Birth parent struggles

originally posted by: Bluesma


Granted, the point is valid, and I agree. But we must keep in mind the very large numbers of young men who are tricked by claims of "I am on the pill, it's okay.", and accidental or even intentional pregnancy happens.

Young people cannot even be trusted to take antibiotics as required so
contraceptives don't stand a chance?

My daughter instilled into her son that unless he was ready to be a father it was
his responsibility to double up regardless of what the girlfriend
was on.

But I also have become aware that there are many fathers, who faced with the idea of having a child at first, consider that with the mother to help him, guide him, and be a compliment to that which he lacks, he gains some confidence in how well he might be able to fulfil the role.

When the relationship falls apart, that confidence falls apart.... with her to help me, I might have been able to figure it out. But all alone? I am only going to screw it up! I have no idea how to do this, I don't have the financial or emotional resources...or.... I am only going to replay what I know which was my own fathers terribly terrible parenting that I feel did me more harm than good!

I think I covered most of this in my previous post, however although a
young mother may 'put on a hard face' she is just whistling in the dark,
as she has no recourse but to soldier on and take on the complete
responsibility for a 'new human being' with all the same emotional
turmoil you mention above.

Something I was once told many moons ago, and has often helped me
when my back was against the wall .... *Problems are only solutions
in disguise*

originally posted by: eletheia


My daughter instilled into her son that unless he was ready to be a father it was
his responsibility to double up regardless of what the girlfriend
was on.

Yeah, I think most parents nowadays have. I still pull mine aside when they come home and demand to know if they are using condoms every time. I'm a pain the ass. But I am also aware that putting on a condom is just as difficult as taking antibiotics, especially in the throes of a huge hard on and a sweet talking girl!

I think I covered most of this in my previous post, however although a
young mother may 'put on a hard face' she is just whistling in the dark,
as she has no recourse but to soldier on and take on the complete
responsibility for a 'new human being' with all the same emotional
turmoil you mention above.

I guess I didn't catch your point about the past and forced adoptions in relation to this.

No recourse? Putting a child up for adoption is not only an option, but socially encouraged. Abortion is an option, though how socially acceptable it is depends upon the community one is in. They have those choices. Men do not.

originally posted by: Bluesma



I guess I didn't catch your point about the past and forced adoptions in relation to this.

No recourse? Putting a child up for adoption is not only an option, but socially encouraged. Abortion is an option, though how socially acceptable it is depends upon the community one is in. They have those choices. Men do not.

I think you may be referring to the fact that in the past it was a total disgrace

for a girl/woman to have a baby out of wedlock .... Oh the shame!


Even as old as their early 20's they would have to spend their pregnancy in a

'mother and baby' home (cruel places by all accounts) and not allowed

home unless the baby was adopted, more often at the insistence of her

father (the grandfather)


Forced adoption? >>>>

It has been well documented (The Catholic Sisters Laundries and *Philomina")

being true accounts of what it was like for mothers up to, and including

the 1960's. Documentaries of women in their 60's + meeting for the first time

their 'babies' wrenched from them for adoption. They did not have the means,

support, or accommodation in which to bring up a child...


The mothers of today have support accommodation and finances allowing them

to keep their babies.

I remember my mother saying " Today they have love children yesterday they had

b*******.

I am aware of those past elements.

I simply do not get what the relevance is here, now, with what I am saying.

Women NOW have possibilities, they have choices, they are neither forced to keep a child nor put it up for adoption.
Men do not have those possibilities.

originally posted by: Bluesma


I am aware of those past elements.

I simply do not get what the relevance is here, now, with what I am saying.

Women NOW have possibilities, they have choices, they are neither forced to keep a child nor put it up for adoption.
Men do not have those possibilities.

If they want to maintain a relationship with their child and are the

acknowledged father: the *law* will afford them reasonable

access, there are even cases where they get to have total custardy.


If they do not want to maintain a relationship with their child they

can always consider that the baby has been adopted ....

only by the real mother.

There's' two choices ...

a reply to: Bluesma

That could very well be a situation wbere the dicision was made by both parents for the good of the child. My own experience was quite different. At 17 I found myself pregnant and when I told the father he quietly disappeared. Started dating someone else and eventually moved a few hundred miles away. He never paid a penny in child support nor did he ever seek any kind of relationship with his child. His mother begged for me to bring her grandchild around to see her but since her son was such a bastard I never did. She saw him maybe three or four times. Their whole family agreed to keep the existence of the child a secret from the extended family. No one outside of his immediate family knew about the child. So since he was such an object of shame to them all I decided they didn't deserve to know him or be part of his life. My own parents took care of the hospital and doctor bills and we lived with them until I was 21 and had gotten a really good job and could afford to live on my own. At 24 I married a man who never once referred to my son as his step son. He was always just his son. That man will tell you to this day that he,has three sons. The boys are all just brothers no step brother no half brother just brothers. I got lucky the second time.

originally posted by: eletheia

If they do not want to maintain a relationship with their child they

can always consider that the baby has been adopted ....

only by the real mother.

There's' two choices ...

