David Spates "Therefore I Am" Published Aug. 13, 2002

Want to be a Dad?
Show up at the hospital

The portly fellow suing the fast-food restaurants, the guy who wanted to be buried in his back yard alongside his pit bull, the community of retirees who didn't want to pay taxes to fund the local school system -- I pick on Floridians a lot in my columns.

I have family in Florida. I have friends from Florida. I've been to Orlando, Fort Myers, Miami, Daytona and plenty of other Florida cities. I've ridden Space Mountain more times than I care to admit. Apart from the stifling summer heat, I like Florida just fine.

Now that I've gotten my "it's-nothing-personal" disclaimer out of the way, it's time to stick it to the Sunshine State once again.

According to an AP news story I read last week, there's a Florida law that requires mothers who don't know who fathered their children to detail their sexual past in newspaper notices before they can put the children up for adoption. Mothers who have exhausted other searches must place a notice in their local newspapers describing or identifying men who may, not did but MAY, have fathered their child. They also must disclose when and where the baby was likely conceived.

As you digest that, let me paint you a picture. A one-night encounter leads to an unwanted pregnancy. Rather than aborting the fetus, the mother-to-be toughs it out, endures months of morning sickness, packs on 40 or 50 pounds, carries the baby to term, huffs and puffs through the delivery, and then hands the baby over for adoption so that he or she will be cared for in a loving home by committed parents.

Now, in addition to all of that, the mother must place an ad in her hometown newspaper naming the man (or men) who could have fathered the child, including the date and place in which the conception may have occurred.

That just doesn't seem right to me.

The law is intended, or so Florida lawmakers say, to prevent biological fathers from coming forward later and disputing an adoption of children they didn't know existed. The law came into existence largely because of a well-reported court battle over Baby Emily, born in 1992. Emily was adopted, but then the biological father contested the adoption. The adopting family won the right to keep Emily, but only after a nasty and expensive three-year legal battle.

Hey, I have an idea. Let these guys bear the brunt of responsibility for once. They obviously didn't want anything to do with the mothers and children during the pregnancies, so I say they forfeit their parenthood.

Instead of requiring the mothers to track down these deadbeats, pass a different law - if the fathers aren't in the hospital and by the mothers' sides when the babies are born, they automatically surrender all parental rights. How's that? Exceptions can be made for guys who get stuck in traffic or whatever, but you see where I'm going with this.

Why should the mothers be the only ones who suffer the degradation and humiliation associated with publishing their lists of sexual partners in the hometown press? It takes two to tango, and the fathers in these cases should carry as much liability as the mothers.

Some in Florida have likened the published notices to "scarlet letters." I can see their point. What if the state required YOU to publish, for whatever reason, a list of your sexual partners? Let's say the lawmakers wanted to help curb AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases. The state's intentions may be good, but the methods certainly are not. Invasion of privacy should not be an option. There are better ways to address the problem.

The more I think about it, the more I like my idea -- if the father isn't at the hospital and by the mother's side when the baby is born, his parental rights are extinguished. We could give the mother the power to reinstate the father's rights if she sees fit. Maybe the parents were on the outs during the birth but kissed and made up a few months afterward. Mom could wave her magic wand (i.e. fill out some paperwork at the county courthouse) and re-establish full parental rights to Dad. It would have to be a one-time-only deal, though. We don't want Mom giving and taking Dad's rights every time he leaves the seat up on the toilet.

In all seriousness, though, this Florida law, if nothing else, must have a chilling effect on pregnant women considering adoption. For some women, I suspect it makes abortion seem more attractive, and (give me a moment while I reach for my 10-foot pole), I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing. Many people think the right to choose abortion is constitutional and just, but I've never heard anyone ever say, "Abortion is a great and wonderful thing, and I recommend abortion to all my friends." I think both sides of the issue consider the end result to be sad and unfortunate, but the question seems to be whether it's a "necessary evil" in today's world.

How do I feel about abortion?

Well, I'd like to express some thoughts, but I just dropped my 10-foot pole. It was starting to burn my hands. I told you it gets hot in Florida.

· · ·
David Spates is a Knoxville resident and Crossville Chronicle contributor whose column is published each Tuesday. He can be reached at davespates@chartertn.net.