Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Adoption confusion....

Hi!

I'm currently working on a new Part of Becca's story.

I really tried to find out about laws concerning my problem, but I don't really get an answer.

In case you didn't read the story. Clark has a child before he meets Lois for the first time. However he is not really the biological father, though the birth certificate says it. He confirms his parenthood to do the mother a favour, but he's not married to the mother.

In Germany the unmarried father has to adopt his own children after their birth. Is it the same in the USA?

Good question. The answer differs from state to state, but generally speaking the man whose name appears in the "Father" slot on the birth certificate has a lot of rights that a stepfather does not automatically have. Because Clark and Lisa were never married, there might be some gray area, but unless Clark's custody is challenged by another family member or his competence is called into question by some court or social service, he shouldn't have a problem with custody. He shouldn't have to legally adopt her, because he's already legally her father.

Unless that's where you were going and you wanted some problems to show up! In which case, I'm sure you can come up with some quality complications.

Thanks Terry,

actually I can do without more problems...

If the father's name is listed on the birth certificate then he's the father - period. The only way that wouldn't be so is if the real father came along and forced DNA testing, and it would still have to go to court, and it would be a mess.

I used to work in obstetrics, and I've often seen a father listed that wasn't the 'real' father. It doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes the person on the birth certificate is the father - with full privileges. If they aren't married, visitation schedules and custody issues may have to be worked out, but the listed father does not have to 'adopt' the child - whether it's his or not.

Of course, like Terry said, his competency could be called into question, but then so could the mothers.

Well, heck, Barbara... You should have emailed me. I would have gladly helped... (Especially since I believe I inserted foot in mouth and asked you in feedback why Clark would have had to adopt Becca if he was listed on the birth certificate.)

Oh, one more thing... Mothers used to be able to leave the space for the father blank on the birth certificate. I don't know if that's done too much any more, though. In the times I've helped fill out birth certificates, I think I only saw it happen a couple of times.

Yes you can still leave the name blank. Babies are still born every day where the father was a 1 night stand where the mother doesn't know the father's really name or even how to locate him. Then there are those that have had so many partners they have no idea who the father is. You should watch Maury Povich (SP) sometime.

As for the legal rights of Clark in this case. Since he is listed as father, HE is the father and has full rights. After the mothers death Child Services would do an initial check but unless Clark tells them he isn't the biological father and doesn't want her, then she is his child free and clear. Of course as with any case of reported child neglect or abuse the authorities would become reinvolved.

Now if the real father shows up to claim her then she would more than likely, once paternity was establish, be given to her biological father. That is pretty much how it happens in the states. Biology seems to over ride any wishes of the child to stay with the known parent. Biological parent/child are considered family not emotional parent/child.

You helped me a lot, thanks. I had a little discussion with a physician on that topic, who married his wife because she was expecting twins. There might have been a problem for him, if something had happened to his children or his girlfriend.

Anyway, I'm *g l a d* that things seem to be a lot easier in the US. My brain was already tied in knots because of the problem. It took me about two weeks to find a suitable explanation for Clark having (not really) a daughter.

'ya know... that's exactly what I told her. hehehe!

I'm glad that this turns out to be easier than what I had found, too. Cause when I looked (I checked Kansas laws - imagine that!), it seemed there was no way you could list a father on a birth certificate without their knowing about it and in the event of an unwed mother, withtout the father filling in forms and stuff. Then again, legal mumbo-jumbo and me don't go well together at all!!

I'm thinking that might not always have been true.

Is this story already posted because it sounds interesting, what is the name of it?

Parts of it are posted already, Daisy, but I don't remember the title. I remember the first part at least (I can't remember if I read the second--or even if there is one yet), if it's the one I'm thinking of. It's an alternate beginning fic.

By the way, Daisy, haven't seen you posting in a while. Glad to see you're back (if you were gone, that is).

Yes, Daisy, it has been posted. Bakasi has actually made it a series.

Here's the TOC for the first story: Secret Fears

Here's the 2nd serialized story: Sunday\'s Gain

Here's the third - a holiday vignette: Sunday\'s Late Conspiracies

My understanding is that more is in the works.

There better be more in the works.

Thanks for the links, I cant wait for more to read.
By the way, Daisy, haven't seen you posting in a while. Glad to see you're back (if you were gone, that is

No, I didnt go anywhere. I'm just kinda new and dont post very much.

Don't worry, Woody. I'm working on it. But I'm slow at the moment since there is a test in pediatrics waiting for me. I hope I can write some more in the holidays. But I'll have to learn Pathology and a whole bunch of other things. So unless you don't want a posting schedule of two pages every two weeks you need to wait a little.