No, they can't.

Legally, they are obligated to pay child support anyway, in the US. Whether the mother wants it or not, the state goes after them and makes them pay- whether they have accepted paternity rights or not, the obligations remain.

To make that fair, you'd have to make women who put their babies up for adoption pay child support payments to the adoptive parents.

also,
Socially, they will be called a "dead beat dad" - should we call young mothers who put their babies up for adoption "dead beat moms" as well?

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Bluesma

. He never paid a penny in child support nor did he ever seek any kind of relationship with his child.

Wow, I guess that varies from to state! I found out one day my sons father had been court ordered to pay child support to the state, and I was never even told about it except afterwards, from him. He didn't see the child and I didn't want anything from him, and when I called the DA and explained that, he told me it was not my call, stay out of it.

Years later, while I was remarried, living out of the country, I found out he had run off to another state to avoid paying child support, they found him after a couple of years, made him come back, attached his wages, and made him pay three years of back payments! All this without my knowledge or consent.

I wonder how the father in your case was able to slip through unscathed?

a reply to: TrueBrit

I didn't say all men do this. But if there is a scenario where the man does not want a child and the mother decides to give birth anyway then the man will simply walk away . He won't spend time convincing the mother to put the child up for adoption he will just bug out. That scene has been played over and over again. I'm willing to bet that unless the couple was already married the man will just leave. No strings. If they were married its different. Most men will support and want a relationship with their child. But when it's a teen that story changes . I did have a bad experience but I don't condemn all men. I also don't pretend that this ability to just walk away doesn't exist.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: TrueBrit

I didn't say all men do this. But if there is a scenario where the man does not want a child and the mother decides to give birth anyway then the man will simply walk away . He won't spend time convincing the mother to put the child up for adoption he will just bug out. That scene has been played over and over again. I'm willing to bet that unless the couple was already married the man will just leave. No strings. If they were married its different. Most men will support and want a relationship with their child. But when it's a teen that story changes . I did have a bad experience but I don't condemn all men. I also don't pretend that this ability to just walk away doesn't exist.

They can't just walk away legally. Legally, they are held financially responsible for the child. Even if they were not married.
I don't know about other states, but in California, at least, the space for "father" on the birth certificate cannot be left blank.

originally posted by: Bluesma




No, they can't.

Legally, they are obligated to pay child support anyway, in the US. Whether the mother wants it or not, the state goes after them and makes them pay- whether they have accepted paternity rights or not, the obligations remain.

Here in the UK .... They CAN and they DO.

There's a notorious young man within 30 miles of where I live who at the

last count had had 12 children to 11 women and hasn't paid anyone of

a them a single penny! They get child benefit from the government.

To make that fair, you'd have to make women who put their babies up for adoption pay child support payments to the adoptive parents.

Why?? in giving her child up for adoption she is relinquishing all

rights to the child who is going to a new home to become a family. The

child is being *adopted* (possible name change definitely surname)

not *fostered.* When a child is fostered in the UK the agency

is financially responsible.

also,
Socially, they will be called a "dead beat dad" - should we call young mothers who put their babies up for adoption "dead beat moms" as well?

No ... They have not 'walked away' they have responsibly looked for an

alternative life for the child, in their minds a better life than she was

capable of giving it, and some may say she has made a sacrifice to

give her child a better life than she could have ever provided.


However as today there is no stigma to being a single mother and

abortion is accessible, I don't believe that it happens very much, and

couples wanting to adopt are more and more having to go abroad to

do so because of a shortage of adoptive babies.

a reply to: Bluesma

UhUh. Yet I'm still waiting for the first penny in support and that "child" Just turned 40 last week. His father did respond to one court subpoena where he admitted paternity and gave his child his last name. And that's the last thing he gave him. The last name of a man my son grew to hate. I kept trying to get the father involved but at the risk of appearing desperate I could only make suggestions. I couldn't force the issue. I used some organization that was supposed to get the father to pay but he still never paid a cent so yeah they can and do just walk away.

originally posted by: eletheia



Here in the UK .... They CAN and they DO.

That is an important fact, and perhaps I should have been more clear from the start that I am questioning american systems! In France also, there is no obligation to name a father, and in fact, no matter what the mother says, the father himself has to go to the mayors office and make a paternity claim - even if they are married.

Why?? in giving her child up for adoption she is relinquishing all

rights to the child who is going to a new home to become a family.

You gave the suggestion that a man could just consider that he gave up the child to be adopted by his birth mother.
You described his action of walking away as the equivalent of putting a child up for adoption. I pointed out the difference.
There is a cultural stigma attached to "giving your child up to it's birth mother" which does not exist in the option of giving it up that women have available to them.

No ... They have not 'walked away' they have responsibly looked for an

alternative life for the child, in their minds a better life than she was

capable of giving it, and some may say she has made a sacrifice to

give her child a better life than she could have ever provided.

So, how could a father make a similar decision, if he finds he doesn't have the capabilities to be a good provider?
He can't. He has no option, in the US.

