, she should be held criminally liable for it.

Kirk


You're wrong on this one; everybody who is a foster parent in the state has to be approved by DHR. Would you want it any other way. That takes time and not everyone gets approved even if they're good folks.


Think about this, anyone that is able to get through the adoption process (it is no easy ordeal, believe me) should have no problem getting approved by DHR to be foster parents. I would not want anyone that could not be approved by DHR as a foster parent to be able to adopt. It really is that simple.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by Shoalanda:

Kirk, the majority of all states have such laws. I believe they do have different time limits. If people in this state think 30 days is not enough time, I support any and all who will write their legislators in order to have this changed.

As I stated, I don't know the maximum amount of time in each state law, but they were written so that a man could not come forward ten of 12 years down the road and rip a family apart. They were also obviously written in order to free the state from providing for these children. In many instances (not this particular one), the infant is in foster care until adoptive parents are found. If this law is changed to 60 days or a year or whatever, remember, that means no prospective adoptive parents can take custody of the child until the time requirements are met.


The adoptive parents can take immidiate custody of the child as foster parents. There is no need to rush an adoption through the court systems to place the child in the care of those that wish to adopt them.

Fathers rights have been ignored for too long. If a mother fails to inform the father of the child, or fraudulently tells a father that someone else is the father, then any agreement she enters should be nullified and, IMHO, she should be held criminally liable for it.

Kirk


You're wrong on this one; everybody who is a foster parent in the state has to be approved by DHR. Would you want it any other way. That takes time and not everyone gets approved even if they're good folks.


You should correct yourself, anyone that is able to get through the adoption process (it is no easy ordeal, believe me) should have no problem getting approved by DHR to be foster parents. I would not want anyone that could not be approved by DHR as a foster parent to be able to adopt. It really is that simple.

Kirk


Do you know how long it takes. In the mean time the child is with another foster family. And believe me, if the family is of mixed race or older, they might never get approved if DHR knows why they want to be foster parents.
quote:
Originally posted by Trutooit-II:

Do you know how long it takes. In the mean time the child is with another foster family. And believe me, if the family is of mixed race or older, they might never get approved if DHR knows why they want to be foster parents.


I do know how long it takes, just like I know how long it is supposed to take to get an adoption approved. It should take more to adopt than to become a foster parent. A foster parent can have the children pulled for no reason, once adopted, the child is legally the parents child.

The child is not adopted as of now, from what I understand. Is the child with another foster parent?

Kirk
No legal determination has been made regarding the adoption.

The child was taken home from the hospital at the birth mother's bother - a minister - and his wife and they have the child.

The ONLY legal ruling made is the father has no legal standing as the father solely because he DID NOT sign the Putative Father Registry within 30 days.

Their has been NO legal ruling of UNFITNESS of the father.

As for all the other opinions that does not negate this man is the father and he wants his child.
quote:
Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
Per Manda,

[QUOTE]I know the boy was from a BROKEN HOME also. That doesn't say much.


What do you mean by this comment? How does it apply to forum topic? So, if a boy is from a broken home that means he's a menace to society?

I think the boy and girl are both out of school now and as quoted in other posts in this forum, that is water under the bridge, let it go.

Let's take the teenagers out of this equation. Let's say that a man and woman, both 30 and not married, has a great 5 year relationship, the best that anyone could ask for. And one day out of the blue the girl calls it off, no reason, just called it off. The man is devasted and cannot understand why. Because this woman was his life. A week passes and the woman finds out shes pregnant but NEVER tells the man. The man and woman do not talk anymore. Remember they were in love when they conceived a child. The man tried to talk to the woman shortly after the woman called it off without success, so he gives up. 9 months later she gives birth to their child and puts the child up for adoption. 45 days after the birth of his son, the man finds out. This is where the Putatie Father Registry comes into play. The man has already given irrevocable implied consent to an adoption. No matter how hard he fights it. His rights are gone and can not raise his child that was conceived with the woman he loved.

Is this the way I read this law? If so, how is this right?
I hope the father is reading this, because there is something he should be thinking about through this. Right now, the other side believes they are as right as you are and believe they can make a better home for this child. When this is all said and done, I truely believe that you will get some type of custody barring anything that shows you to be unfit. It may take years, but legal precident seems to have sided with biological parents in the past.

