A British Appellate court has ruled that a mother should be allowed to prevent a father from learning of the birth of their child and to secretly put the baby up for adoption.In September, a local court ordered that the 19-year-old woman’s family and the baby’s father have protected interests in the case and should be told. The woman claimed that this was a one-night stand and no one should be told.She appealed and won. Three appellate judges ruled that she alone determined who could be told in the case. They ordered that the father not be told and that the child be put up for adoption quickly and secretly. They further prohibited the local officials from determining if her own family would want to support the baby. Her family had found out about the child during the proceedings after the local authority wrote to them by mistake.Lady Justice Arden said: “In my judgment, when a decision requires to be made about the long-term care of a child, whom a mother wishes to be adopted, there is no duty to make inquiries which it is not in the interests of the child to make, and inquiries are not in the interests of the child simply because they will provide more information about the child’s background.”Lord Justice Thorpe: “I need only refer to the mother’s success in concealing the pregnancy from her family, her employers and her fellow employees . . . Her immediate request that her daughter should be placed for adoption at the earliest opportunity was entirely consistent with all that she had done and all that she had not done prior to the delivery. . . Given the difficulties that have been caused for the appellant by the local authority’s mistaken approach to her parents it is particularly important that this court should not by its judgment exacerbate the mother’s difficulties.”It is a difficult ruling to square with the most basic concepts of parental rights. First, the court’s decision goes beyond one-night stands. The court has no way of knowing that this was a one-night-stand from the account of one person. Second, the father intentionally or unintentionally produced an offspring. Fathers can be held for parental support under such circumstances if the mother choses to keep the child. Yet, they are denied the right to care for the baby or even have knowledge of the baby. After all, if this was a one-night stand for both parents, neither intended to have a child. However, a child was produced. They each have responsibilities and each should have a right to help decide the future of the child. This does not mean that the father’s wishes must prevail, but the decision to keep him from knowing of his offspring seems quite harsh.For a prior story on parental rights, click hereFor the full story, click here

Turley Tweets
Click here to follow the blog on Twitter.
SELECTED AS TOP LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG (2008)

Winner — Top Opinion Writer By Aspen Institute and The Week Magazine for Best Single-Issue Advocacy (Civil Liberties)
Categories
Top Posts
- Contraception and Separation
- Traffic Citation or Terrorist Threat? A Curious Tale of Priorities In Washington
- Durham County District Attorney Tracey Cline Faces Removal Hearing
- Mr. [Legal] Manners Responds To Parents Of Legal Bubble Boy
- Florida Boy Attacked, Stripped Naked in Public, and Videotaped By Three Girls -- Resulting In No Charges
- Texas Judge Resigns After Being Filmed Sleeping During Critical Hearing
- English Student Arrested For Frying Roommate's Pet Hamster
- OMG ADIH: Top Saudi Clerics Call For Journalist To Be Put To Death For Blasphemous Tweet
- Lying For Jesus: The Abortion/Breast Cancer Link
- Is The Tea Party Over?
Recent Posts
- Former Texas Prosecutor and Current Judge Faces Court of Inquiry Over Alleged Misconduct Leading To Innocent Man Spending 25 Years In Jail
- English Student Arrested For Frying Roommate’s Pet Hamster
- Mr. [Legal] Manners Responds To Parents Of Legal Bubble Boy
- Traffic Citation or Terrorist Threat? A Curious Tale of Priorities In Washington
- Texas Judge Resigns After Being Filmed Sleeping During Critical Hearing
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2012 (69)
- January 2012 (158)
- December 2011 (153)
- November 2011 (150)
- October 2011 (152)
- September 2011 (151)
- August 2011 (152)
- July 2011 (152)
- June 2011 (161)
- May 2011 (167)
- April 2011 (164)
- March 2011 (166)
- February 2011 (152)
- January 2011 (172)
- December 2010 (178)
- November 2010 (168)
- October 2010 (122)
- September 2010 (116)
- August 2010 (149)
- July 2010 (146)
- June 2010 (165)
- May 2010 (175)
- April 2010 (187)
- March 2010 (189)
- February 2010 (178)
- January 2010 (186)
- December 2009 (197)
- November 2009 (197)
- October 2009 (205)
- September 2009 (186)
- August 2009 (176)
- July 2009 (181)
- June 2009 (169)
- May 2009 (190)
- April 2009 (187)
- March 2009 (184)
- February 2009 (192)
- January 2009 (193)
- December 2008 (165)
- November 2008 (177)
- October 2008 (149)
- September 2008 (121)
- August 2008 (157)
- July 2008 (182)
- June 2008 (139)
- May 2008 (154)
- April 2008 (146)
- March 2008 (166)
- February 2008 (124)
- January 2008 (108)
- December 2007 (168)
- November 2007 (162)
- October 2007 (130)
- September 2007 (109)
- August 2007 (194)



2 Responses to “British Court: Mother May Conceal Fact of Birth from Father and Put Child Up for Adoption”