The Hidden Meaning Behind "Pre-Birth Support"

One of the main laws many states use to circumvent an unmarried father's rights in order to place their child for adoption is the now famous "support the expectant mom" line.  A man is supposed to support his pregnant girlfriend through her pregnancy and in some cases, live with her as well.  One could say that common sense is that the man should pay something towards the new mother's care, but sometimes even if they do and can provide proof that they attempted to support the mother, it's not enough.

Interestingly enough, even in states that have somewhat more "progressive" laws for unwed fathers, that little ditty mentioned above is still often used if the mother wishes to surrender her child.  Of course, the laws even state that if the woman cuts contact and refuses support, that is not a good enough reason to not financially support her and the father's rights are still in jeopardy.  Most unmarried fathers are young and many more are unfamiliar with how the laws work.  Many assume that simply coming forward, proving paternity and declaring they want the child is enough.  

When you look at how the laws are worded, you realize there is a hidden meaning behind them.  Another person pointed this out to me, so I cannot take credit for this revelation.  But when you really read into it and realize that a man can provide receipts to show support, can show a bank account of money saved that the mother refused and prove that he had attempted to remain involved through the pregnancy and still lose his child to adoption, the laws can only mean one thing: you must be married to the mother to have any rights to a child born.

A simple piece of paper that legally ties together the relationship is really the only way a young father will have any rights to his child.

I'm sure there will be some reading this and thinking Well, if he really cared, he'd marry the girl to protect his rights and the child's rights.  And many still believe that men should only have rights to a child if they're married to the mother when the child was born.  Sadly, as we saw with the Terry Achane case, being married to the mother almost didn't help.  It still took two years to get his daughter back after being placed for adoption by the mother, his now ex wife.  And sadly, the only reason he got little Teleah back was because he was married to the mother when Teleah was born.  The judge who ruled in Achane's favor made a point to emphasize on this little salient fact.  

I'm divorced myself and believe marriage is an archaic institution.  I most likely will never marry again.  It left a bad taste in my mouth.  But I also acknowledge that to many people, marriage means a great deal and is taken very seriously.  And for another segment of the population, they simply want the same right to marry as everyone else and are denied that.  I won't argue about marriage.  We all have our individual beliefs on it.  I respect that many see marriage quite differently than I do.  

What I despise about marriage is the fact that it gives men more rights to their children than an unmarried man.  An unmarried father can be everything you want in a man and father.  He can be his children's hero.  But because he doesn't have that magical piece of paper, he is at the mercy of the mother and the courts if he wants any sort of access to his children and damned near no say in how they are brought up, whether or not they'll be placed for adoption and in some instances, will be passed up by foster care should the children be removed from the mother's home.  Yet an ex husband (or soon to be ex husband) can disappear for years and years.  He can literally abandon his children and yet the mother has to get his permission to take the child out of country for travel, have some level of custody plan in place that gives him equal say and time.  He can literally disappear for seven or eight years and can show up on the mother's doorstep demanding his weekend with the children.  The mother could have been the sole breadwinner of the household before the marriage broke up.  She could very well have been the only one contributing to their children and a pregnancy.  The husband can be chronically unemployed and not lift a finger, but he gets equal say in the upbringing of the children.  Being married to the mother alone means he is supporting her, even if he truly is not and she can prove such.

I'm about to share a little about myself here.  I surrendered a child for adoption over six years ago.  My second born daughter.  My ex husband being the father of both her and the older daughter I am raising (who is now almost ten).  We split up when I was three months pregnant with our second born.  The marriage was chaos, to put it mildly.  He wasn't necessarily abusive, but manipulative.  He could come home after a bad day at work and by the time he was done venting about it, he could have YOU feeling like his bad day was your fault.  Anywho, so we split up and I moved back with my parents.  Four months after my return, I simply cracked and panicked.  My soon to be ex husband had vanished and there was no support of any kind coming through for the daughter I was raising.  Our older daughter, 3 1/2 yrs old at the time, was going through a lot of adjustment issues that were actually normal given the situation.  We were still living with my parents and it was crowded.  Everyone was on edge.  I caved.  I made an adoption plan for my soon to be second born.

So, my soon to be ex husband was out of the picture.  He never called and never returned my calls.  Emails often went unanswered.  He lived across the country, so going to his house was out of the question.  He wasn't paying child support for big sister M.  But because we were married at the time of Z's conception and still legally married at that point, he had specific rights not afforded to an unwed father.  He was served proper and given sixty days to contest (basically he had up until her birth).  I didn't technically need his physical signature for consent, but he still had to be notified properly.  His rights were terminated by default since he never showed up or filed any motions to contest the adoption.  Had we not been married, he would have only been a brief topic of discussion between myself and the lawyer and his consent would not have been needed since there'd been no contact for several months.  Hell, there wouldn't have been any money wasted in serving him.

The older daughter I am raising hasn't seen him or talked to him since she was 3 yrs old.  I gave up emailing a few years ago and the last good number I had for him has long been disconnected.  Yet, he can contest medical treatment, where she goes to school and, should I ever have the finances to afford such a trip, could bar her from leaving the country.  I cannot even request to the school that they not release M to him should he show up out of the blue.  I have to have legal documents showing he is not allowed to have her, which I cannot in good conscience do since he never actually harmed her.  

Obviously, these are good rules to have because not all men are like my ex husband.  I support these rules, for the most part.  But it also highlights the way states discriminate against unwed fathers.  A dead beat father who was married to the mother has all these rights, no matter how long he's been absent from the child's life.  But an unmarried father can barely blink without being considered nothing more than a genetic donor and flesh and blood ATM for the mother.

It's time for states to level the playing field, folks.  Why should a married father who does nothing have more rights to a child than an unmarried father who goes through hell and back to be a part of his child's life?  That piece of paper that legally bound the couple together should not afford a man more rights to his children than any other man out there.