• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sgt. Reunited With Baby Given Up for Adoption

I'm not complaining about nature. I'm pointing out that in nature there is a real and valid reason for why there is such a profound difference in the reproductive rights of men and women.

If we get back to when the child is born and not in a time period we are no longer in at this point in the child's life its apparent that the rights of both parties are equal. What we have is a child and two parents that both had a hand to play in the creation of the child. You might not consider the input of a sperm cell measurable to what the woman put in and perhaps its not, but it is still a factor all things being equal and at this point in time he holds equal parental rights. Yes, before birth even if I disagree with your abortion stance the woman does hold more rights, but that is not the time period we are in and those rights are no longer in play.


You later go on to argue that the act of raising a child is of less importance than the act, not even of creating a child, but the act of conceiving one.

A child is created at conception and developed after that point, but yes, I made that argument. Anyone can take care of a child and take the role of a father, but there is only one biological father and no one can replace him.

It's curious that everyone in this thread seems so eager to accuse me of having no regard for fathers and fatherhood when you are making these arguments.

I'm a bit amazed too honestly.
 
The only person at fault would be the mother that withheld from the father that she gave birth to his child. The adoptive parents have legal custody and have raised the child, but that custody was granted in a dishonest way by the father not having a say in things. They adopted the child most likely without ever knowing that a father was present that would also love the child (had he even known the child existed).

It's tricky, but it speaks to the screwed up legal system that we have in America.
 
Last edited:
The only person at fault would be the mother that withheld from the father that she gave birth to his child. The adoptive parents have legal custody and have raised the child, but that custody was granted in a dishonest way by the father not having a say in things. They adopted the child most likely without ever knowing that a father was present that would also love the child (had he even known the child existed).

It's tricky, but it speaks to the screwed up legal system that we have in America.

I thought the adoptive family knew about the father? The mother just presented him as someone who was uninvolved and not interested in raising the little girl.

It looks like the state is investigating the adoption agency, from what I've seen they're the ones at fault and should be held legally liable for this whole mess.
 
Last edited:
Are you serious!!!!!!! This man has every right to HIS child. If the woman choose to withold the knowledge of the childs birth to the father then how is he to claim his rights as a father. FATHERS HAVE RIGHTS ALSO!!! Society brandishes men who walk away from their children as dead beat fathers... but then in the same breath, gives them no rights to be a father in these kind of situations. What a bunch of hypocritical crap!

Sperm doesn't make one a father. The adoptive parents, who are by the way the parents the child has bonded with over the last 2 years, are likely heartbroken. As they should be. It's very sorry that this man lost his rights, but ripping the child away from what she believes to be her parents isn't helping the child grow up well adjusted. Now the child will pay the price, which she does not deserve to do.
 
I thought the adoptive family knew about the father? The mother just presented him as someone who was uninvolved and not interested in raising the little girl.

It looks like the state is investigating the adoption agency, from what I've seen they're the ones at fault and should be held legally liable for this whole mess.

I think the mother has a fair amount of blame here. She provided false data and sought to mislead both the adopting couple AND the bio-dad.
 
I see - well I don't loath the adoptive parents because they didn't do anything wrong.

The birth mother did the wrong and so have legislators by failing to address the rights that biological fathers do have. . .it's a problem in our society - we don't consider their place as a parent enough.

Yet we'll chastise them when they're 'not there' . . . in essence - our society tells fathers to **** off, they don't matter as much - and then get angry when they do exactly that.

Yes, the mother was wrong. But the child is the one paying the price.

I'm all in favor of equal rights for fathers, as I am in the middle of a divorce in which my ex-wife is seeking sole custody. But we are not the biological parents, their names are Evgeni and Mariya, and live in Russia if they are still alive at all. I cringe at the thought of them showing up now.
 
I think the mother has a fair amount of blame here. She provided false data and sought to mislead both the adopting couple AND the bio-dad.

