A couple of years ago, the spiky urchin laughed like the cynical creature she is when Wes Hutchins said he thought adoptions in Utah “need to be done…ethically.” I laughed because I knew Utah has traditionally been the worst state in the union when it comes to recognizing fathers’ rights where adoption are concerned. (South Carolina may be creeping up on them these days, but I digress.)
It’s still not funny, but I am nevertheless, in little dry barks, laughing. Because there was this one time when sexism got pointed the wrong way:
The opinion rejects the argument that the affidavit discriminates against unmarried fathers because unmarried mothers are not required to provide similar assurances about how they will care for and support a child. It says a father’s role is inherently different because his connection to his child might be unknown or indeterminate.
No, it’s not really funny, not at all. But neither is this:
The adoptive parents […] knew Bolden’s identity and that he had made some effort to establish parental rights, the documents say. But they asserted Bolden had no rights because
they had more money and they wanted his baby he did not comply with the affidavit requirement and notified him of their intent to adopt without his consent.
No really, part of their defense is “We told you we were taking your baby whether you liked it or not, and you’ve done nothing but fight us ever since. This makes us the clear moral victors.”
They gave him three whole days.