Hi,
Is there a way to give up parental rights and responsibilities? Or some legal form which would make it easier for a woman to become a single parent and then the bio dad would have no claim on the baby years later?
Printable View
Hi,
Is there a way to give up parental rights and responsibilities? Or some legal form which would make it easier for a woman to become a single parent and then the bio dad would have no claim on the baby years later?
1) Speak to a lawyerQuote:
Originally Posted by Bonebreaker777
2) IANAL, but my understanding is, except in exceptional circumstances, it's only possible for the father, and only if they're not on the birth certificate and weren't married to the mother.
Thanks, I think that's the plan. I appreciate the answer nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
The only thing is that there is nothing stopping kid when grown up doing a paternity test to seek out their biological father. So the person in question should be prepared in a few decades time,for their biological sprog to be potentially in contact.
I think it will be explained to the little one in a way that mommy really wanted him/her and she decided to do it without a daddy. As of what will happen decades later, who knows...Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
If it's anything to go by all those TV shows where adults start looking for their biological parents,it can be depressing.Even Eric Claption tried looking for his dad,and by the time he found out who he was,he had died of cancer. Apparently he took after his father more than his mum as he was also a musician.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonebreaker777
http://www.eric-clapton.co.uk/interv...atherseyes.htm
I really think for the people involved they need to be thinking ahead a bit - its not fair on any child for them to be denied knowledge of where they are from. It has a chance to eventually causing ruptures in the parent-child relationshop once they enter adulthood. Being a single parent isn't the issue,but denying the knowledge is the bigger problem IMHO.Quote:
In his new hit song My Father's Eyes, British rock superstar Eric Clapton sings soulfully about the father he never knew: "How did I get here? When will all my hopes arrive?"
He answers four times in a poignant refrain: "When I look in my father's eyes."
The only son of a brief encounter between 16-year-old Patricia Clapton and a 24-year-old Canadian soldier stationed in England during Second World War, Eric Clapton was raised by his grandparents in Ripley, a village outside London .
"I never met my father," Mr. Clapton told his biographer in 1985. "And I realized that the closest I ever came to looking into my father's eyes was when I looked into my son's eyes."
Mr. Clapton's five-year-old son, Conor, plummeted to his death in 1991 from the 53rd floor of the New York City apartment of his mother, Italian model Lori del Santo.
Missing the father he never knew, Conor's death pushed Mr. Clapton into depression. From it emerged Tears in Heaven, Mr. Clapton's most successful song.
"Would you know my name if I saw you in heaven?" he asked in the tender ballad to his dead son. "Would it be the same if I saw you in heaven?"
It is this tragic sense of loss -- of his father and of his son -- that has shaped Mr. Clapton's music more than anything else, and that found new expression with the release this month of My Father's Eyes.
Today, Eric Clapton can, for the first time, look into his father's eyes. In these photographs he can see the father he never knew, and meet the sister he never knew he had.
Remember the most important person is the child. I landed up getting divorced when my son was 7 and he landed up with psychiatrist at that age(we were the lucky ones as we remarried). Kids will always want to know at some stage or other who there parents are. Never lie to them as it will most of the time come back to bite you.
Never take away the right of the child, parents must never ever underestimate kids and how important it is to bring them up the right way.
But this is a touchy subject and scared of saying something when it comes to things like this.
As I understand it, and I am not a lawyer, it is neither easy nor common, and if it can happen at all, it is by court order only. From that, I assume "a form"? No. Not that easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonebreaker777
It was the subject of a Court of Appeal ruling about 20 years ago, but I don't know how that turned out. I can only second kalniel's advice - talk to a lawyer - and to add, the right type of lawyer. This is an area for specialist expertise, so I'd suggest an expert in children's law, not a high street general practice person more used to wills, or property conveyancing, etc. I'd also expect it to be seriously not cheap to do.
I guess a related extension of the thread query is presumably this is also (even if just hypothetically) asking what happens if someone gets pregnant and one party really doesn't want it, but the other party wants to go ahead and keep the child. It's a minefield surely as if the chap doesn't want it and instead suggests she gets the morning after pill or the equivalent in those early weeks the girl could say "no no no I'm keeping it and you're saddled with child maintenance for the next however many years". However SFAIK if the girl wanted to abort but the guy doesn't want that he is, IIRC, powerless to stop her. It seems an odd double standard. Granted the girl has to go through the pregnancy etc, but if the chap really doesn't want it, but she does, why does he have to foot the bill, particularly if she says she doesn't want him involved in raising it?
There's about 50% devil's advocate in that, and 50% genuine pondering. It's not a whether abortion is right or wrong thread. Since we have laws saying it is permitted, why does one person's view outweigh the other in whichever way they choose?
There may be a legal ability to give up your right to custody. There certainly won't be an ability, aside from adoption, to give up your responsibility to the child. More specifically you can't sign away your obligation to pay child support.
At a guess, because if he doesn't want the kid but she does, and is somehow obligated to have a termination she doesn't want despite that, she is going to be compelled to undergo either involuntary and unpleasant drug treatment, or perhaps even an unpleasant and potentially dangerous medical procedure. And either way, at least potentially a very harmful experience psychologically. I struggle to think of situations where anybody (of, in legal terms, "sound mind") will be compelled to undergo potentially seriously harmful medical procedures, at least, in 'civilised' countries. I mean, governments have found even mandatory Covid vaccinations a minefield.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
I am rather of the view that if the "he" doesn't want the risk of an unplanned child, "he" should have kept it in his pants. Actions can have unintended consequences, and the potential in that situation ain't rocket science. :D