Here’s a question that serves as an interesting ethical dilemma …
The Ethical Dilemma: You are a judge in a developing country where family law leaves much discretion to the person sitting on the bench. A single mother, 18 years old, gives up her child for adoption. The child is adopted by a married couple in their late 30’s. They rename the baby, and four years later, the father discovers that he has a son or daughter about whom he was never told. He sues for full-time custody, having never relinquished his parental rights.
The Questions:
How do you rule?
Why do you do it?
Should the mother, in this case, be subject to legal penalties for creating the situation in the first place?
If you had a strong emotional reaction to reading this ethical dilemma, why? What is the cause of the surge of emotion? If you didn’t, why do you think that is?
The Considerations:
Does permitting the adoptive family to retain any contact with the child, or even full-time custody of the child, result in an incentive system that rewards such behavior of the deceptive mother?
If removing the child from the adoptive family’s home causes significant psychological trauma in the short-term, is that simply a necessary cost of rectifying a gross injustice?
If you believe the mother should be punished under the law, what do you think is appropriate?
Think about it. Answer for yourself in private. Or talk amongst yourselves.
By thinking through ethical dilemmas, it is often easy to identify flaws in one’s own thought process, areas of bias, as well as to reveal your true motivations, priorities, and values. They are one of the most valuables tools I use in my own arsenal to increase clarity of thought.
[mainbodyad]
Reader Comments (9)
Comments are presented chronologically, with replies indented beneath the comments to which they respond.
Jeff
October 9, 2013
Can you clarify something? When putting the child up for adoption, did the agency not inquire or investigate the status or whereabouts of the father? I find it hard to believe that they simply took the child without looking into it. Even if the mother had lied to them about it, it should not have been that hard to see if she was telling the truth. If she told them she didn't know who the father was, I suppose she could punished for lying about it, although I have no idea what she would be charged with in my state.
Scott McCarthy
October 9, 2013
Replying to Jeff
Kidnapping?
Alex
October 9, 2013
I remember watching a show where a similar situation occurred but instead the father didn't sue for custody he was contempt with meeting the child and getting to know him but without interfering in his life. In response to the question I think it depends, if the father walked out and there was no possible way to find him then I believe in some states his paternal rights can be waived via absentia. I'm assuming in this situation that he didn't walk out and the mother simply withheld the information from the courts due to discretion in the law. As much as I would hate to take away a child from a family that rightfully adopted him/her, I would have to rule in favor for the father because he is both the biological and technically the legal father. Now ethically I do think that the adoptive family has some right to be in the child's life if they want to but in the end it goes to show that you shouldn't adopt without waiven rights from both parents.
Scott McCarthy
October 9, 2013
For me, I'm against allowing the adoptive parents to keep the child for the same reason I oppose abortion without the consent of the father - I see it as a fundamental violation of equal protection based solely on the gender of the parent. To the extent that the adoptive couple incurred child rearing expenses, they should have a right to recover them from the mother.
joe pierson
October 10, 2013
If this was one night fling I view the rights of the biological father the same as a sperm donor.
Adam
October 10, 2013
Replying to joe pierson
Would you feel the same if the mother decided to keep the child? In that case would you agree the father has no financial responsibility towards the mother or child?
Caleb Hutson
October 14, 2013
Replying to Adam
Touche, good sir.
joe pierson
October 15, 2013
Replying to Adam
Yes to your first question, up to the women to the second, because I don't view reproduction as an equal partnership because nature didn't set it up as an equal partnership. The women has majority stake. She decides.
Adam
October 20, 2013
Replying to joe pierson
So you would feel he is not the legal father but if the mother wanted him to pay child support then he would be legally obligated to do so.
But with child support comes legal rights as well as legal responsibilities. Very rarely do you get one without the other. I have never heard of a father being obligated to pay child support without any of the attendant legal rights just because the mother wants the money but doesn't want him to have those rights.
So either he is the legal father with the rights pertaining thereto or he is not. Which is it?