First Fathers Matter

Jane

It’s easy to understand why first fathers think they don’t matter to their children. The fact is that they do matter in spite of efforts by law makers to obliterate them. Many states prohibit vital statistics registrars from including the names of unmarried fathers on birth certificates unless both parents file affidavits of paternity, something they are likely unaware of.

(When adoptees get that long-sought original birth certificate many find the space for father's name left blank or containing the words “unknown" or "n/a" leaving the child to wonder if his mother was a slut or a Madonna. Shocking as it seems, I saw a 1969 Oregon birth certificate which had the word "Negro" in the father's name space. I was told in law school that the reason for not allowing registrars to include unwed fathers’ names on birth certificate based on information from mothers alone is that mothers may give false names, seeking to embarrass prominent men.)

Until 1972, laws in all states regarded fathers of children born out of wedlock as dead when it came to adoption. (States considered them very much alive when mothers kept their babies and applied for welfare, aggressively pursuing fathers for child support.) In Stanley v. Illinois, the US Supreme Court held that unmarried fathers had a constitutional right to nurture their children unless proved unfit. The decision sent the adoption industry into overdrive, convincing state legislatures to pass laws erecting procedural barriers to prevent fathers from contesting adoption of their children. Unmarried fathers Benjamin Mills, Jr., Benjamin Wyrembek, Otto Kirchner, and others who sought to raise their children were pilloried by the media.

State laws allow anonymous sperm donations, reinforcing the idea that biological fathers don’t matter, that they have no more significance than a blood donor.  

Children are naturally curious about their fathers. For many, it's more than curiosity; knowing their fathers care for them is a real plus even if their fathers are scoundrels who cried “it aint’ mine! “I don’t know nuttin’ about no kid.” “What do you mean you weren’t on the pill?” Or like my daughter Megan’s father, “I’m sorry this happened but there’s nothing I can do.” (Offering to help support your child would have been a good start, dude.)

In some cases, fathers were married to other women. Fathers urged adoption for their child to protect their wives and children from being hurt by their infidelity. Even today, fathers like John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, went to great efforts to keep their love children secret.

In fairness, though, these fathers, likely did not realize the pain their child’s mother would suffer from being separated from her child. After all, many of us first mothers were clueless and we were a lot more involved. And neither of us had any idea how adoption would affect our child, schooled as we were in the blank slate theory.

Many fathers did try to stand by their woman. Well-meaning parents convinced them that a hasty marriage with a baby on the way was a mistake with life-long consequences. “His father had given him the advice that he planned to follow…. He had said to Chris, that with such a bad start, our marriage would never last. To begin marriage in debt to our parents, not able to stand on our own two feet for who knows how long, and with a new baby to take care of, would doom us. He was sure we would get married ‘in a few years.’” (Carol Schaefer, The Other Mother). Although Carol and her son’s father did not marry, about 20 percent of birth parents did marry after the surrender.

Whether scoundrels, adulterers, or misguided young men, we at First Mother Forum encourage first/birth fathers to step forward. The rewards can be amazing.

When Mark Shaw’s surrendered daughter, Marni Morrison, found him last year, “He welcomed her, her husband, and their children with open arms. He has no other children..... ‘I look at this as a gift of a lifetime’” he told Leanne Italie of the Associated Press. Shaw has written a book about his reunion, Road to A Miracle.

Of course, not all reunions go so well. Joe Sanchez and his surrendered daughter met once. They email but she has avoided discussions about further meetings. He is disappointed that the relationship is not stronger but satisfied that he has had the opportunity to know her.

Gary Coles’ son Mark refusal to meet him when Coles contacted him in 1994. After another unsuccessful attempt at a meeting in 1997, Coles began sending his son birthday cards. In 2009, Mark agreed to meet him for a cup of coffee. They have not seen each other since. Nonetheless less, Coles is gratified by the meeting. “Because I had kept my expectations in check, I do not feel deflated by the outcome of our get-together.” He continues to send birthday cards. Coles has written three books about the birth father experience, Ever After: Fathers and the Impact of Adoption (2004), Transparent: Seeing Through the Legacy of Adoption (2005) and The Invisible Men of Adoption (2010).

Regardless of whatever happens, I’ve never met a first father who regretted meeting his child.

---------------------------------
Lorraine here tonight: Back from out of town, and found that a friend sent me this link from the New York Times today--A Father’s Day Plea to Sperm Donors. The story is as the headline promises: don't have children with anonymous donors, written by a son who would like to know his sperm-donor/birth father. I talk about this whenever possible but feel it falls on deaf ears. Even friends have daughters who use anonymous sperm to have children, even today. It is unconscionably cruel to the child. It is unquestionably immoral.