A woman who became pregnant after a one-night stand yesterday won the right to keep the existence of her baby a secret from its father.

In a landmark decision, three Appeal Court judges agreed that the 20-year-old single mother has "the ultimate veto" over whom should be told about the child, who is being put up for adoption.

Describing the case as "on any view extraordinary", Lord Justice Thorpe ruled there was no justification for "breaking open the mother's secret".

And Lady Justice Arden said this was not a violation of the father's rights to family life under the Human Rights Act because he had no rights to be violated.

The mother, who cannot be identified by order of the court, had kept her pregnancy hidden from her family, colleagues and the father.

She gave birth five months ago and left the baby girl, known only as E, in hospital shortly afterwards.

When she asked for the child to be put up for adoption, a county court ordered that her parents and the father should be told to give them the opportunity to apply to adopt.

But yesterday, the judges decided the father had no rights over the child, who is now in foster care, because "he was only a one-night stand".

And they banned the local authority and guardian from taking any steps to identify him or telling him about his daughter.

There was also an order barring council staff from introducing the girl to any of the mother's family to assess them as potential carers.

The court had been told the family learned about the child after the council made inquiries.

Lord Justice Thorpe said he accepted "the importance of respecting the choice of a young mother who found herself in a terrible dilemma".
Mother who gave birth after one-night stand wins right to keep baby secret from the father | the Daily Mail

1) This ruling is from England.

2) This ruling obliterates any pretense of father-mother equality.
While the mother can give up her rights, she has no rights to ignore the father's rights on the issue.
If he wants to take custody of the child that the mother doesn't want, he should have that option.

I even got another one...

It's hypocritical to deny rights to the father on once occasion but then to force another father to oblige to child support in a different one...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Every Child has a right to know who his or her father is, and the father has a right to know who his child is. We criticize a father who refuse to support his child but turn a blind eye to a mother who refuse to let the father know that he is a father.

Is there any wonder why the world is the way it is?

saltwn=devil's advocate again:
Perhaps in this individual instance the father nor the grandparents are appropriate to raise this child.
That's why I get so crabby about blanket laws not respecting particulars. ( I think mandatory sentencing should be reviewed everywhere it exists.)
Judges have prerogative to take all factors under consideration and a responsibility to do what is best for each child as an individual.

__________________


Give me Liberty! or give me marriage!

http://saltwn.blogspot.com/

According to that logic, EVERY child who is the result of a one-night stand should be up for adoption...

Because NO perspective mother is smart enough to raise a child if they're not smart enough to keep their legs closed after knowing some guy for less than 24 hours...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Quite the opposite. Another child in similar circumstances may have had a better chance with gramps or dad than a foster program. I'm just saying we don't know the real people in this story. The dad could be an ex-con on his way back to the pen. And the grandparents could be drug dealers or child molesters. The judge may have taken something like that into consideration when honoring the mom's request that the birth be kept secret.

__________________


Give me Liberty! or give me marriage!

http://saltwn.blogspot.com/

The point was that the mother's whim shouldn't be the only factor...

If a woman who counts ceiling tiles after a few drinks is the BEST option, that child dosn't have much of a shot to begin with...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

This situation is messy.

Personally, I believe that if the mother wants to give up the child, the father should be given first option to take the baby. (And the mother should pay child support.)

Unfortunately, this is a situation where such a law would be, reaslistically, unenforcible. If the pregnant woman says that she didn't remember his last name and didn't know where he lived, then there is no way to contact him.

The father regardless if she feels he is fit or not should know and have some say. If the father is not fit that is for the courts to decide NOT the woman. This is a very scary decision for men and is further fueling the "no father" children problem out there.

From a moral veiw, I would be inclined to agree with you on the fact that he should know. From a legal position, as I said, it's not something that can actually be enforced.

What, exactly, would the courts be able to do if she does not KNOW the identity of the father?