The news out of New Jersey is not good. The New Jersey Supreme Court has denied fathers the right to be at the birth of their child. This has made headlines across the nation. Many have, and will focus on the right of a father to be at the birth of the child. Rightly so I might add. However, the ruling itself has a deeper impact on biological fathers. It will deepen the crisis that already exists regarding fatherless homes.
I read the ruling. Not only does this decision impact the rights of the father to be at birth, it also allows the right of the mother to exclude the father on the birth certificate. For those who have not been a part of the family court system, you may not understand the impact.
Many parents in our family court systems are young and without resources to be parents at the time of conception and birth. For this reason, it leaves a dad vulnerable to questioning and attacks when he has little or no support. The courts validated it's okay to rid the father. How? When a mother purposefully leaves a father off the birth certificate, it requires the father to request from the court paternity tests to prove they are truly the father. It takes months to prove paternity. Sometimes over a year. What will happen is this ruling will turn into a legal strategy for mothers to eliminate dad all together. This law can actually provide more pressure on a mom to eliminate dad. There could be cases whereas younger moms want the father to be a part of a child's life, and it is her family' that is pressuring her to exclude a dad from a child's life.
I have seen the pattern myself as a fatherhood advocate. Single parent homes, that raise a child on their own validate that this practice is appropriate. This is sometimes the case for younger grandmothers that have a younger daughter that is expecting a child. Sometimes, personal trauma of the grandparent such as domestic violence clouds their judgment of fathers. They pressure their to daughters to get rid of the biological father because they feel threatened by them being a part of the parenting process. This ruling strengthens the practice of eliminating fathers from the parenting process.
Even without the NJ ruling, some single parents are using this strategy in family courts. The "unspoken" rule no one wants to acknowledge is that this practice of legal counsel occurs without the law. Some family court lawyers do not have a problem telling their client to have the father prove paternity by keeping him off the birth certificate. This strategy allows for manipulation of the courts in their favor, because the judge will not want a newborn to be with a "stranger", that was not their since birth. New Jersey just validated what should have never been a precedent in the first place.
Why would this ruling hurt fathers? It gives moms leverage to disenfranchise the biological father before the baby is born. Fathers may lack the resources to be dads in the beginning.(Similar to mothers in poverty) During the paternity process, threats begin to mount about child support "if" you are the father. Thousands of dollars can be threatened in lieu of signing over your rights if the courts find out you are the father. Then, a scared father will be threatened jail time for not "stepping up." The worse part about proving your paternity is the lawyers will deem you unfit at first. The opposing attorney will point out that you missed out on the first year or year and a half of a child's life. What will not be mentioned is leaving a dad off the birth certificate was the reason for a paternity test. It works, because the courts are too overburdened to hear a paternity case. When this happens, fathers at times get supervised visits. Guess by who? Yep, that angry grandparent that thought you should not be he father. Now, the CPS games begin to further discourage and eliminate a biological dad from parenting. It is a very intimidating process that scares a dad into giving up his rights.
New Jersey made a big mistake, and it could cost all dads nationwide if this decision was adopted by more states. Dads need to rally, and educate their legislators that this ruling is not good for children and their state should not consider a similar ruling. Unfortunately, Roe v. Wade will be used to validate the ruling. Stay clear of politics and focus on parenting. The future of our children are counting on us to respond that fathers do matter.
More on the ruling:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-baby-new-jersey-idUSBREA2B1BM20140312
Father involvement in schools is associated with the higher likelihood of a student getting mostly A's. This was true for fathers in biological parent families, for stepfathers, and for fathers heading single-parent families.
Infant mortality rates are 1.8 times higher for infants of unmarried mothers than for married mothers.
A study using data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study revealed that in many cases the absence of a biological father contributes to increased risk of child maltreatment. The results suggest that Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies have some justification in viewing the presence of a social father as increasing children’s risk of abuse and neglect. It is believed that in families with a non-biological (social) father figure, there is a higher risk of abuse and neglect to children, despite the social father living in the household or only dating the mother.