That being said, when all is said and done, I hope you are able to keep in mind that, even though there may be hard feelings between you and them, they care about the child as much as you do and your child will need all the family it can get. I would recommend you be very cautious in your dealings with them, but whatever you do, don't cut them out. You can show them and everyone else that you are much more mature than they are (or that folks here give you credit for) and do whats best for your child by allowing them to know your child.

As I said, this is assuming you do win this battle. As the father, I support your right to raise your child.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by A Father:
quote:
Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
Per Manda,

[QUOTE]I know the boy was from a BROKEN HOME also. That doesn't say much.


What do you mean by this comment? How does it apply to forum topic? So, if a boy is from a broken home that means he's a menace to society?

I think the boy and girl are both out of school now and as quoted in other posts in this forum, that is water under the bridge, let it go.

Let's take the teenagers out of this equation. Let's say that a man and woman, both 30 and not married, has a great 5 year relationship, the best that anyone could ask for. And one day out of the blue the girl calls it off, no reason, just called it off. The man is devasted and cannot understand why. Because this woman was his life. A week passes and the woman finds out shes pregnant but NEVER tells the man. The man and woman do not talk anymore. Remember they were in love when they conceived a child. The man tried to talk to the woman shortly after the woman called it off without success, so he gives up. 9 months later she gives birth to their child and puts the child up for adoption. 45 days after the birth of his son, the man finds out. This is where the Putatie Father Registry comes into play. The man has already given irrevocable implied consent to an adoption. No matter how hard he fights it. His rights are gone and can not raise his child that was conceived with the woman he loved.

Is this the way I read this law? If so, how is this right?


Father, I don't know what time period other states have, but how much time is fair? If not 30 days how long would you say. This is a serious question since it would discourage many people from even trying to adopt and you and I will have to support these children in foster homes. I say that because once the law is changed it will apply to everyone. Remember that.

I also don't see how this boy is holding down three jobs and has been in school. If he's started to nursing school he will have clinics at odd hours and then have to work long hours when he graduates. It might be a hired person, but it still won't be him taking care of the child.
I question how many of you writing the negative have lived perfect lives?

Humans are not perfect.

Teens certainly are not perfect.

Really perfection has nothing to do parenting or with a father having a right his child absent compelling reasons, like unfitness.

YOU ALL ARE MISSING THE MAIN POINT: This father has been denied a right to his child solely because he didn't sign a registry within 30 days indicating he is the father.

THIS FATHER HAS NOT BEEN DENIED HIS RIGHT BECAUSE OF BEING UNFIT!
quote:
Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
So true.

If a mother fails to inform the father she should be held criminally liable.

Their needs to be DNA testing completed at the hospital at birth as well.


I'm going to guess a girl who is 16 and has sex with three guys in 2 wks would be able to claim insanity.


I wonder what age she was when she had sex with all these boys. Could some of them not be charged with statutory rape?
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
I question how many of you writing the negative have lived perfect lives?

Humans are not perfect.

Teens certainly are not perfect.

Really perfection has nothing to do parenting or with a father having a right his child absent compelling reasons, like unfitness.

YOU ALL ARE MISSING THE MAIN POINT: This father has been denied a right to his child solely because he didn't sign a registry within 30 days indicating he is the father.

THIS FATHER HAS NOT BEEN DENIED HIS RIGHT BECAUSE OF BEING UNFIT!


I understand this, but what do you want anyone to do if this is the law in Alabama? Do you just want the law changed to a longer time or do you want a man to be able to come back and claim a child ten yrs later?

Could you tell me why the boy waited so long to speak up? If he really wanted to be the father and isn't being pushed by his family?
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
[QUOTE]

Could you tell me why the boy waited so long to speak up? If he really wanted to be the father and isn't being pushed by his family?


The legal system operates on giving someone a 30 day notice before filing legal action.

Even so, consider the time to communicate with the other party, then come to find you are in a legal situation, then one must locate and retain an attorney, then the attorney must decide to take the case, then the papers have to be file, etc. 60 days is not a long time in the legal system.

Consider typical legal action in family matters in the trial court can take 12 to 18 months, an appeal to the civil appeals court takes another 10-12 months and to the Alabama Supreme Court another 3 years, and to the US supreme count another 3-4 years. So, can you see how 30 days in unreasonable?

