
Jewish World Review Nov. 18, 1998 /29 Mar-Cheshvan, 5759
Problems Develop When Others Do Parents' Job
By Dr. Wade F. Horn
Q: I have been dating a wonderful woman and our relationship is getting serious. She is
also the mother of a 3 year old daughter who lives with her grandparents in another state.
Although I understand the circumstances that led to her having a child out-of-wedlock, I
find myself unable to make a deeper commitment to our relationship without having laid
eyes on her daughter or knowing what her future will bring.
There has been talk of the grandparents adopting the child. The daughter has lived with
them all her life, and it is clear that they would be able to provide a stable home and
upbringing. It would admittedly make things simpler for me if they were to adopt her, but
I do not think I should press the issue with them.
This doesn't make sense to me. My friend would be considered a neglectful parent by
contacting this deadbeat sperm donor, while she is the one who only wants what is best for
her daughter? Sorry if it seems like I have an attitude, but it is easy to get one with this
situation.
A: As I see it, there are three options here. First, the grandparents could go forward with
formally adopting the child. Second, everyone could leave well enough alone and allow the
child to continue in this informal kinship care arrangement. Third, the biological mother could
take on the responsibility for the care and upbringing of her daughter. My vote is for the third
option. Here's why:
For a child to be adopted by her grandparents (or anyone else for that matter), the
biological mother must relinquish her parental rights over the child. In many states this means
the mother has to be declared "neglectful." Never mind if doing so is the most loving option,
in the eyes of the law in many states by allowing an adoption to proceed, the mother is
automatically considered neglectful of her motherly responsibilities. No wonder so many birth
mothers feel ashamed when considering adoption for an ill-timed child.
But the legal requirements don't stop there. In order for an adoption to proceed, the
parental rights of the biological father must also be terminated. Doing so requires that adequate
notice be given to him that such a legal action is pending.
In many situations, this makes sense. You really wouldn't want a judge to terminate the
parental rights of a biological father who is willing and able to take care of his child, especially
if that father has been involved in the child's life all along.
On the other hand, there are situations in which it is reasonably clear that the best
interests of the child dictate that a father's parental rights should be terminated. If, in fact, this
biological father abandoned this woman as soon as he found out she was pregnant and then made
no effort to establish a relationship with the child after she was born, I don't believe he should
be allowed to interfere with an adoption 3 years later.
But that's not the law. The law says such a guy must be notified. And if he says, "Hey,
I know its been 3 years, but now I'm ready, willing and able to be this girl's father," the law
could very well be on his side.
So the risk of option one is, in my opinion, too great. The child needs a sense of
permanency. Given the absence of any relationship with his daughter, that permanent home is
not with the biological father. Consequently, if it were my grand-daughter, I wouldn't pursue
the formal adoption.
I know that there will be some who will see this view as insufficiently "pro father." But
in situations like these, I believe decisions should be driven by the best interests of the child.
And given these circumstances, I do not believe it is in the best interests of this child to have
her life disrupted 3 years later by being moved to a completely different home to be raised by
a man who is a total stranger to her.
The second option, maintaining the status quo, has a certain appeal. The child is
comfortable, the grandparents apparently don't mind keeping her, the mother seems fine with
the arrangement, and it lets you, the boyfriend, off the hook.
But I am troubled by the fact that informal kinship care arrangements, such as this one,
tend to lack permanency. What will happen, for example, if the little girl develops problems
that the grandparents can't or don't want to handle? Will they then turn to their own daughter
and say, "You're the girl's mother, you handle her!"
And what will happen if five years down the road, the mom has a change of heart and
wants to take over the full-time care of her daughter? Will the grandparents agree, or might
they resist? There's just something I don't like about that type of uncertainty.
Which brings me to the last option. It is unclear whether the child knows your girlfriend
is her mother, but I am assuming she does. If so, I suggest the mother begin to slowly take over
increasing amounts of responsibility for her own daughter with the goal of her eventually taking
over her full-time care.
Will this be difficult? Certainly. But parenting is about self-sacrifice and responsibility,
not ease or convenience. We, as adults, must start to place children back at the center of things.
Which brings me to you. You need to decide whether or not helping to raise this little
girl is something you can handle. If not, and the mom takes my advice, you shouldn't consider
a deeper commitment to this relationship. Marrying her before you have fully resolved this
issue would be a big mistake.
Here's the bottom line: Children grow up best when they have a sense of permanency,
a sense that their home is stable and lasting. Your girlfriend still has an opportunity to provide
that kind of permanency for her daughter. I would encourage her to take advantage of that
opportunity. And I would encourage you to support her in doing
Here's where some legal issues come into play. Apparently, in order for the grandparents
to adopt, my girlfriend would have to run an ad in the newspaper where the biological
father lives in an effort to find him. The last time she saw this guy was when she became
pregnant, and she wants nothing to do with him. His name is not even on the birth
certificate. She has also heard that he has tried to gain custody of his other kids, and that
makes her even more wary of contacting him. Doing so would also result in her being
considered a neglectful parent.
JWR contributor Dr. Wade F. Horn is President of the
National Fatherhood Initiative and
co-author of The
Better Homes and Gardens New Father Book. Send your question about dads,
children or
fatherhood to him C/O JWR
10/21/98: Government punishes marriage, pushes cohabitation
10/16/98: Television draws teens into vast wasteland
10/08/98: Sibling Conflict Not A Scream For Parents
9/29/98:
Dads, moms both get job
done with babies
9/23/98: Sleep tight -- and right!
9/09/98: Daddy?
9/03/98: How much should we tell the kids about The Bill-n-Monica Show?
8/25/98: Having class-clown son is no joking matter
8/05/98: When a marriage goes stale
6/29/98: Do bad 'authority-figures' make good parents?
6/24/98: When to tell the truth
6/17/98: An ode to a dad who stuck around
6/11/98: No-fault divorce and the partner who "wants to make things work"
5/28/98: The oys and JOYS of fatherhood
5/21/98: When child-support becomes a 'catch-22'
5/15/98:
Why ‘shacking-up' for marriage's sake fails
5/6/98:
Collision with a pathetic reality
4/26/98: It's time parents learned to 'Just Say No!'