Is Texas making it easier for married women to put their babies up for adoption?

I am just thinking out loud. But I was told December 24 when I filled out my daughter's birth certificate that I didn't have to list my husband as her father if I didn't want to. What changed from 2 years ago? Is this an attempt to make a married person easier to give a baby up for adoption?Is Texas making it easier for married women to put their babies up for adoption?
No, sounds like you got a lazy social worker. The point is to get everything right on the birth certificate paperwork, however sometimes people try for short cuts.





The only other option I can see is that there might be a high perecentage of women giving birth who are still married to someone when they have been separated without funds to divorce and new guy is the dad, not the husband.





I don't think the purpose was to make it easier to give a child up for adoption, I honestly think it has to do with lazy hospital staff and the issue regarding people not getting divorced.Is Texas making it easier for married women to put their babies up for adoption?
WHat!! That is an outrage. I am so sorry that happened to you.





I think that social worker was trying to get your baby.





A husband is considered to be the legal father when a child is born.





There was a case in Denver, at Denver General Hospital, summer of 2003, where a married couple's baby was taken at birth because hospital personnel thought the mother was ';homeless.' She was not homeless, and her husband was present.





The husband protested, but the hospital workers told him';this isn't about you.';





The baby's name was 'Sunshine Gates.';The family was Native American. This story was reported in the media, and became the impetus for a legislative bill and law which limited the power of hospital workers to remove children, simply based on the ';opinions'; of hospital workers.





(and I don't think homelessness is a reason to take babies , either!!!)





Happily, baby Sunshine was returned to her family, but the family was severely traumatized.





eta: I wouldn't be naming the baby, but it was reported in the media, and the law was named after the baby, as well.
My son's wife had a child while they were married, and she did not list him as the father. She gave the child her boyfriend's surname.





They were married at the time of conception and at the time of the birth. He is in the military. She was a military dependent and the pregnancy and delivery was covered by his insurance. (The baby's nursery care was not.) He had been in training in another state for 3 months prior to the pregnancy, but he was back home around the time of conception.





The DNA test ordered in the divorce three months after the child's birth did show that he wasn't the father, but at the time of the birth, paternity was unknown. This was their (her) second child. He did not deny paternity. He was extremely upset that the child was given another surname since paternity was not established at the time of the birth. Yet, she was able to do just that. His insurance still paid for the pregnancy, birth, and her hospitalization, and he was required to make the co-pay. It was a c-section. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!





This was not in Texas, but it was in another one of the 50 states.
I don't think you got the right story, its only if you aren't married that you leave the name off without the permission or proof of paternity of the man.


It has nothing to do with adoption, and if you are married the father is still assumed to be the parent.


Either your nurse was wrong or they didn't realize you were married.
That's very strange, I thought a married woman's husband was automatically named as the father on the birth certificate.





Sounds like the social worker was poorly trained in her job.
Dear 23,





I don't know if she was interested in obtaining your child (it is certainly possible) but she definitely does sound very unprofessional and biased against fathers.