Contact Us

You're a Parent Notification Act - Comments

In chronological order, older feedback at bottom

Comments to revision B of the Act.

---  Robert Green <Robert.Green@dshs.state.tx.us>

 [This Act is founded on a presumption that no one should be a parent
without their knowledge, and also on the facts that:

1) every child has two biological parents;
2) children do best overall when they are reared by a
mother and a father; and,
3) that preparation for being a successful  parent begins prior to conception. For its role, society should
presume that both parents have fundamental rights & responsibilities
regarding  their child, and that our courts should ensure the enforcement of
both, regardless of marital status.]

 [The State will maintain a registry of notifications for both parents
and assist, if necessary, in notifying the named father and confirming or refuting
his paternity.]

Comments to revision A of the Act.

--- "Jerry O'Neil" <oneil@CenturyTel.net>

> While I am a strong advocate of parental rights, I am also a strong
> opponent of government intrusion into our private affairs. Requiring
> a woman to notify the government if she becomes pregnant is way too
> intrusive.


--- Charles Horton <tafari4ii@sbcglobal.net>

> ... it is a sad day when we must get a law from man to uphold our
> God given rights, and inherent rights from a government that is
> suppose to be built on God as its core base.


--- Diane Booth <Childrescue2006@aol.com>

> I have questions about the "Exception" that: "Notification need not
> occur in the designated period if a rape is alleged and criminal
> charges are pending against the other parent. In California
> probably at least 50% or more of the population has or had criminal
> "charges" against a parent. We are supposed to be innocent until
> proven guilty. In California parents are never allowed to prove
> their innocence. A misdemeanor charge is never followed by a trial
> and often the charged person is not allowed to submit evidence at a
> hearing.


--- Robert Gartner <planetaryg@yahoo.com>

> Notification need not occur in the designated period if a rape is
> alleged and criminal charges are pending against the other parent.
> [other exceptions/details]

> Does this imply that the charges are for the alleged rape or some
> other criminal charges? In the past when my daughter was born and
> her mother ran to the state assistance bureau, all she had to tell
> them was that she'was afraid' to identify the father! They were
> happy to please her but in effect their process became an enabling
> thing.


--- Charles <iamjahlul@aol.com>

> ... you are on the right track, and train with this. I will read
> it again, and forward any and all points that I feel needs
> addressing. Thanks John you are picking up.

> We must receive our rights at the conception of the child. We must
> have a say in whether or not child is given a chance to be born into
> this world. As it stands now the mother is the only one that has a
> say. The child doesn't nor the father has a say in whether or not
> the child lives or who the child's father is. The courts have taken
> it on it's own to believe the mother and accept father's saying they
> are the father, even though they may not be as fact. Their focus is
> getting money over the best interest of the family or the child.

> This will make a difference in our children and families to have the
> right to our God given inherent rights as a parent. As of how it
> goes today, men are reduced to sperm donor's are less. Slave would
> be more like it.


--- Suzanne Shell <dsshell@ix.netcom.com>

> I think this is a bad idea. . . could be used as a prelude to
> licensing parents. Also - this would impose costs of enforcement
> upon state agencies. Legislators are much more likely to pass bills
> that don't cost them anything. May I offer an alternative? Make it
> "A Parent's Right to Know" Act.

> Rather than forcing notification by law, write a law that imposes
> penalties if a parent doesn't notify the the other parent (OK enough
> cutsie politically correct stuff - if the mom does not inform the
> alleged father) OR if the mother lies about paternity - e.g. failure
> to notify or falsifying paternity precludes the mother from seeking
> benefits or remedies available under law. Possibilities include a
> prohibition on seeking and obtaining child support for any period of
> time before the father was notified or if paternity was falsified,
> she forfeits child related income tax deductions and earned income
> credits if she fails to notify papa or falsifies paternity, she is
> statutorily presumed (rebuttable?) to be acting in bad faith when
> issues involving the father's parent-child relationship are
> litigated if the father was never notified or notification was never
> attempted or she lied about paternity. . .you get the idea and you
> can take it from here.


