http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2206996,00.html


Mother's court fight to keep baby secret from father


Owen Bowcott
Thursday November 8, 2007
The Guardian


A mother's decision to put a child conceived during a one-night stand
up for adoption has turned into a legal dilemma over parental rights
and responsibilities.
The woman, 20, has told the court of appeal she does not want anyone
to know the identity of the father, a work colleague. However, her
local authority believes her family and the father should be
approached to see if they are willing and able to look after the baby
girl, who is now 17 weeks old.


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A county court has already ordered that the woman's parents and the
father should know. Yesterday three appeal court judges were asked to
reverse that order. The local authority is preparing to take the child
into care after receiving a report that she was "abandoned" by the
mother at the hospital where she was born.
Eleanor Hamilton QC, representing the mother, said she had not told
her parents or the father about her pregnancy because she did not want
them to know. "This girl was unable to bring herself to tell the
parents and drove herself to hospital in the dead of night to have the
child.

"She is a perfectly ordinary girl in a job she loves, who is living
her own life. That should be taken into account by the court." Ms
Hamilton said the mother lived away from her parents.

Although the parents now know about the child, she has consistently
refused to name the father. Ms Hamilton said: "It was, on the account
given by the mother, a one-night stand with a fellow employee while
both were on the rebound having broken up with long-term partners.

"He is now back with his fiancee, continuing with that relationship,
and has no idea she has given birth to a child."

Judith Rowe QC, representing the baby's legal guardian, said that if
the woman's family could not help or were unsuitable, then the father
and his family would be approached. Ms Rowe said the local authority
believed the child should be brought up by the family if possible.

Lord Justice Thorpe, who led the panel of three judges, said: "That
sounds doctrinaire. It is difficult to imagine a more dysfunctional
family than this."

A court order prevents identification of the mother and child, the
local authority and where the case occurred. Judgment was reserved.

So technicaly the mother has total contol of a child, can totaly exclude a 
father to the point he doesn't even know of the childs existence as such has 
no rights. She can then just dump the same child on the state, denie the 
child both a father and a mother and walk away and totaly forget about, no 
cost, no hassles just another orphan!

Presumably the state can't demand Child Support from her and obviously not 
from the father so in this case the state just picks up the cost of rearing 
the results of this one night shag the unwanted and unloved child!

In cases like this it would make sence for the state to Demand that CSA puts 
the mother on the books as the NRP


 wrote in message 
news:1194524565.860390.162300@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2206996,00.html
>
>
> Mother's court fight to keep baby secret from father
>
>
> Owen Bowcott
> Thursday November 8, 2007
> The Guardian
>
>
> A mother's decision to put a child conceived during a one-night stand
> up for adoption has turned into a legal dilemma over parental rights
> and responsibilities.
> The woman, 20, has told the court of appeal she does not want anyone
> to know the identity of the father, a work colleague. However, her
> local authority believes her family and the father should be
> approached to see if they are willing and able to look after the baby
> girl, who is now 17 weeks old.
>
>
> Article continues
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A county court has already ordered that the woman's parents and the
> father should know. Yesterday three appeal court judges were asked to
> reverse that order. The local authority is preparing to take the child
> into care after receiving a report that she was "abandoned" by the
> mother at the hospital where she was born.
> Eleanor Hamilton QC, representing the mother, said she had not told
> her parents or the father about her pregnancy because she did not want
> them to know. "This girl was unable to bring herself to tell the
> parents and drove herself to hospital in the dead of night to have the
> child.
>
> "She is a perfectly ordinary girl in a job she loves, who is living
> her own life. That should be taken into account by the court." Ms
> Hamilton said the mother lived away from her parents.
>
> Although the parents now know about the child, she has consistently
> refused to name the father. Ms Hamilton said: "It was, on the account
> given by the mother, a one-night stand with a fellow employee while
> both were on the rebound having broken up with long-term partners.
>
> "He is now back with his fiancee, continuing with that relationship,
> and has no idea she has given birth to a child."
>
> Judith Rowe QC, representing the baby's legal guardian, said that if
> the woman's family could not help or were unsuitable, then the father
> and his family would be approached. Ms Rowe said the local authority
> believed the child should be brought up by the family if possible.
>
> Lord Justice Thorpe, who led the panel of three judges, said: "That
> sounds doctrinaire. It is difficult to imagine a more dysfunctional
> family than this."
>
> A court order prevents identification of the mother and child, the
> local authority and where the case occurred. Judgment was reserved.
>

I guess in theory that could happen, whether it would or not is debateable. 
Leads to a whole other debate though, should local authorities claim for 
child maintenace for all children put up for adoption?

"Fletcher"  wrote in message 
news:3dmdnZIz7IDpr67anZ2dnUVZ8ternZ2d@giganews.com...
> So technicaly the mother has total contol of a child, can totaly exclude a 
> father to the point he doesn't even know of the childs existence as such 
> has no rights. She can then just dump the same child on the state, denie 
> the child both a father and a mother and walk away and totaly forget 
> about, no cost, no hassles just another orphan!
>
> Presumably the state can't demand Child Support from her and obviously not 
> from the father so in this case the state just picks up the cost of 
> rearing the results of this one night shag the unwanted and unloved child!
>
> In cases like this it would make sence for the state to Demand that CSA 
> puts the mother on the books as the NRP
>
>
>  wrote in message 
> news:1194524565.860390.162300@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2206996,00.html
>>
>>
>> Mother's court fight to keep baby secret from father
>>
>>
>> Owen Bowcott
>> Thursday November 8, 2007
>> The Guardian
>>
>>
>> A mother's decision to put a child conceived during a one-night stand
>> up for adoption has turned into a legal dilemma over parental rights
>> and responsibilities.
>> The woman, 20, has told the court of appeal she does not want anyone
>> to know the identity of the father, a work colleague. However, her
>> local authority believes her family and the father should be
>> approached to see if they are willing and able to look after the baby
>> girl, who is now 17 weeks old.
>>
>>
>> Article continues
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> A county court has already ordered that the woman's parents and the
>> father should know. Yesterday three appeal court judges were asked to
>> reverse that order. The local authority is preparing to take the child
>> into care after receiving a report that she was "abandoned" by the
>> mother at the hospital where she was born.
>> Eleanor Hamilton QC, representing the mother, said she had not told
>> her parents or the father about her pregnancy because she did not want
>> them to know. "This girl was unable to bring herself to tell the
>> parents and drove herself to hospital in the dead of night to have the
>> child.
>>
>> "She is a perfectly ordinary girl in a job she loves, who is living
>> her own life. That should be taken into account by the court." Ms
>> Hamilton said the mother lived away from her parents.
>>
>> Although the parents now know about the child, she has consistently
>> refused to name the father. Ms Hamilton said: "It was, on the account
>> given by the mother, a one-night stand with a fellow employee while
>> both were on the rebound having broken up with long-term partners.
>>
>> "He is now back with his fiancee, continuing with that relationship,
>> and has no idea she has given birth to a child."
>>
>> Judith Rowe QC, representing the baby's legal guardian, said that if
>> the woman's family could not help or were unsuitable, then the father
>> and his family would be approached. Ms Rowe said the local authority
>> believed the child should be brought up by the family if possible.
>>
>> Lord Justice Thorpe, who led the panel of three judges, said: "That
>> sounds doctrinaire. It is difficult to imagine a more dysfunctional
>> family than this."
>>
>> A court order prevents identification of the mother and child, the
>> local authority and where the case occurred. Judgment was reserved.
>>
>
>