In New Mexico, a drama is unfolding right now that should chill any man thinking of having children, and of any person who believes in rights.

In short, a father is suing for the rights to see his biological son, who has been legally adopted by someone else.  The child was a result of a failed relationship and the father says he was unaware of the pregnancy.  The adoption agency says it tried to find the father, and a lower court agreed to suspend the dad's parental rights.  However, a Court of Appeals ruling reversed that decision, saying diligence was not used in finding the dad.

On July 26, the Appeals Court found the lower court had "improperly focused on Mark's pre-birth conduct, and thus the court's finding that Mark presumptively abandoned the child is not supported by substantial evidence."

In short, whether he knew of the pregnancy, his consent was still required for the adoption. The judge may have agreed with Huddleston's argument that spending over two years and $60,000 in pursuing custody was evidence of non-abandonment.

The Court also found that New Mexico law does not close the door on last-minute claims, thus allowing biological fathers to contest an adoption up to the moment it is finalized.

The case will finally wind up in NM Supreme Court.

The interesting thing is how we as a society are so emphatic about a father paying child support but are often quite flippant with his rights of custody and visitation.  Why is that?

Michael McCormick of the D.C.-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children believes the problem is anti-father bias in the family court. He believes Huddleston is the victim of an adoption agency that saw fathers "as a hindrance."

What a shame if this is truly the case.  How have we come to the point where fathers are seen as basically an irrelevance, at least in the eyes of the court?

I support much stronger father rights.

The link:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207499,00.html