THE FOLLOWING IS FACTUALLY TRUE AND INVOLVES A LAUDERDALE COUNTY FATHER. THE WRITER OF THIS POST IS NOT THE FATHER WRITTEN ABOUT HERE! NEITHER IS HE RELATED TO HIM.

Should a father with no legal ruling of unfitness be denied his parental rights to his child born out of wedlock that the birth mother wants to place for adoption when the father has shown a desire to assume the role as a father?

Read the following and comment, should this father have his child?

BACKGROUND

A sixteen year old girl becomes pregnant while having regular relations with two high school aged boys. A third boy, also a minor under the law, had relations with her one-time. Meanwhile, the birth mother’s brother - a minister - and his wife take the child home from the hospital. They have intentions to adopt knowing three men have stepped up as the father.

The two actively involved boys claimed during pregancy they were the father; however after birth DNA tests proved that untrue. About 45 days after birth the third boy stepped in and a DNA test verified we was the biological father.

The couple allowed the biological father to visit his child until they discovered a legal petition had been filed to establish paternity, which he planned to block the adoption. During the legal proceedings the father repeatedly asked the court to let him see his child and that never happened.

DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE ALABAMA FATHER PUTATIVE REGISTRY ACT?

The only legal basis the adopting couple argued to deny this father his parental rights, the father DID NOT sign the putative registry within 30 days of birth as the Putative Registry Act states, therefore, they claimed, he had no legal standing as the father. The father did not about the Putative Registry requirement until October 2008 and he signed it at that time.

Problem with this legal argument recent compelling case law says signing the registry is not always required. And this case law was provided to Judge Jimmy Sandlin, yet he disregarded it. THE COURT-ORDER FROM JIMMY SANDLIN AS FOLLOWS:

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


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."

In this case the biological father has been active in the child's life for several years. Then the mother's new husband attempted to adopt the child. While the biological father had not signed the putative registry, he had developed a parent-child relationship. As such the appeals court said he was afforded constitutional protections to block the adoption proceedings.

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 does not constitute a ground for terminating parental rights."

This case DHR found a child dependant at three months old. DHR filed a legal petition to terminate the mother's parental rights. Three months later the biological father petitioned the court for "Motion for Adjudication of Paternity". DHR had named the biological father in the mother's termination proceedings, and the juvenile court appointed an attorney to represent the father. The father was present during legal proceedings to terminate the mother's parental rights, however the court went ahead and approved DHR to place the child for adoption, even though the father wanted his child. The judge ruled because the father had not signed the putative father registry he had no legal standing as the father. WRONG! The civil appeals court said paternity was established early in the legal proceedings by genetic testing, and that DHR had previously made a individualized service plan for the father. The appeals court said under the circumstances, there had already been an implicit, if not an explicit, legal decision regarding the father's paternity. The civil appeals court REVERSED the juvenile court with instructions for the court to formally issue a decision the father has legal standing regarding his child.

3.) In Lehr v. Roberson from the United States Supreme Court - 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."

THE APPEAL

While the appeal will take ten to twelve months, and another $10,000, an eighteen month old little boy is going without bonding time with his biological father.

THE FATHER NOW

The father, now age 20, is a student at the University of North Alabama. He has taken parenting classes, and he is involved working with young children in the after school program at the YMCA. He has extended family for a support system. And, he has worked three jobs to help pay $ 30,000 in legal fees to protect his parental rights.


FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO ARGUE THAT TEENS SHOULDN'T BE HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONS THAT IS TRUE, BUT CONSIDER TWO THINGS 1.) AT THIS POINT THAT IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE AND 2.) HERE ARE SOME REALITY FACTS ON TEEN SEXUAL ACTIVITY:

DO YOU KNOW: Teens from ages thirteen to nineteen are sexually active forty-five percent (45%) of the time. Change the age group to sixteen to nineteen and the percentage goes to sixty-five percent (65%). Source: Google internet search on teen sexual activity on 23 August 09.

What are your opinions:

Should a father have his child?

Should have Sandlin followed established case law?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nurturing Father,

This is a perfect example of the joys of this forum, we can diasgree on one topic and completely agree on another.

If the facts of this case are as you presented, I would tend to agree with the fact that this person should be given the chance to be a father to this child. This situation is the sad result of teen pregnancy and teen sex, but that is no excuse for the state to allow the child to be adopted without the fathers input. Had the mother gone on state support, the state would be making the father pay child support. It cannot go both ways.

