Post by Jim on Feb 19, 2009 9:41:43 GMT -5
This one is worse than most (Rockford Register Star, 1/31/09).
In this case the father, Ralph Lowery, Jr. was actually entitled under Illinois law to notice of the adoption and an opportunity to contest it. That's often not true. Many states go out of their way to circumvent fathers' rights in cases of adoption, usually via the enactment of putative father registries which they then neglect to publicize. But here, Lowery supposedly had the right to stand before a judge and try to convince him/her that he should have custody of his child. At least one court in Illinois said so.
In this case the father, Ralph Lowery, Jr. was actually entitled under Illinois law to notice of the adoption and an opportunity to contest it. That's often not true. Many states go out of their way to circumvent fathers' rights in cases of adoption, usually via the enactment of putative father registries which they then neglect to publicize. But here, Lowery supposedly had the right to stand before a judge and try to convince him/her that he should have custody of his child. At least one court in Illinois said so.
MORE:
mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/02/18/adoption-industry-gets-another-mans-child/
This is what you call "NO FATHERS RIGHTS!!!!!"