Most important to this particular situation that many are missing the point - INCLUDING JUDGE SANDLIN - similar cases to this one have been all the way to the United States Supreme Court and they have consistently ruled for the biological parent. The Alabama Civil Court of Appeals have also ruled consistent with the US Supreme Court. THIS CASE LAW WAS PROVIDED TO SANDLIN.

So does the law really need changing or do we need a judge that will abide by law?

Again, this is not rocket science a natural father should be with his child instead of adoptive parents - absent compelling reasons otherwise

I predict this matter will be sided for the father absent some compelling reason and just because there is a married couple that wants this child is NOT a compelling reason.
quote:
Originally posted by ShugaPush:

Father, I don't know what time period other states have, but how much time is fair? If not 30 days how long would you say. This is a serious question since it would discourage many people from even trying to adopt and you and I will have to support these children in foster homes. I say that because once the law is changed it will apply to everyone. Remember that.

I also don't see how this boy is holding down three jobs and has been in school. If he's started to nursing school he will have clinics at odd hours and then have to work long hours when he graduates. It might be a hired person, but it still won't be him taking care of the child.


Im confused, now single parents that have to put themselves through school working three jobs aren't fit to raise their children? You don't think that someone else can babysit while he is at work or school?

As for the law, it should be 30 days after the father is notified. This is clearly an issue where the father did not know he was the father, and once it became known, he is asserting his right as a father.

Kirk
THE CASE LAW PROVIDED JUDGE SANDLIN


1.) In J.L.P. v L.A.M. (10/31/2008) The Alabama Civil Court of Appeals said, "The Alabama Putative Registry Act can be Unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, when a biological father has taken on the responsibility and intent to be an active father, and that signing the Putative Registry within thirty (30) days of birth is NOT required to establish a Father's parental rights."


2.) In D.C.L. v. Marion County Department of Human Resources (11/21/2008) The Alabama Civil Court of Appeals stated again, as they did in J.L.P., ..."The Putative Father Registry Act applies in adoption proceedings, .. and the failure to comply with its provisions [ signing the registry] does not constitute a ground for terminating parental rights."


3.) In Lehr v. Roberson - The United States Supreme Court said, "The significance of a biological connection is that offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child’s future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child’s development."

IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE THREE CASES THAT PLAIN ENGLISH DOES NOT EXPLAIN?


JUDGE JIMMY SANDLIN ORDER:

This CAUSE coming before the court upon the petition of [BIOLOGICAL FATHER] seeking to establish paternity of [THE CHILD], a minor child born THEREFORE THE PREMISES CONSIDERED, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, as follows, to-wit:

1. The Petitioner is deemed to be a putative father required to register with the putative father registry.

2. The Petitioner’s failure to register is a bar to his objection to the pending adoption.

3. The adoption proceeding is remanded to probate for proceedings consistent with this order.

4. The petition to establish paternity is dismissed.

DONE THIS THE 7th day of August, 2009
Last edited by Nurturing Father
quote:
Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
Per Manda,

quote:
However, he might not have used a contraceptive, what does that have to do with this, really? Except for the fact that both the mother and the father, both young, were either not educated to use one, or thought "it'd be ok" (like many teens do).


Uh, what does this say about the boy. Think you made a good case against him and his family. BTW if you'd read it all you'd see the boys dad works at UNA in a good job (need an education for it). I know the boy was from a BROKEN HOME also. That doesn't say much.

I know I'm way older than these kids, but in the morning, if that girl is still in school, she's going to go into school and be called a **** behind her back, or worse, because of all this. The guy knew what she was and it doesn't speak well of his maturity. It's not much different that hiring a prostitute only he just had to buy her dinner. Doesn't say much for either of them.

We live is a sick society.


I didn't make a case against anyone. If all kids were taught more efficiently on Sex, then perhaps they would also learn how to use contraceptives the correct way. Perhaps I didn't read everything about this, but I am not even sure if they weren't used.

Heck, even people in their 20's-30's get pregnant while using pregnancy prevention methods. I was one of them, when I got pregnant with my son 9 months after my hubby and I were married. We were using condoms, and using them correctly. The only thing we could come up with is, that it had a small hole or puncture in it, or something. So, our son was a suprise, but a great one. Smiler

These were young kids too. I think most teens in this day and age think that "things" will never happen to them. I think it was like that when even I was a teen. There almost an invincibility thought pattern or something, that makes them feel that way.

They are both at fault for the pregnancy. The boy and the girl. Did the boy know that she had slept with other boys in that timeline? Who knows, and who cares. The topic itself is about whether he should have custody.