My suggestion to the father is to reach out for the local news channels and ask for their assistance. They love tear jerkers, and this story might be appealing to them. WAFF would be the way to go, Josh Aults email can be found on their website. A 'trial in the court of public opinion' may sway the judge or allow for some involvement at a higher level.

Kirk

I say no. He's a kid. What if he goes into the military?

It's a tricky issue, but what would be too young? 17? 16? You see my point.

quote:

Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
I say no. He's a kid. What if he goes into the military?

It's a tricky issue, but what would be too young? 17? 16? You see my point.

He said the father is now 20 and a student at UNA.

And what does the military have to do with it? Even IF he was going into the military, are you saying that he would not have a right to his child if he joined the military?

So, no, I dont see your point. IMHO, a 15, 16, or 17 year old that is ready to make the committment to be a father should be given the opportunity and all the help he can get. This person does not want to give up his rights as a father....

Kirk

Age 20 is a kid? Since when?

Women have equal rights? There are mother's in the military? Do we discriminate against parents being in the military?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trutooit-II:
I say no. He's a kid. What if he goes into the military?
QUOTE]


Do what? Sorry, that made no sense whatsoever to me.

If this young man has helped raise $30,000 for legal expenses,and is a student at UNA,he certainly is not behaving like a kid. In fact he is showing more maturity than many of these fathers going thru a divorce over their children born in wedded bliss(sarcasm)
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM He is the father,he wants his child.

He absolutely should have the right to raise his own child.

I vote with the adoptive parents for several reasons:

http://shoalandaspeaks.blogspo...-parents-part-i.html

I feel for this young man, but he himself has made no public effort (unless anonymously on the Courthouse Forum) to speak for himself. How mature is that? I'm not sure if he wants the child or his father. His parents are divorced, and his mother has similarly not weighed in, unless anonymously.

He wasn't mature enough to respect himself or the biological mother. I don't think he went out with her because she was a "nice girl." He could have just as easily contracted a disease as made her pregnant. In short, he was not thinking.

Also, if the father has rights in this case, so does the mother. The mother has stated she wishes for her brother and sister-in-law to have the child. They are apparently mature and childless and will give the child a stable home.

Besides the military, the young man will certainly wish to date, in all probability marry, but then again, I don't think he will be raising the child. Either his father and step-mother or mother and step-father would actually raise the child who is now no longer an infant.

Remember, the Guardian ad Litem suggested that the married couple would be better parents. That goes a long way with me. There has been some suggestion of the judge favoring certain GALs and other accusations of impropriety. If this is true, while a separate matter, it's extremely serious.

Finally, the point is moot, at least until the appeals court rules. Judge Sandlin, no matter how good or bad a jurist, has said the child belongs with its adoptive parents.

(I will mention that the young man has not actually been in nursing school until this semester--perhaps the GAL considered this as well.)

Shoalanda,

I have agreed with many of your opinions, but I will have to disagree with you on this, especially some of your points:

quote:

He wasn't mature enough to respect himself or the biological mother. I don't think he went out with her because she was a "nice girl." He could have just as easily contracted a disease as made her pregnant. In short, he was not thinking.

This is far from a valid excuse not to allow a father his right to be a father. If we used this as an excuse to take away a parents right, there would be hundreds of thousands more children in the care of the various states around our country. I know married couples that were not thinking when they conceived their children. That does not make them bad parents.

quote:

Also, if the father has rights in this case, so does the mother. The mother has stated she wishes for her brother and sister-in-law to have the child. They are apparently mature and childless and will give the child a stable home.

So, if two people divorce and the mother wants to give their child up, the father has no say? The mother gave up her custodial rights, but she does not have the right to give up the fathers rights for him.

quote:

Besides the military, the young man will certainly wish to date, in all probability marry, but then again, I don't think he will be raising the child. Either his father and step-mother or mother and step-father would actually raise the child who is now no longer an infant.

What does the father dating or marrying have anything to do with the situation? Do you not think single parents are able to date?

quote:

Remember, the Guardian ad Litem suggested that the married couple would be better parents. That goes a long way with me. There has been some suggestion of the judge favoring certain GALs and other accusations of impropriety. If this is true, while a separate matter, it's extremely serious.