--- Robert Green <Robert.Green@dshs.state.tx.us>

> Just think how many long-term tragedies such as paternity fraud and
> protracted paternity/child support cases could be avoided if only...
> like the principle of "informed consent," state laws REQUIRED that
> paternity and its associated rights, duties and privileges
> (Constitutionally-protected and equal for both parents) were
> routinely established within a very short time following the birth
> of EVERY child. Every mother KNOWS she's a mother; but, a simple
> blood test collected in the hospital, or wherever, removes a man's
> total reliance on FAITH that the child is his biologically. And,
> even if the child is shown to be the offspring of another, the man
> may now CHOOSE, "up front" and in writing, to accept the parental
> obligation legally...rather than having it forced upon him by a
> court should a divorce occur. Such testing, if routinely required,
> would also reduce the necessity for "notifying" a lot of fathers
> (since the results would be given to him personally); and, it would
> surely reduce the complexity of any "child support" proceedings
> "down the road."

> In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust...but verify!"


--- Ann Poorboy <aempoorboy@yahoo.com>

> I think if we want to get this through for the sake of our children,
> we need to stay away from the abortion issue all together. It's too
> broad a topic to be covered here and a great excuse for them not to
> pass this act. It brings into play the broad question of whether
> abortion is a civil matter, a religious matter, a personal
> healthcare matter, or a matter of parenthood. Think from the
> perspective of the legislators who would vote on this. If you want
> to address this I would recommend a separate act so as not to taint
> this one.

> As for the registry option, anyone listed on a birth certificate
> should be notified at their last known address by the department of
> vital records and have the option for paternal verification up to a
> time period after they are listed. This takes out of play the
> question of did they or didn't they notify the other parent
> appropriately. Having it come through an official channel makes
> more sense. I think placing the burden on health care providers
> outside their current reporting practice, would be cumbersome and
> unfair. There should be many easy ways to write this.

> For those birth mothers who simply don't know the birth father,
> either due to a casual relationship, involuntary act or otherwise,
> then perhaps newspaper legal notification in the paper where the act
> occurred might be appropriate and sufficient.

> I don't think anyone gets to opt out as a parent, think child
> support payments. Opting in is more complicated. Again staying
> away from abortion, adoption should probably also be addressed
> separately. A male parent should have the right to assume
> responsibility for his newly born child should the birth mother want
> to put it up for adoption. I'm not sure how child support would be
> or is addressed in this type of situation. There are avenues in
> most states for the termination of parental rights, there might be
> something helpful there.


--- Steve <steve66oh@yahoo.com>

> I am in complete agreement that every parent has a right to know
> that they are (or are about to become) a parent. The inequalities
> that exist between men and women with respect to conception,
> pregnancy, "choice" and birth are integral parts of the whole
> problem, and I've spent many hours thinking about solutions to these
> problems.

> As much as I agree with the idea of a "Parental Notification Act", I
> see overwhelming problems. First of all, anyone attempting to draft
> this type of legislation should be completely familiar with the USSC
> decision in "Planned Parenthood of W. PA v. Casey" (1992). In Casey,
> the USSC revoked the "Fundamental Right" status of abortion, making
> it a little easier for states to regulate abortions. More to the
> current point though, in Casey the USSC overturned as
> unconstitutional a PA requirement that pregnant women seeking
> abortions must notify the (suspected) fathers.

> I see a glimmer of hope with the current proposal, because it would
> apply to ALL parents instead of just those seeking abortion, but I
> predict the N.O.W. will portray it as an attempt to impede abortions
> and will fight vigorously against it on that basis.

> Also, in keeping with the current legal status of "unviable tissue
> mass" unborn children, I believe the courts will find that a
> father's prenatal right to know is less important than the mother's
> right to privacy. Upon birth, when the abortion question has been
> made moot, then perhaps notification could be enforceable.

> I've thought about the possibility of shifting the notification
> requirement from the mother to the doctor, but I ran into the same
> privacy/confidentiality issue. At best, a prenatal notification
> would become "Dear Mr. _____, I have just diagnosed a pregnancy in
> which the (unnamed) mother has identified you as a possible
> father. Have a nice day." Even this would bring howls of protest
> from the N.O.W., which would trot out the all-powerful abuse card,
> claiming this law would endanger women carrying babies by allowing
> men to figure out their identities and then use all kinds of threats,
> intimidation and violence to get their own way regarding the babies.