An editorial article in the Vancouver Sun speaks volumes about the injustices that many biological fathers face when dealing with less than optimal and/or ethical mothers, agencies and attorneys. The brief article talks about a recent case in which a father was denied rights to his child, placed for adoption, because of the law on the books.

In British Columbia, the Adoption Act doesn't, in most circumstances, require a mother to notify the biological father of the child's impending birth and subsequent adoption. A biological father, of course, can register on the birth father's registry but, as it's been argued many times before, a man who doesn't know that he has spawned a child isn't likely to register on such a thing, if he even knows about its existence. (You then get into the argument that a man should register every time he has sex with a woman. For an interesting male take on that, read this unique article.)

And so, since the birth mother of the child in question chose not to identify the father and he didn't register on the list, his child was legally placed without his consent. This happens far too often for my liking. The writer of the editorial piece agrees, ripping not the judge a new one but calls for a new look into the Adoption Act itself.

Beyond the author's problem that birth father's rights are being trampled all over, legally, the children are the main concern.

Obviously, this is not in the best interests of the children, and it is the primary purpose of the act to ensure those interests are protected. In fact, the birth fathers' registry was added to the act precisely to allow children to find out who their fathers are, and perhaps to have relationships with them.

Yet clearly, the act fails to ensure that many children have the opportunity to know their birth fathers. This is a serious flaw in the act, and one that needs to be remedied if we are to do more than pay lip service to protecting the best interests of the children.

Oh, I like it when people call it like they see it. "A serious flaw." And, even better, calling the issue out as merely "paying lip service" instead of actually protecting the best interests of the children. It sent shivers down my spine! Way to drive it home! Bam!

And it's true. Children have a right to know their biological roots, whether they are parented by one or more of those biological parents or if they are placed for adoption. Laws that are made to either negate father's rights or make the adoption process smoother for adoptive families (or, really, both issues smashed together) don't do the child any good in this area. There are cases, I will admit, where it might be best for a father not to be known (rape, for example). But I believe those cases should be the exception to the standard rule of respecting fathers' rights as opposed to the standard of how we treat all fathers.

I agree. We're hearing more and more fathers speak out about how they got royally screwed by the unethical practices (or ignoring) of law in today's adoption system. Fathers have rights. Children simultaneously have a right to know their paternal biological roots. It's time to step up and recognize that, worldwide.

//
For more on birth fathers, read:

1. A Birth Father and His Daughter Reunite.

2. Putative Father Registries: Yay or Nay?

3. The Experiences and Needs of Birth Fathers.

//
Photo Credit.