I think he should. The mother doesn't want the child, but he does and as his parent, he should, in my opinion.

All the rest of this, is kind of unnecessary details, really.

His maturity isn't anything any one of us that do not know him, can speak on. Parenting does not come with a handbook of guidelines. I have known plenty of older people with children and grandchildren that don't seem mature enough to even part take in the simplest of adult interaction. What is the deciding factor on saying someone is mature enough? Seems and sounds like this guy is mature enough to me.


I don't know if he knows everything involved in taking care of a child. I am sure it will not be an easy road for him, because as a parent, none of us have easy roads really. We all pretty much learn as we go, especially with our first children. Smiler

So, no I didn't do anything to make a case for or against him. It doesn't matter how wealthy, intelligent a person's father is, or what job his father has- it doesn't guaruntee that they'll be equally responsible in every action they make in life. This was most probably a mistake on the guy's part for getting a girl pregnant, but at very least (unlike many young men these days) he's owning up to that mistake and trying to be responsible now. That says tons about his character. Smiler

~Amanda
quote:
Originally posted by *~*Manda*~*:
All the rest of this, is kind of unnecessary details, really.


~Amanda


Probably the most important fact of this entire situation. He is the father, he wants to be the father. We are not talking 10-12 years down the road. We are talking about a situation where the boy did not sign a form he may have known nothing about. When he found out he was the father (after the first two she claimed was the father fell through), he asserted his right as a parent.

And, if the adoption is prevented and he is given his rights, I hope the state holds the mother to her giving up her rights and awards sole custody to him. He should allow her family to visit, but she gave up her parental rights and should not be allowed to go back on that decision if her brother is not allowed to adopt.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:

Probably the most important fact of this entire situation. He is the father, he wants to be the father. We are not talking 10-12 years down the road. We are talking about a situation where the boy did not sign a form he may have known nothing about. When he found out he was the father (after the first two she claimed was the father fell through), he asserted his right as a parent.

And, if the adoption is prevented and he is given his rights, I hope the state holds the mother to her giving up her rights and awards sole custody to him. He should allow her family to visit, but she gave up her parental rights and should not be allowed to go back on that decision if her brother is not allowed to adopt.

Kirk


I agree.

Also, if the judge was stated a case law on this, then he should have followed the precedent there.

I hope in that case, that the appeals go through quickly and that a judgement will be given soon for them all.

~Amanda
quote:

Father, I don't know what time period other states have, but how much time is fair? If not 30 days how long would you say. This is a serious question since it would discourage many people from even trying to adopt and you and I will have to support these children in foster homes. I say that because once the law is changed it will apply to everyone. Remember that.

I also don't see how this boy is holding down three jobs and has been in school. If he's started to nursing school he will have clinics at odd hours and then have to work long hours when he graduates. It might be a hired person, but it still won't be him taking care of the child.


You missed the point here. In this hypothical situation, the man had NO clue that the woman was pregnant. had NO idea that she had a child, had NO idea that she put the child up for adoption. She would not talk to him, so how would the man know he had a child? And if he didn't know the woman he dated was pregnant, why would he sign the registry? What most of you are arguing is not the point. The man DID NOT KNOW he was having a child, but the minute he fould out he stepped up to take care of his son. But the unconstitutional registry DENIED HIM HIS RIGHT. There is NO fair amount of time. The woman has a right to contact the father.

You mention working three jobs, why do you think he is working those three jobs? attorneys aren't cheap! and he probably doesn't want this bill hanging over his head after he gets his son. I doubt he will work three jobs to support his child since $30,000 in attorney fees in 18 months is a little more in that short of time.
quote:
Originally posted by *~*Manda*~*:
quote:
Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
Per Manda,

quote:
However, he might not have used a contraceptive, what does that have to do with this, really? Except for the fact that both the mother and the father, both young, were either not educated to use one, or thought "it'd be ok" (like many teens do).


Uh, what does this say about the boy. Think you made a good case against him and his family. BTW if you'd read it all you'd see the boys dad works at UNA in a good job (need an education for it). I know the boy was from a BROKEN HOME also. That doesn't say much.

I know I'm way older than these kids, but in the morning, if that girl is still in school, she's going to go into school and be called a **** behind her back, or worse, because of all this. The guy knew what she was and it doesn't speak well of his maturity. It's not much different that hiring a prostitute only he just had to buy her dinner. Doesn't say much for either of them.

