Mother can keep birth a secret

[MamaMaiasaura]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7109774.stm what do you think about this?

what?

Elizabeth I get that you like to imagine me as some evil person, but I'm not. As I said that case was one of the most horrible things that I have ever seen and nothing would upset me more than it happening to someone again. Just because I disagree with you does not not make me a bad person who enjoys watching people suffer. Just like I don't think you are a bad person for not caring about what happens to babies

I don't think you are an evil person Paula, however you seem to have a blind spot about what it would be like for a woman to be forced to endure a pregnancy she didn't want.

And what else is one to deduce by you bringing up that American example? We don't have the same legal system or culture as the States (thank goodness). You seemed to be doom-mongering for no good reason. It appeared to be a threat that if we didn't change our ways and give men what they want a court case like that is what would happen, which of course is nonsense.

Paula, having a different opinion from you does not equal 'not caring about babies'. Don't be daft.

And just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I wish bad things to happen to people. I was just bringing up what could happen and has happened elsewhere. I don't have a blind spot. I understand what you are saying about a woman being forced to carry the baby I just disagree with you about it.

This is why social serves have "covered their back" they dont want a child adopted and then three years later be held responsible.

It has been taken to court in England and the outcome has been in favour of the woman, so there is the answer of how the law is set.

Hopefully the baby will be adopted by parents or parent that actually want the child and bring the child up in a loving home.

Whereas the young lady in question will have to live with the saddness for a long time, she did not abort the baby - her choice, she has though it seems thought of the child in all this mess and put the child first, Well done to her.

I can't believe you think people should have that kind of power over women's bodies Paula.

I do care about babies which is why I think mothers are the people best placed to make decisions about them and for them. Not social workers and not men who had a one night stand with someone and then bogged off. And certainly not the fundamentalist anti-abortion right wingers who beleaguer America.

Well I happen to think children are best served when both parents make the descions for a childs best interests.

... and when they cant agree..... a court decides.
here the court has decided that in this case the "father" does not need to be informed. this is by no means the first time the courts have made such a decision, this just happens to be reported.

But this is not a case of them disagreeing. This is a case of not even letting the father have the opportunity to have a say in his child's future.

Sorry if this has been answered further up thread, but as nobody has done a DNA test, surely nobody actually knows definitely who the father is except for the mother? What if somebody else is the father? I am also a bit confused because I thought it has always been possible to put father unknown on a birth certificate.

I disagree that fathers should have no rights concerning their unborn children from an ethical pov. However, from a practical pov, I don't see how the court could decide otherwise.

I think in the UK what would happen in that case is that an adoption would most certainly not be overturned, as the child's interest - rightly - comes before those of the adults. The most that would happen is that a biological parent would be given limited contact. Which is also generally in the child's interests.

The difference between here and the USA thank goodness, is that the interests of the child come first. Sometimes of course, social workers hide behind that, and interests are defined according to the current fashion, but as a principle, it's not a bad one.

sperm does not a father make...

i have now read the relevant law report (summarised). as i suspected (and pointed out below) the case was decided on the basis that there was no breach of the putative father's human rights as he did not enjoy any family life with this baby and it was no breach to deny him the possibility of the same..... the decision highlighted the importance of the child's welfare as the paramount consideration and stated that the priority should be to identify and adoptive home without delay in the child's interests.

ut the father was never given the opportunity to have a family life. If he had known and walked away that would be one thing.

in this country impregnating a woman gives you no guarantee of fatherhood.
Just as it gives you no rights over her choosing to have or not have the child.

Well I thinkits awful that men canbedeprivedoftheirrights. Especially after thechild's been born. If this sort of thing was happening to a woman you people would be all up in arms. Yet you think its ok to do it to a man. Its a bit sick

A bit sick to think that a child's rights outweigh those of a father?

Oh, OK

We're all sick

And Mother Nature is a sicko too

I am concerned about rthe rights of this child. It has a right to know who its father is. How do you know this man wouldn't be a wonderful father? You are no better than men in the middle eat who feel that the mothers have no rights to their children.

It feels very, very wrong to me, for both the baby and the father. He should be told and given the option of taking over parental responsibility, but then again she would have to pay child maintenance if that happened, which is why she fought it. After all, this way she gets to keep her baby free life without having to stump up a couple of hundred quid a month to pay someone else to bring up a child she didn't want.

A mnan wouldn't get away with that

I don't know if he would be a wonderful father.

But the mother of the child, obviously believes he wouldn't. And SS and a court agree with her.

I'd prefer to take their word for it, than yours PPB. Teh full ins and outs of this case won't ever be known by any of us. I don't know why you're so determined that this man is a paragon of virtue who should be offered the chance to adopt; presumably SS considered that option and for some reason decided not to.

LOL at me being no better than a middle eastern man. Given that you'd give the man rights over my body and my life just because he'd shagged me once, I find it difficult to take your arguments on these sorts of issues seriously.

I agree 100% with PaulaPlumbBottom, and obviously this woman should be interrogated - tortured a bit if necessary - until she gives an answer as to the father's name. He should then be asked to give a blood sample, again with co-ercion if necessary, and this process should be repeated until a man with a DNA match is found.

So a court should be allowed to decide whether or not someone is a fit parent without ever coming in contact with that person. They should just go on someone's say so.(someone who sounds a bit bitter to me) Thats surely absurd.
It also sets a dangerous precident