Anyway, I'm glad that you like it. I might post a Rebecca Toc, thought. That should make it easier, what do you think?

Good idea. Give your series a snappy name, though. Don't name it 'Rebecca'.

Before I read this thread, it never occurred to me there were places where an unmarried father would have to adopt his own child. For a fic I'm probably not writing (but am thinking about), does anyone know how it works in Australia?

As for Australia, the answer is a definite no!
an unmarried father does not have to ADOPT his own child in order to have parental rights and responsibilities... so long as he is listed on the birth certificate


a friend of mine was still paid child support after the couple split up, from the (this man was both biological and legal) father (I think it is called "Alimony"? in the states?) despite the fact they were never married, but there were never any contentions about biological paternity....if you know what I mean.... these child-support payments were enforceable through through federal law under the FAMILY LAW provisions... (especially as they are enforced as percentages of income under federal tax-laws)

but now the mother is married (to a different man), her now husband is required to ADOPT the child before any of the same legal requirements be enforced, or for the HUSBAND to be allocated next-of-kin status in the event of an emergency


I presume these laws would be similar to British laws, which were the foundations of our family law provisions...

An interesting case is that of an IVF baby, where a Black child was born to a white couple .... (i think)
when this came out, a black couple (who had also been undergoing IVF, but did not successfully carry their baby to term) went to court seeking custody

Genetic tests were carried out, but I forget the results, either Black egg-white sperm or Black egg and sperm

either way, it was determined, that although the child's biological mother was the Black woman, her LEGAL mother was the white woman who physically carried the child to term...


this are also related to the laws in the US (I believe) regarding surrogate motherhood. a practice which is illegal in NSW (my state in Australia), but legal in other states (with similar motherhood laws, provided there are no financial incentives involved).... but correct me if I am wrong in regards to surogacy laws in the US,,,

Child support seems to be the same for Australia and the U.S., marriage isn't required for one parent to provide finanacial support for the one raising the child.

The same goes for an unmarried father not having to adopt his own child. He's the father, regardless. If, like Clark in the Becca stories, his name is erroneously put on the birth certificate he can contest it (should he believe the child is not his) or the man believing he is the biological father can contest it and a paternity test will be ordered by the court. There exists a double standard in the U.S., at least socially in some cases still, that people (usually the older generations still) that look down on an un-wed mother (regardless of whether she keeps her child or not), whereas an un-wed father that takes responsibility for his child legally, financially, and has and active part in it's life is seen as a man because he stepped up to the plate when he could have just run and hid (and been a dead-beat dad). Anyone guy can be a father, but only a real man can be a daddy.

There are two types of surrogacy: traditional and gestational. In gestational surrogacy, in vitro fertilization is used to transfer another woman's fertilized egg, or embryo, in the surrogate's uterus. Traditional surrogate motherhood involves fertilize the surrogate's own egg via artificial insemination. In traditional surrogacy, unlike in gestational surrogacy, the surrogate mother is also the biological and genetic mother (words taken verbatim from the following website):
Surrocacy

US Surrogacy Laws by State

Alimony is money paid (usually a monthly stipend type thing) by a former spouse as "support" to the other spouse. Traditionally it was a man supporting his ex-wife (and usually paying child support in conjunction with that) when it was less common for women to have careers or just a job. Alimony can work either way though, if one ex-spouse makes more money than the other then that person may be required to provide support.

Each state law is different (I don't think child support or alimony is regulated federally). Below are links for my state, I hope that helps you out. If anyone else has a better understanding of the laws, please correct me if I've been wrong in anything.

Alimony in the State of Connecticut, USA

Child Support Law, State of Connecticut, USA

Interesting to note that alimony is paid regardless of any children/offspring

here it is usual for the divorce settlement to be final (IE the courts will divide the assets)
but further payments are only really made in the cases of the father (or the non-custodial parent) continuing to provide financial support for their child(ren)

of course there is nothing to stop a former spouse from providing a continual financial support, but we have no laws requiring it... (am unsure if you meant there were laws requiring alimony or not)


our constitution is defined in terms of what are the federal responsibilities towards our citizens. Anything not mentioned in the federal laws is up to the states to determine their own prerogatives (mostly being Health, Law/order, education, services such as Roads/Transport,...). Thus Family Law is defined under the Federal jurisdiction and is universal throughout the states and territories... in this way child support for separated couples (which is based upon an assessment of both parent's incomes) is (supposed to be) able to be enforced by law across state boarders, and in extreme cases is potentially regulated via court governed automatic withdrawals from bank accounts in order to prevent evasion

this is a controversial law (and has controversial effectiveness) but is designed in order to protect the child's welfare through financial means....

From what I know, alimony isn't obligatory, while child support is.