Women who put babies up for adoption required to publish sexual pasts

By Jon Burstein
Sun-Sentinel
Posted August 7 2002

One is a woman who was slipped a date-rape drug. Another is a teenage girl who had sex with numerous classmates. A third traded her body for drugs. .......

All three women want to put their babies up for adoption and don’t know who the fathers are. But each is hesitant to go through adoption proceedings for the same reason: They fear a new law will require them to detail their sexual pasts in local newspapers.

The women, along with three others, are challenging the law, arguing that it is an unconstitutional invasion of their privacy. ……

“When women come into my office and find their whole lives have to be exposed in the newspaper, they are like, ‘Forget it.’ They can abort without consent, but they can’t give the child an opportunity to live without humiliating themselves.”

The law is a part of revised Florida adoption requirements enacted last year that require a birth mother to make an exhaustive effort to locate the birth father to notify him about adoption proceedings.

When background searches don’t work, a birth mother must place legal notices about the adoption in a local newspaper where the baby was conceived.

In the newspaper notice, [b]the mother must list her name, describe herself, name or describe the possible father(s) and list the date and the city or county of conception.[/b]

“The intent of the bill was that we in Florida would never have to suffer through all these failed adoption cases... “Most of the problems you have in adoption cases has been notice requirements.”

One of the more notable cases was the fight over Baby Emily, who was born in 1992 to a Boca Raton woman who gave her up for adoption to a Plantation family. But the birth father subsequently contested the adoption and what followed was three years of bitter legal battles. The adoptive family ended up retaining custody.


more..... [url]http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-padopt080702.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines [/url]


I vote invasion!

for use in case child needs to know this information late in life for health reasons, justifiable.

but to publish this information in a newspaper is, to my mind, definitely an invasion of privacy.  why does the general public need to know?

geesh, that's all we need.  another excuse to make abortion look all the more appealing.

i don't think carrying a child has anything to do with privacy and respect.  rather, i think the privacy and respect should be honored even if there's no pregnancy involved.  the circumstances of the pregnancy shouldn't change that either.

not to mention that absolute privacy for the mother and/or father is not necessarily the best thing for the child(ren).  medical history can be imperative to know down the road.  it might not be a bad idea to keep the mother's (and father's if known) medical history with the adoption file in case it's needed.

with the caveat that other than medical history, i don't see how any other information is really necessary.

   OK, Mrs. Wind works in the adoption field in NJ. It has been like that in this state, the birth father has rights. THey lose several adoptions because of the birth father coming forward and saying that he did not know. Now he wants the baby. Well if she doesn't want the baby andhe does, it is his blood. Make it more confusing if the baby is part Native American, they tribe has a first right. They can come in ad stop itand take the baby, years later.

   Now the baby is yanked out the adobtive family, they are all upset. Most times the girl lied, and since they know each other he finds out.

   As for privacy, they can post it blind, will so snd so please contact a phone number.

  It may seem hard but the birth father and baby have rights too, it is not just about her.

   Adoption is a good thing, it makes families, and gives a child a chance.

in the interest of upping the ante....

which is better for the child, two loving parents willing to adopt or the single father who's sex partner conveniently nearly left him childless.

i agree the father has rights.  but i also think in lots of instances indiscretions on the mother's part probably translate to indiscretions on the father's part.

would the guy who slipped the gal a date rape drug be considered a good father?

would a guy who'd have sex with a woman known to sleep around with several other guys be considered a good father?

would a guy who'd have sex with a woman and pay her for it in money for drugs or drugs outright be a good candidate for a father?

yes, i know these are extreme cases and not all babies born out of wedlock have parents with horrible morals and judgement.  but what of the 21 y/o nursing student (random example) who gets pregnant with a boyfriend of 3 years and no plans of marriage?

is it in the child's best interest, assuming the nurse wants to let the child be adopted, to let the father raise it by himself?

at what point do the father's rights supercede the child's best interest or vice versa?

i don't have an answer, but i know which direction i lean.  and the discussions here haved caused me to extend the picture beyond the original points.

i know the law doesn't necessarily correspond to what is best for the child, but i think that non-legal issues should also be considered.  



as for this, it's absolutely unnecessary.  men are not excluded from the womenz forum.  this place exists solely to give the more timid fairer sex a less hostile place to come when GD gets a little rough.

Hmmm….  That’s a hard one. [>:/] Biological parents have primary right for custody.  But it will be wrong , if after a period of time,   a parent comes wanting custody (in this case the father) taken away from adoptive parents and given to them.  

The presence of a baby is known 9 months before it comes in to this world. Also, It takes a long period of time for an adoption.  SO,  if they weren’t there to [b]NOTICE[/b] the mother was Pregnant, and that she gave birth.  It is save to assume that, the father is long gone, that the father doesn’t care, or that the father is unknown. SO really they have no say in that child’s life.

Normally an adoptive child , doesn’t realize he/she is adopted till they are older and ready to be told.
A one-parent child will be aware that, he lives with his daddy there is no mommy. Because, mommy didn’t want me and she put me up for adoption.  


This is a very delicate subject  [:\]

Sounds like a cheap dating service.

The problem is that where do you draw the line for parent rights, if heis unfit as a father, do we have a law decide it is ok to terminate his rights?

The child would be better in a loving home, but if the law terminates one father's rights, then the door is open for the government to decide who is fit to be a parent. So we have the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, and fathers.

As as far for fit, Mrs Wind placed a son for adoption 15 years ago, it was a hard choice, but best for both of them. We see him several times a year, his parents are his parents, but he knows who gave birth to him. In know waydoes it make her any less fit to be a mom. Especially since she is the best mom to the little girl that is sleeping upstairs.

Judge not what you do not know fully.

hmmm i think I have the answer....... If they have a problem telling people who they are,,,then Go to the next county or state and put the baby for adoption there.  [:-D]