Maybe. If she knowingly lied or misled than yeah but she did go through an adoption agency and they didn't do their job, I'd start the investigation with them.
 
Yes, the mother was wrong. But the child is the one paying the price.

I'm all in favor of equal rights for fathers, as I am in the middle of a divorce in which my ex-wife is seeking sole custody. But we are not the biological parents, their names are Evgeni and Mariya, and live in Russia if they are still alive at all. I cringe at the thought of them showing up now.

Paying the price by being taken away from her true biological father who does love her and would have cared for her if he only knew she wasn't aborted.

He payed the price, too, by being lied to, deceived and denied his child and was first told she was aborted - and then had to fight for two years to gain custody after he found out she was born and alive.

And tragically so have the adoptive family - by being thrust into a situation in which their hearts have been mangled all for the spiteful actions of one said female.

Which is why such things should NOT happen - Personal history should be investigated and if it's possible the child was conceived just prior to a divorce within a marriage then legislation should protect the rights of the father.

If he was contacted by the agency and told 'your former wife wants to give your child up for adoption' - do you think he would have say 'I don't care - go ahead?'

After spending two years fighting to gain custody of her - which should never have happened this way - I don't think that he would have initially denied her to begin with if the right thing was done.

It's not the poor guy's fault it took the courts almost two entire years to come to a decision, you know. It's not like the kid was two and he went 'oh - I have a kid . . .ring ring . . . hello judge, I'd like my kid back' and then the next day - poof - done. The courts prolonged the situation extending it out to a painful and disgusting length of time. . . they should have cared more and acted earlier.

Of course it goes without saying the situation should be happening at all - fathers do have rights.

Allowing the child to be raised by adoptive parents and denying his undeniable parental rights all her life would have been disgusting and with malice.
 
Last edited:
Paying the price by being taken away from her true biological father who does love her and would have cared for her if he only knew she wasn't aborted.

He payed the price, too, by being lied to, deceived and denied his child and was first told she was aborted - and then had to fight for two years to gain custody after he found out she was born and alive.

And tragically so have the adoptive family - by being thrust into a situation in which their hearts have been mangled all for the spiteful actions of one said female.

Which is why such things should NOT happen - Personal history should be investigated and if it's possible the child was conceived just prior to a divorce within a marriage then legislation should protect the rights of the father.

If he was contacted by the agency and told 'your former wife wants to give your child up for adoption' - do you think he would have say 'I don't care - go ahead?'

After spending two years fighting to gain custody of her - which should never have happened this way - I don't think that he would have initially denied her to begin with if the right thing was done.

It's not the poor guy's fault it took the courts almost two entire years to come to a decision, you know. It's not like the kid was two and he went 'oh - I have a kid . . .ring ring . . . hello judge, I'd like my kid back' and then the next day - poof - done. The courts prolonged the situation extending it out to a painful and disgusting length of time. . . they should have cared more and acted earlier.

Of course it goes without saying the situation should be happening at all - fathers do have rights.

Allowing the child to be raised by adoptive parents and denying his undeniable parental rights all her life would have been disgusting and with malice.

I'm with you right up until taking the child away from the people that she's bonded with for 2 years. That's not in her best interest, and shame on the Dad for putting his desires ahead of his daughter's needs. I think that given the nature of the case, he should have consented to the adoptive parents keeping her and working out visitation. Especially since he's in the military. What happens to the kid when he gets deployed to a war zone?
 
"I don't know who the father is".

That excuse is going to have to stop. Any woman putting a child up for adoption must be required to notify the father. She knows who she has slept with. At the very least, there should be proof of a concerted effort by the mother to locate the father prior to being allowed to give the child up for adoption. This should be a law. If a father can not be found, there should be criteria that the mother should have to follow in order to prove she made a real attempt to find the father.
 
Sperm doesn't make one a father. The adoptive parents, who are by the way the parents the child has bonded with over the last 2 years, are likely heartbroken. As they should be. It's very sorry that this man lost his rights, but ripping the child away from what she believes to be her parents isn't helping the child grow up well adjusted. Now the child will pay the price, which she does not deserve to do.