However as today there is no stigma to being a single mother and

abortion is accessible, I don't believe that it happens very much, and

couples wanting to adopt are more and more having to go abroad to

do so because of a shortage of adoptive babies.

I don't know the numbers in the UK. In the US, abortions are quite common. Adoption is done less often for various reasons- one of them being the financial support guaranteed by the state, the problem of weak family units being another. Young women lacking a sense of love and belongingness seeking to establish a family of their own in which they can gain that.

My point here is not for or against such choices, however. It is simply to highlight the gulf of differences in cultural attitudes concerning paternal and maternal rights and responsibilities.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Bluesma

UhUh. Yet I'm still waiting for the first penny in support and that "child" Just turned 40 last week. His father did respond to one court subpoena where he admitted paternity and gave his child his last name. And that's the last thing he gave him. The last name of a man my son grew to hate. I kept trying to get the father involved but at the risk of appearing desperate I could only make suggestions. I couldn't force the issue. I used some organization that was supposed to get the father to pay but he still never paid a cent so yeah they can and do just walk away.

I do find that surprising, and wonder what state that is? In California, they went after him quite aggressively, and used the police to track him down when he left the state. The child support didn't even go to me, it was for them.
Perhaps the big difference is that when my child was a baby, I was a college student. I got food stamps. So the payments were considered as paying the state back. But 18 years of paying 250 dollars a month more than paid back the two years of 40 dollars a month in food stamps! They're making a big profit off dads who didn't want to be dads.

Even after my having been married 10 years, living in France, they were still going after him. Even when I called a second time and explained my situation, and how really, it was not necessary, they again told me to bug off - this is between him and the state.

a reply to: Bluesma

It was in New York.

a reply to: Bluesma

So you didn't even get that money? I was getting $400.00 per month from social services until I got a job. The baby was one when I got off assistance. Apparently NY doesn't go after them. By the time the child was four I had gotten a really good job with great pay, great insurance, even a pension and I didn't need anything from the father. When my child was seven I married my husband and we made a family. 33years later we are still together and have raised three wonderful sons.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Bluesma

So you didn't even get that money? I was getting $400.00 per month from social services until I got a job. The baby was one when I got off assistance. Apparently NY doesn't go after them. By the time the child was four I had gotten a really good job with great pay, great insurance, even a pension and I didn't need anything from the father. When my child was seven I married my husband and we made a family. 33 years later we are still together and have raised three wonderful sons.

No, I didn't get that money. I got food stamps from the state for two years, until I finished college. They were worth $40 a month, while he paid the state $250 a month for 18 years. Like I said, they didn't care what my situation was! Even though I was married, had two more children, was financially well off and wanted nothing, it made no difference.

a reply to: Bluesma

$40 a month to feed a child? Are they crazy? Did that even cover formula? Why didn't the money go to you? You didn't need it? And if so why would the state collect and keep it? They didn't raise your child and you got less than $1000.00 in food stamps over a,two year period. After he paid them for that why were they entitled collect more? That sounds like robbery to me. They didn't give you the money which BTW you were entitled to no matter how much you had of your own money. So what they collected from him to subsidize their food stamp program? If you still communicate with him you should tell him to get a lawyer or you should petition the state to give everything they collected to you. Hey your kid could use it for college or a new car or furnish their first apartment. California is NOT entitled to any more than what they gave you. $960.00. Go after it. It's yours.
For me I guess it's way too late.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Bluesma

$40 a month to feed a child? Are they crazy? Did that even cover formula? Why didn't the money go to you? You didn't need it?

It was just to help me out. I didn't apply for welfare because I was also working a part time job while going to school. It barely covered my rent, and child care expenses. I breast fed until he was 18 months old, and then lived off lettuce, dried milk and Top Ramen.

At the time, I was still a highly brainwashed citizen, so asking for financial aid (from the state or from the father) was shameful, and I couldn't stand the idea.

I asked the District Attorneys office why they were collecting from him, they said it was to pay the state back for the aid I received. I pointed out that I didn't receive that much, and he got all huffy and said look lady, men can't just go around making children and walking off with no consequences! They have responsibilities to account for, and need to be reminded of that.

I thought about that a long time. Perhaps it has some truth to it, but I was very highly aware that I could have chosen to put the child up for adoption, and felt that no one else is responsible for my decision not to- not even him. I was too proud to give up my claim to responsibility, or ask for anything.

The father has really fallen in the last few years, from what I heard. He is unemployed, and basically homeless, sleeping on friends couches, from what his daughter has told my son. I don't think he could afford a very expensive legal battle.
I'm pretty well off now, feel I have no rational reason to try to get money. Though if he wanted to fight the state, or if my son wanted to, I would support them and do what I could.
So far that is not the case.

The thing is, in our case, the guy was immature and irresponsible, and though we both wanted a baby at the start, it was only in my eighth month of pregnancy that I figured out he wasn't going to quickly grow up, and I couldn't stay with him, while also trying to raise a baby. I left him!

He ended up deciding that trying to be a dad all alone was beyond his capabilities and in a way, "gave the child up" to me.
At least that is how I saw it.