Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
Every party in this story holds part of the blame.

The father didn't know about the adoption but he did know that his former girlfriend was pregnant. He was not present for the birth and thus could not get his name added to the birth certificate; he was not there for the subsequent 22 months; he did not pay child support. Any of these things would have created evidence he was an involved parent. So what if he is in the military? They still get paid and can still wire money. If you care so much about being a recognized father then you do the right thing. The adoption agency wouldn't have been so clueless if there had been a paper trail of his parental status, but because he had zero involvement there was also zero record of him as the father.

The adoption agency is partly responsible for sure, but so is the mother. Clearly, the details of the child's parentage were not fully investigated. The woman probably told the agency that she didn't know who the father was. So what was the agency to do about it? Even with genetic testing, you can't locate a father whose name is not known. The father would've been known if he had been there for the birth and had his name on the certificate. If the man wanted to be a father, his presence would have created physical proof that he was the father.

At the same time, what is to stop any woman from claiming that she doesn't know the father and just handing it over to the state? Clearly there must be some kind of investigation process by adoption agencies to look into this? The couple in this story are legally married. Did the agency not think to contact him to ask if he was the father?

Every side of this story is ****ed up.
Your version of the story contradicts the article in the OP. Do you have a link?