How is This Right?

Okay, so if a man is financially responsible for a baby that he didn't want, why then, doesn't he have any clout in the adoption of that same baby?

In early 1995, Jennifer Dockery and respondent Rick Barmore dated briefly and, in the course of that relationship, engaged in sexual relations, as a result of which Ms. Dockery became pregnant. After they ceased dating, they had no further communications and Ms. Dockery did not inform Mr. Barmore of her pregnancy. The minor child was born on 14 September 1995 in Sylva, Jackson County, North Carolina. Ms. Dockery had arranged for the child to be adopted and the child was placed with the adopting parents on 16 September 1995. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Barmore was contacted by the attorney representing the adopting parents and was requested to execute a document consenting to the child's adoption. Mr. Barmore declined to consent.

On 17 January 1997, Judge Bryant entered an order in this proceeding in which he incorporated the findings and conclusions contained in the Cherokee County judgment and further found, upon stipulated facts, that at the time the adoption proceeding was filed Mr. Barmore had neither acknowledged paternity of the child by affidavit nor established paternity judicially, had not filed a petition for legitimation of the child in accordance with G.S. § 49-10, and had not provided consistent care or financial support to the child and mother. Judge Bryant concluded that Mr. Barmore was not entitled to intervene in the adoption proceeding, that his consent to adoption was not required, and that further proceedings in the Cherokee County action were moot. Mr. Barmore's motion to intervene in the adoption proceeding was denied and the Cherokee County legitimation and custody action was dismissed. Mr. Barmore gave notice of appeal. The trial court stayed further proceedings in the adoption proceeding pending resolution of the appeal (N.C.).

So what went wrong here is that Mr. Barmore had no idea that he even had a baby, and regardless, the courts decided that since he didn't "act" as a father, he had no rights. Let's take this case in a different direction. What if Ms. Dockery was looking for child support after the child was born? She would have petitioned the court and won. It would not have mattered if Mr. Barmore knew of the baby or not. He would have been responsible to pay.

This is what I call a double standard. If 'no act of fatherhood' is necessary for child support, then 'no act of fatherhood' should be acceptable if said father wants custody of his child being adopted out.