It does not matter who anyone thinks will be a better parent, what matters is who the childs parents are. Are we going to allow the government to assign parents based on who will make a better parent instead of who the actual parent is? Thats crazy! Unless there is proof that the actual parent is unfit, the child should be with the parent.

Now, all that said, if the father wants the child for his parents to raise, that is a different situation and the court should decide. But, if the father wants custody of his child and is not unfit, the government should not have the right to interfere. The resident lawguy can pipe up, but isnt there recent cases where the father was discovered years later and awarded custody because he was unaware he was the father?

Kirk

quote:

Originally posted by Shoalanda:


Remember, the Guardian ad Litem suggested that the married couple would be better parents. That goes a long way with me. There has been some suggestion of the judge favoring certain GALs and other accusations of impropriety. If this is true, while a separate matter, it's extremely serious.

The GAL, I don't know him but what qualifications does he have other than being an attorney?

Thank you kirk! well said!
and another impotant factor, very fact of divorce stats,just because the brother and sister-in-law are married presently,does not mean divorce is not in their future.
Give the young man his child!

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."

The father deserves his child.I had a child out of wedlock at 21.The bio father wanted nothing to do with the child.I went on to marry and have more children.My husband is the child's father.
If he can provide for the child why deny him his rights? Most guys in that situation would leave it to the mom. Just my opinion.
Any man can be a father..it takes a real man to be a daddy

Your way off this time Shoalanda. It really shows that you have know clue about this case or you are good friend/family with the adoptive parents.
I've read your blog and you are totally wrong about your opinion to the point I will never read your blog again.

quote:

I feel for this young man, but he himself has made no public effort (unless anonymously on the Courthouse Forum) to speak for himself. How mature is that? I'm not sure if he wants the child or his father. His parents are divorced, and his mother has similarly not weighed in, unless anonymously.

Where in the world have you been. This boy has told everyone he has come in contact with that he is the father. He has held nothing back. The community is behind him 100% with the exception of the adopting parents and about 3-4 family members. 75% of the adopting parents family is behind this young man. You really need to get the facts before you post.

quote:

He wasn't mature enough to respect himself or the biological mother. I don't think he went out with her because she was a "nice girl." He could have just as easily contracted a disease as made her pregnant. In short, he was not thinking.

You don't know the circumstance here, you don't the young man or the young woman. Don't make judgements on either! Please don't talk about either one of these young people again. It's apparent you look down on teens that has pre-martial sex. I don't condone pre-martial sex but I'm not oblivious to the fact that it's happening. Yes they made a mistake but he without sin throw the first stone!

quote:

Also, if the father has rights in this case, so does the mother. The mother has stated she wishes for her brother and sister-in-law to have the child. They are apparently mature and childless and will give the child a stable home.

They both have the same rights and it should be that they both give consent to an adoption. Nothing more, nothing les, PERIOD!!!!!

quote:

Besides the military, the young man will certainly wish to date, in all probability marry, but then again, I don't think he will be raising the child. Either his father and step-mother or mother and step-father would actually raise the child who is now no longer an infant.

How military got in this case, who knows? No bearing on the case. Ridiculous to mention

quote:

Remember, the Guardian ad Litem suggested that the married couple would be better parents. That goes a long way with me. There has been some suggestion of the judge favoring certain GALs and other accusations of impropriety. If this is true, while a separate matter, it's extremely serious.

I think you should probably look into the matter with the GAL in this case and get your facts straight.

quote:

Finally, the point is moot, at least until the appeals court rules. Judge Sandlin, no matter how good or bad a jurist, has said the child belongs with its adoptive parents.

Wrong again, he ruled that the father was a putative father. His order was: "1. The Petitioner is deemed to be a putative father required to register with the putative father registry." What this means is that if it wasn't for the Putative father registry, then the father would have his child. The judge didn't say, I think this child should be with the adoptive parents. Never mentioned it, in matter of fact, it didn't matter what the GAL suggested either because he ruled just on the PFR!

quote:

(I will mention that the young man has not actually been in nursing school until this semester--perhaps the GAL considered this as well.)

What difference does this make? Matter of fact what difference does anything you said about this on your blog or here. It obiviously you are connected someway with the adoptive parents or the GAL because of your comments. You are not speaking the truth and making accusations that have no point what so ever about the case. They are just your opinions and they are wrong.