Rebuttal to NCFA's E-Memo for July 2006

Erik L. Smith

 

 

Rebuttal

In an earlier article, I opined that the Florida Adoption Act1Chapter 63 of the Florida Statutes. and its putative father registry (PFR) requirements were confusing, contradictory, and impossible for an unwanted father to follow.2The Florida Adoption Act: A Masterpiece of Absurdity. adoption.about.com. A Florida Appellate Court now thinks so too. In A.S. v. Gift of Life Adoptions,331 Fla. L. Weekly D1281a (Fla.App.2nd Dist.) the court found that the Adoption Act did not apply to parental rights that did not exist. Instead, another statutory scheme had jurisdiction to determine paternity before an adoption was ordered.

 

The National Council For Adoption (NCFA) criticized the A.S. decision, asserting that it violated the principle behind putative father registries and undermined the Florida Adoption Act.4NCFA E-Memo for July 2006. I now rebut NCFA's assertions.

 

The Florida court held: "[I]n those relatively rare and unusual circumstances in which a putative biological father, who did not comply with [the PFR] files an action to determine parentage under chapter 742 before the conclusion of the adoption, [he] is entitled to resolution of the chapter 742 proceeding prior to the adoption. If the...742 proceeding establishes [the putative father's paternity] and that he is assuming the responsibilities that such a determination requires, then it appears that [the Florida Adoption Act] gives him a role in...withholding consent for an adoption of his child."

 

NCFA wrote:

 

"The 2nd District Court...ruled that a man who fails to file with the state's putative father registry still possesses the right to challenge the adoption of his biological child and fight for custody."

 

That may be true. But the court was simply interpreting the statutes. Chapter 742 gave the father the right to file a paternity action because no adoption had yet been ordered. Because the Adoption Act did not let the court terminate the rights of a non-parent, but only the rights of an established parent, the 742 paternity proceeding had to be decided first. It was not the court's job to rewrite the Adoption Act so that it made sense.

 

NCFA wrote:

 

"While it is usually best practice to notify the father regarding a pending adoption petition, the basic principle of putative father registries is that the only way to ensure the child's best interests and the birthmother's and adoptive parents' ability to rely on a secure adoption is for the biological father to be responsible for asserting his own rights, by taking the simple step of filing with the registry."