We live is a sick society.


I didn't make a case against anyone. If all kids were taught more efficiently on Sex, then perhaps they would also learn how to use contraceptives the correct way. Perhaps I didn't read everything about this, but I am not even sure if they weren't used.

Heck, even people in their 20's-30's get pregnant while using pregnancy prevention methods. I was one of them, when I got pregnant with my son 9 months after my hubby and I were married. We were using condoms, and using them correctly. The only thing we could come up with is, that it had a small hole or puncture in it, or something. So, our son was a suprise, but a great one. Smiler

These were young kids too. I think most teens in this day and age think that "things" will never happen to them. I think it was like that when even I was a teen. There almost an invincibility thought pattern or something, that makes them feel that way.

They are both at fault for the pregnancy. The boy and the girl. Did the boy know that she had slept with other boys in that timeline? Who knows, and who cares. The topic itself is about whether he should have custody.

I think he should. The mother doesn't want the child, but he does and as his parent, he should, in my opinion.

All the rest of this, is kind of unnecessary details, really.

His maturity isn't anything any one of us that do not know him, can speak on. Parenting does not come with a handbook of guidelines. I have known plenty of older people with children and grandchildren that don't seem mature enough to even part take in the simplest of adult interaction. What is the deciding factor on saying someone is mature enough? Seems and sounds like this guy is mature enough to me.


I don't know if he knows everything involved in taking care of a child. I am sure it will not be an easy road for him, because as a parent, none of us have easy roads really. We all pretty much learn as we go, especially with our first children. Smiler

So, no I didn't do anything to make a case for or against him. It doesn't matter how wealthy, intelligent a person's father is, or what job his father has- it doesn't guaruntee that they'll be equally responsible in every action they make in life. This was most probably a mistake on the guy's part for getting a girl pregnant, but at very least (unlike many young men these days) he's owning up to that mistake and trying to be responsible now. That says tons about his character. Smiler

~Amanda


Amanda, you speak with great wisdom!
I have never in my entire life seen so much negative talk about a young man WANTING HIS OWN CHILD. WHAT IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU? The aunt and uncle are just that,aunt and uncle,they are not perfect,I do not care where he preaches,nor how many years they have been married,they are not perfect either. And lets not forget some of the meanest kids on this earth are preachers children,,wonder why that is?????????????

With the reasoning I have read in this thread,hell lets just go around town and collect ALL the babies born to unwed mothers and place them in "proper" homes .Better yet lets just burn the mothers at the stake for getting pregnant, casterate any and all boys that have sex under age 21 unmarried as well while we are at it.
Everyone on this thread has not for one minute given credit to the young man for realizing his responsibilities and LOVE for HIS CHILD. Simply because his child was not born in the circumstances thought to be acceptable.
Whoever this Judge Sandlin is just really made things worse for everybody. The Dad will get his child, but thanks to the judge the case will drag on until the child is old enough to be traumatized by the change of custody. I think he should get the Dink of the Year award. No offense, Shoalanda, but I disagree with you, too. How could the Dad acknowledge paternity of a child he knew nothing about? Give the baby to his Daddy. It's the LAW. Glad2B here in Dixie or not, it's high time Alabama stopped thinking that we are above the laws of the rest of this nation.
quote:
Originally posted by smurph:
I have never in my entire life seen so much negative talk about a young man WANTING HIS OWN CHILD. WHAT IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU? The aunt and uncle are just that,aunt and uncle,they are not perfect,I do not care where he preaches,nor how many years they have been married,they are not perfect either. And lets not forget some of the meanest kids on this earth are preachers children,,wonder why that is?????????????

With the reasoning I have read in this thread,hell lets just go around town and collect ALL the babies born to unwed mothers and place them in "proper" homes .Better yet lets just burn the mothers at the stake for getting pregnant, casterate any and all boys that have sex under age 21 unmarried as well while we are at it.
Everyone on this thread has not for one minute given credit to the young man for realizing his responsibilities and LOVE for HIS CHILD. Simply because his child was not born in the circumstances thought to be acceptable.


AMEN. KEEP ON PREACHING, BROTHER!