The child is young enough to not even remember much of what happened. I certainly do not remember much prior to when I was 5 years old. And legally, yes, sperm means a lot when it comes to who the father is. If you don't believe me, just take a look at all the women who collect child support.
 
The child is young enough to not even remember much of what happened. I certainly do not remember much prior to when I was 5 years old. And legally, yes, sperm means a lot when it comes to who the father is. If you don't believe me, just take a look at all the women who collect child support.

Sorry, a father is the one who does the hard work of parenting. Shooting your sperm into a woman hardly qualifies as the hard work.

I am an adoptive father, and believe me, even though the child is too young to have conscious memories of this, she will carry the scars forever.
 
Sorry, a father is the one who does the hard work of parenting. Shooting your sperm into a woman hardly qualifies as the hard work.

As I said ealier to that from Vik..

You do not need to raise a child in any shape or form in order to be a father. It is not required, it is not needed, and it does not go towards answering the question being asked. It instead answers the question of who is caring for the child as a father figure. Which is an entirely different question that deals with social workings of the practice of fatherhood.

The fact is when you are asking the question of who is the father its a biological question. If you were to ask who is the father figure for the child however you would be right. Asking a biological question and only referring to the later is rather improper.

Lastly, as I said rights are gained at birth of the child and must be given up for others to gain access. Do you actually want biological fathers to just be ignored by the government so people can have their children?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, a father is the one who does the hard work of parenting. Shooting your sperm into a woman hardly qualifies as the hard work.

I am an adoptive father, and believe me, even though the child is too young to have conscious memories of this, she will carry the scars forever.

It does not matter who carries the burden, legally, a man is responsible if he gets a woman pregnant. It should be no different for either sex in this sense. That is equality.

When I joined the military I had to meet a certain standard as a male joining the military physically. A woman does not have to work as hard because their standards are much much lower than mine. But as far as the military is concerned, as long as we meet our respective standards, regardless if one is tougher than the other, we have the right to continue serving our country.
 
The Judge stated that the Freis knew early on that Achane had never been consulted and Archane was not consenting to the adoption and did not even know that Bland put the baby up for adoption. Once they knew the facts of the matter, to pursue the adoption was unconscionable on their part.

The judge's decision to return the little girl to her biological dad doesn't fix all the wrong that's been done. This little girl is no doubt going to be confused and hurt for at least awhile as she adapts to life with the dad she never knew. The adoption agency has a lot to answer for here and at the very least, i would hope that procedures are put in place to ensure that this doesn't happen again.
 
This isn't entirely about the best interests of the child. What if Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a baby and the state determines that the baby is better off with some other family? There's nothing wrong with Mr. and Mrs. Smith; it's just that the other family is better.
 
Oh please - if they love that child as much as you claim they do then they'd happily let her be back with her father who never should have lost her to begin with and maybe strike up a relationship with him so they can stay in contact and still be in her life.
 
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.
 
The fact is when you are asking the question of who is the father its a biological question. If you were to ask who is the father figure for the child however you would be right. Asking a biological question and only referring to the later is rather improper.

I'd argue that I'm far more of a father to my children than the man who dropped them off at a Russian orphanage. My daughter still remembers him, but if you ask her who her father is, she'll tell you it's me.

Lastly, as I said rights are gained at birth of the child and must be given up for others to gain access. Do you actually want biological fathers to just be ignored by the government so people can have their children?

And what happened to this particular person was a terrible abrogation of his rights. I won't argue otherwise. In the end though, the one paying the price is the child. Taking her away from the only family she's known is also wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Oh please - if they love that child as much as you claim they do then they'd happily let her be back with her father who never should have lost her to begin with and maybe strike up a relationship with him so they can stay in contact and still be in her life.

That's not true at all. As an adoptive father, I'm not about to send my children back to Russia just because some drunk makes a phone call and says he's still alive.
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom