Timequake
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Here on Debate Politics we often talk of issues like adoption and abortion but I notice that we have little or no debates or parental rights. Should the mother have more rights than the father? Why? Recently, my brother and his girlfriend had a baby boy. My brother was extremely overjoyed and could not wait to start his new journey as a father, but one thing stands in his way. When their baby arrived in July my brothers girlfriend refused to allow him to sign his name on the birth certificate and legally name him the father. In a country such has America how can one parents rights outweigh the other?
Her reasoning for not allowing him to sign the birth certificate are legitimate and respectable: his current job does not have benefits that would support her or the child, but what bothers me here is that she actually has the power to not allow him to sign the certificate and legally be named the baby’s father…. Does the sound constitutional?
Of course we protested this and requested a DNA testing so that we could overcome her decision but she and her family have requested that we wait 6 months and allow him to find a legit job with benefits before we make this a legal matter, but here is the catch, by the end of this 6 month period, she can claim abandonment on his part and thereby take sole custody of this child.
The question here is not what we can do about this specific situation (that is simple). The question is, how can our constitution permit this kind of situation to happen? One parent should not have more rights than the other. The fathers name should be on the certificate giving him legal rights to the child from birth until the child is 18, with or without the mother’s consent. How can a mother deny a father of their rights over the child without legal intervention or proof of legitimate cause of why the baby’s father should not be named? I’m sorry but lack of job benefits is not a legitimate cause, there are baby’s given to fathers who have no jobs everyday.
Her reasoning for not allowing him to sign the birth certificate are legitimate and respectable: his current job does not have benefits that would support her or the child, but what bothers me here is that she actually has the power to not allow him to sign the certificate and legally be named the baby’s father…. Does the sound constitutional?
Of course we protested this and requested a DNA testing so that we could overcome her decision but she and her family have requested that we wait 6 months and allow him to find a legit job with benefits before we make this a legal matter, but here is the catch, by the end of this 6 month period, she can claim abandonment on his part and thereby take sole custody of this child.
The question here is not what we can do about this specific situation (that is simple). The question is, how can our constitution permit this kind of situation to happen? One parent should not have more rights than the other. The fathers name should be on the certificate giving him legal rights to the child from birth until the child is 18, with or without the mother’s consent. How can a mother deny a father of their rights over the child without legal intervention or proof of legitimate cause of why the baby’s father should not be named? I’m sorry but lack of job benefits is not a legitimate cause, there are baby’s given to fathers who have no jobs everyday.