Virginia's Father Registry Law

All I have to say is...prepare yourself.

http://www.acfc.org/site/PageServer?pagename=vnp

Virginia’s New Putative Father Registry Violates Fathers’ Right to Raise Their Own Children

By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

Virginia’s controversial new Putative Father Registry law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex in Virginia to register with the State. Supporters say the law will help connect fathers with their children before the children are put up for adoption. Critics see it as another example of the erosion of citizens’ privacy. Both sides miss the real point of the Registry--to remove a father's right to prevent his child's mother from giving their child up for adoption without his consent.

Incredibly, under the new law, putative fathers who fail to register waive their right to be notified that their parental rights are being terminated. They also forfeit the right to be notified of the adoption proceedings and to consent to the adoption. Rather than being required to make a legitimate effort to find and notify the father, the state can now simply check the Registry and, if the man has not registered, give his child away.

Such violations of fathers’ rights are common. For example, in the widely-reported Huddleston adoption case, Mark Huddleston’s baby boy was adopted out when he was three days old, but Huddleston didn't know the baby existed until two months after his birth. As a New Mexico court later found, the private adoption agency did not notify Huddleston of the pending adoption, thus denying him the chance to raise his son.

In an adoption case, the burden of identifying the father should be on the mother. It is the mother, not the father, who is certain to be aware of the child’s birth, and it is the mother who knows (or should know) the baby’s parentage. However, when states have tried to craft measures requiring a mother who seeks to put her baby up for adoption to find and notify the baby’s father, there has been opposition from the National Organization for Women and other women’s groups.

Defenders of the Registry justify disregarding fathers with numerous unfair assumptions about men and their intentions. For example, Kerry Dougherty, a prominent Virginia newspaper columnist, asserts:

“I think we're being too kind to these men. Guys who don't stick around long enough to find out whether they've caused a pregnancy have terminated their paternal rights. If they know a baby's on the way and then disappear, they aren't fathers…the General Assembly ought to look for ways to strip these irresponsible Romeos of their rights, not invite them to record their random copulations.”

One wonders if Dougherty knows anyone who has dated within the last 40 years. It is absurd to think that in modern relationships, when there’s an out-of-wedlock birth it must be because the father ran off. In reality, most unwed biological fathers do care about their children, but often do not know of their existence or are unsure that the children really are biologically theirs. There have been countless adoption cases where these fathers have struggled desperately for the right to raise their own children. One also wonders why a woman who wants to avoid the responsibility of raising a child (and of paying child support) is viewed sympathetically, while a man in exactly the same position is a villain.

There are numerous other problems with the Registry. A registrant must provide his social security number, driver's license number, home address, and employer, as well as details about the sexual affair and his sexual partner. This sensitive, personal information will be available to the baby’s mother, the lawyers involved in the adoption, court employees, and anyone able to hack in to the computer system.

The law should instead require that an honest, exhaustive search for the father be conducted before an adoption can proceed. This search should include use of the Federal Parent Locator Service, which contains a vast array of information, including the National Directory of New Hires. The FPLS is used to enforce child support, find children involved in parental kidnappings, and to enforce child custody and visitation. State systems are tied into the FPLS, and they are often remarkably effective at finding parents.

Fathers have the right to raise their own children. Virginia’s Registry is a shameful attempt to circumvent that right.


Holy crap! I had a hard time reading this because I found myself getting stuck each time at the part that said Virginia's asking all heterosexual men who have had sex outside of marriage to register with the state. Are you kidding? Men are supposed to register like some kind of sex offender if they've had non-marital sex? Let's flip it around. Since they're, allegedly, doing this in the interest of children not being placed for adoption without the father's knowledge, and since it's apparently an acceptable request for people to register with the state over such matters, why not ask the women to register. Why not ask any woman who's had non-marital sex to register and provide a list of men she's been sexually active with? That way, since the state's so eager to get involved with the issue, should a child be conceived, they'll have a ready-made list of names to pursue in the case of an unexpected pregnancy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not recommending this as a course of action, I'm merely saying that if it's an acceptable request for men, then the same request should be acceptable for women, and if it isn't, then the law needs to be abolished.

Ofcourse, the state's real intention is very obvious. Most guys are not going to be too eager to register with the state, disclosing private, personal information. That means that most men will be waiving any rights to any decisions regarding their child.

“I think we're being too kind to these men. Guys who don't stick around long enough to find out whether they've caused a pregnancy have terminated their paternal rights. If they know a baby's on the way and then disappear, they aren't fathers…the General Assembly ought to look for ways to strip these irresponsible Romeos of their rights, not invite them to record their random copulations.”

This, I don't even know where to begin with...but I'll try. Much to my chagrin, men and women are willingly engaging in promiscuous sex these days. What man who's had a one night stand with a women, is going to be hanging around to see if a pregnancy occurs, especially if they used protection? If it was a one night or couple night thing, how would they know that a baby's on the way? So, following Ms. Dougherty's "logic", a man who's engaged in a brief, consensual affair should be stripped of all parental rights. So what should happen to a woman who's also engaged in a brief, consensual affair? Since Ms. Doughterty seems to feel this behavior is deserving of extreme retribution, I wonder what she feels should be a woman's punishment for engaging in identical behavior? This is the reasoning we get from the hate mongers. It doesn't need to make any sense, there needn't be any coherent train of thought or cohesion of argument...as long as the mantra of men bad/women good remains, that's all that matters.

A father should have just as much right as a mother to make decisions regarding his child. As I believe life begins in the womb, this should include before birth. A man should be able to have a say in whether or not his child has the chance to be born. A man should have the right to raise his child instead of seeing him/her given up for adoption. A man should have the right to be actively involved in the life of his child. If you have a problem with anything I just said, then I'd recommend you turn it around. Should a woman have a say in whether or not her child is born? Should she have the right to raise and be involved in her child's life? If you said yes, then it should go without saying that a father should have the same right.