Mother Who Gives Birth Wins Right To Keep It Secret From Father

A woman in England who became pregnant after having a one night stand, has won the right to keep the news of her birth from the father:

In a landmark decision, three Appeal Court judges agreed that the 20-year-old single mother has "the ultimate veto" over whom should be told about the child, who is being put up for adoption.

And Lady Justice Arden said this was not a violation of the father's rights to family life under the Human Rights Act because he had no rights to be violated.

The woman, who kept her pregnancy hidden from her family and friends, gave birth five months ago, left the hospital without her baby, in order to give it up for adoption, but a court said her family and the father should be given a chance at adopting the baby first. A secondary court disagreed:

But yesterday, the judges decided the father had no rights over the child, who is now in foster care, because "he was only a one-night stand".

And they banned the local authority and guardian from taking any steps to identify him or telling him about his daughter.

There was also an order barring council staff from introducing the girl to any of the mother's family to assess them as potential carers.

Lord Justice Thorpe said he accepted "the importance of respecting the choice of a young mother who found herself in a terrible dilemma".

Here are the reasons why the three panel court believes the father shouldn't get an option of adopting HIS baby:

This girl was unable to bring herself to tell her parents she was pregnant and drove herself to hospital in the dead of night to have the child.

"She is a perfectly ordinary girl in a job she loves, who is living her own life. It is highly significant that she has not felt able to tell anyone, even her siblings. That should be taken into account by the court."

The judges heard that the pregnancy resulted from a "one-night stand" with a colleague while both were "on the rebound having broken up with long-term partners".

"He is now back with his fiancee, continuing with that relationship and he has no idea she has given birth to his or any other child."

She said the young mother was "absolutely clear" that she did not want anyone to know who the father was.

The court was told the mother was adamant that E should not go to her grandparents, who are divorced, or to the father.

Lady Justice Arden said: "He was only a one-night stand and he has no family life with E or the mother, entitling him to the guarantee of respect for that family life under Article 8 [of the Human Rights Convention].

"There is no basis for supposing that he could provide a home for E. . . The prospects of him being a long-term carer are too intangible to justify a delay in making a placement for E."

Reading that for the third time, I believe the court is saying that the father shouldn't know about the baby because the baby's mom doesn't want him to know, she has a good job and he was a one night stand. This is the *terrible dilemma* that the young woman is in. I'm sorry her child, and her lack of judgement have been so hard on her.

When this baby is 18 years old and starts inquiring as to who her natural parents are, how do you think she is going to react when she finds out her father doesn't even know she is alive? Will she be impressed with the courts decision that took away her right to live with her natural father? How do you think the father is going to feel? Could finding out something this traumatic have any sort of affect on this poor girl when she's older, or does it even matter, as long as the wishes of the baby momma are taken into account?

Let's say you agree with the courts decision. Let's say you agree that the father has no place in this child's life, he shouldn't even know the kid is alive. Fair enough. Now let's look at this from the other side. What if this girl had decided to keep the child and wanted child support from the man. Do you think the court would have said, "Naaaa, it was just a one night stand, he's not on the line for anything"?

Not in a billion years.

The father, in this case, has every right in the world to know that he has brought a baby into the world. Maybe he's a great guy and would keep the child and raise it in a loving household. It isn't the duty of the courts to pretend they know what's best for the kid based on emotional judgements, like, "He's in a relationship now with another woman". So what? That has nothing to do with nothing.

This is absolutely cruel what this panel (court) has done to this poor man and the baby. It's not giving that child every opportunity for a decent life. Boo on Britain and its liberal courts, they should be ashamed of themselves.