Reflecting on the "Baby Emma" case currently before the Utah Supreme Court, it strikes me that Mr. Wyatt, Emma's father is experiencing discrimination on two separate fronts: his gender, and his marital status.
First, marital status: If Mr. Wyatt was married to Emma's mother, not even the Utah courts would require him to prove his paternity or his parenting skills. Even if the child were not genetically his offspring, the law would presume him the father, and would assume that he is a capable parent unless there was compelling evidence to the contrary. Without his express consent, Emma could not legally be freed for adoption in Utah or any other state.
As an unmarried father, Mr. Wyatt is forced not only to assert his paternity and his parenting ability, but the Utah laws and courts are requiring him to meet a strict standard of dotting the i's and crossing the t's in a maze of legal paperwork designed to support the profits of the adoption industry at the expense of Mr. Wyatt's and Emma's rights to the "care, comfort and companionship" of each other.
More pernicious still is the gender based bias that puts unmarried fathers such as Mr. Wyatt in a can't win situation. If the situation were reversed, with the child's mother choosing to parent and Mr. Wyatt desiring to relinquish, he would certainly not have the right or authority to unilaterally give the child up for adoption or to avoid his parental responsibility. Instead, the mother would have access to free legal services to establish his paternity and obtain court-ordered child support. Once ordered, the mother would have the full police power of the state available to act as her collection agency, and reciprocal laws in all of the other states, plus the Hague convention would leave him no escape from the responsibility. If he fails to pay his support obligation, the state can take numerous punitive actions against him ranging from garnishing his wages, to revocation of licenses, to jail time. And don't get me started on what would happen to him if he tried to take the child to a different state!
But, according to the attorney arguing for the adopters and the adoption agency (and by extension, for his own livelihood) and the lower court's interpretation of Utah law, Emma's mother had the right to unilaterally choose to abdicate her parental responsibility and give the child away to two complete strangers with no tie to the child other than a hefty fee paid to the agency and lawyer, without consulting with Mr. Wyatt. The mother, who was as much a voluntary part of the creation of Baby Emma as Mr. Wyatt, will not have to pay a cent in child support, nor will she be expected to discharge any of the other responsibilities that come with parenthood. The state will not come after her, garnish her wages, revoke her licenses, or put in in the county jail. And I'm sure the adoption agency made sure that all of the i's were dotted and the t's crossed on the relinquishment paperwork. (Or did they... litigation continues.)
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law for everyone.... except for unmarried fathers in Utah.
But what about the "best interest of the child?" Doesn't that trump the father's rights? When the bias of being "unmarried" and "father" are removed from the equasion, there is no reason not to presume, as we do with "married" and "mother," that Mr. Wyatt is capable of parenting his child, and that the natural parent is the appropriate parent for a child. If the state and parties were held to the same standards that exist when terminating the "parental rights" of married (of either sex) parents, or of single mothers, there would be no case to argue. This case isn't about the "best interest of the child" but about the financial interest of the adoption agency, the adopters, and the lawyers.
This little girl, now only 18 months old, assuming that her adopters prevail, is going to grow up knowing she was bought and paid for, that her mother gave her away because of pressure from friends and family (I smell the LDS Church here), and her father fought with everything he had to get her back. When Baby Emma becomes Grown-up Emma, I suspect there will be a lot of resentment toward her adopters (I can't call them 'parents' in this situation, they clearly have only their own romantic fantasies and religious doctrine at heart) and toward those friends and family and church leaders who created this mess.
First, marital status: If Mr. Wyatt was married to Emma's mother, not even the Utah courts would require him to prove his paternity or his parenting skills. Even if the child were not genetically his offspring, the law would presume him the father, and would assume that he is a capable parent unless there was compelling evidence to the contrary. Without his express consent, Emma could not legally be freed for adoption in Utah or any other state.
As an unmarried father, Mr. Wyatt is forced not only to assert his paternity and his parenting ability, but the Utah laws and courts are requiring him to meet a strict standard of dotting the i's and crossing the t's in a maze of legal paperwork designed to support the profits of the adoption industry at the expense of Mr. Wyatt's and Emma's rights to the "care, comfort and companionship" of each other.
More pernicious still is the gender based bias that puts unmarried fathers such as Mr. Wyatt in a can't win situation. If the situation were reversed, with the child's mother choosing to parent and Mr. Wyatt desiring to relinquish, he would certainly not have the right or authority to unilaterally give the child up for adoption or to avoid his parental responsibility. Instead, the mother would have access to free legal services to establish his paternity and obtain court-ordered child support. Once ordered, the mother would have the full police power of the state available to act as her collection agency, and reciprocal laws in all of the other states, plus the Hague convention would leave him no escape from the responsibility. If he fails to pay his support obligation, the state can take numerous punitive actions against him ranging from garnishing his wages, to revocation of licenses, to jail time. And don't get me started on what would happen to him if he tried to take the child to a different state!
But, according to the attorney arguing for the adopters and the adoption agency (and by extension, for his own livelihood) and the lower court's interpretation of Utah law, Emma's mother had the right to unilaterally choose to abdicate her parental responsibility and give the child away to two complete strangers with no tie to the child other than a hefty fee paid to the agency and lawyer, without consulting with Mr. Wyatt. The mother, who was as much a voluntary part of the creation of Baby Emma as Mr. Wyatt, will not have to pay a cent in child support, nor will she be expected to discharge any of the other responsibilities that come with parenthood. The state will not come after her, garnish her wages, revoke her licenses, or put in in the county jail. And I'm sure the adoption agency made sure that all of the i's were dotted and the t's crossed on the relinquishment paperwork. (Or did they... litigation continues.)
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law for everyone.... except for unmarried fathers in Utah.
But what about the "best interest of the child?" Doesn't that trump the father's rights? When the bias of being "unmarried" and "father" are removed from the equasion, there is no reason not to presume, as we do with "married" and "mother," that Mr. Wyatt is capable of parenting his child, and that the natural parent is the appropriate parent for a child. If the state and parties were held to the same standards that exist when terminating the "parental rights" of married (of either sex) parents, or of single mothers, there would be no case to argue. This case isn't about the "best interest of the child" but about the financial interest of the adoption agency, the adopters, and the lawyers.
This little girl, now only 18 months old, assuming that her adopters prevail, is going to grow up knowing she was bought and paid for, that her mother gave her away because of pressure from friends and family (I smell the LDS Church here), and her father fought with everything he had to get her back. When Baby Emma becomes Grown-up Emma, I suspect there will be a lot of resentment toward her adopters (I can't call them 'parents' in this situation, they clearly have only their own romantic fantasies and religious doctrine at heart) and toward those friends and family and church leaders who created this mess.
Comments