The judge in this case is Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge Jimmy Sandlin.
Just wanted to add unless you know the father personally, who are any of you to judge that he would'nt make a good father. The fact that they were both teenagers really isn't the point anymore. I know plenty of people who have had children when they were teenagers and became better parents than some who were older and the pregnancy was planned. And can anyone tell me of a guy his age who works, goes to school, attends parenting classes and anything else he can do~just to get his own child! This negativity blows my freakin mind! There are millions of dead beat dads out there who don't give a crap about there child and this guy is being punished, for what? Not knowing he was the father! This is crazy! And for the record, I do feel for the people who are wanting to adopt, BUT, why not adopt a child who has no parents, or whos parents can't take care of them. This child has a parent, a father who desperately wants him, give the guy his child!!!!!!!!! And to the father, keep fighting til you get your child, your child will love you even more for it when they grow up, I promise you!
quote:
Originally posted by smurph:
I have never in my entire life seen so much negative talk about a young man WANTING HIS OWN CHILD. WHAT IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU? The aunt and uncle are just that,aunt and uncle,they are not perfect,I do not care where he preaches,nor how many years they have been married,they are not perfect either. And lets not forget some of the meanest kids on this earth are preachers children,,wonder why that is?????????????

With the reasoning I have read in this thread,hell lets just go around town and collect ALL the babies born to unwed mothers and place them in "proper" homes .Better yet lets just burn the mothers at the stake for getting pregnant, casterate any and all boys that have sex under age 21 unmarried as well while we are at it.
Everyone on this thread has not for one minute given credit to the young man for realizing his responsibilities and LOVE for HIS CHILD. Simply because his child was not born in the circumstances thought to be acceptable.


Finally someone out there that has what it takes to tell everyone what needs to be told!!! My hats off to ya!
quote:
Originally posted by tweetietat:
Just wanted to add unless you know the father personally, who are any of you to judge that he would'nt make a good father. The fact that they were both teenagers really isn't the point anymore. I know plenty of people who have had children when they were teenagers and became better parents than some who were older and the pregnancy was planned. And can anyone tell me of a guy his age who works, goes to school, attends parenting classes and anything else he can do~just to get his own child! This negativity blows my freakin mind! There are millions of dead beat dads out there who don't give a crap about there child and this guy is being punished, for what? Not knowing he was the father! This is crazy! And for the record, I do feel for the people who are wanting to adopt, BUT, why not adopt a child who has no parents, or whos parents can't take care of them. This child has a parent, a father who desperately wants him, give the guy his child!!!!!!!!! And to the father, keep fighting til you get your child, your child will love you even more for it when they grow up, I promise you!


AMEN!!!!
Question for "Nurturing Father" and "mekirk2" because you two seem to know the law. What if the so-called adoptive parents recognizes the father "as the father" and backs out? Will custody be given to the natural father?

Reading cases on the internet, I found that adopting agencies will back off if a natural parent wants their child. Is that common practice to do what is right or is it law? And if a child is unadoptable how can anyone pursue adopting that child?
I am no law expert by any means, but from what has been posted here and on Shoalandas site, the law in question is regarding adoption. If the couple trying to adopt were to back out, I would think that the issue would go away.

This has gone to court so, from what I can tell, the family is not going to back down from the adoption. There really is no common practice that I know about, just best interests for the child, and numerous rulings at the appeal level and the supreme court level have shown that the best interests of the child are to remain with the biological parent. It looks like the judge ignored the appeal rulings and made a decision based on just the law in place. While that is his right, he also has to take the final eventual outcome into consideration (his ruling will probably be overturned on appeal) and do what is best for the child. Allowing the child to continue to live with the adopted parents while this plays out is no benefit at all to the child. He should have, IMHO, ordered some type of joint custody agreement until this is all worked out.

According to the judge, at this point in time, the child is adoptable. Whether or not he is right has to be taken to the appeals court, which has, in the past, disagreed with his opinion.

My question is, why the rush to make all this happen? Why were the three candidates for father given such a run around in the first place in regards to determining who the father was? Sounds to me like the mothers family had a plan in place to make the child adoptable, but that is just my opinion (not based on any hard evidence).


Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
My question is, why the rush to make all this happen? Why were the three candidates for father given such a run around in the first place in regards to determining who the father was? Sounds to me like the mothers family had a plan in place to make the child adoptable, but that is just my opinion (not based on any hard evidence).


I thought the issue would go away but didn't know for sure, just curious.

That is a valid question in this situation. From reading all the posts, it sure looks like that a plan was in place.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×