Right now, I'm not sure if there's anything stopping a married mother from doing that while you, dad, sit there and watch, helpless to prevent it.
What am I talking about? Well, as if one loud-mouthed journalist wasn't enough publicly excoriating fathers in the newspaper of record (yes, that's right, the London Times now publishes grotesquely bigoted, nearly psychotic anti-father screed to keep the masses entertained), the highest courts in the land now say that if your partner wants to have your kid and give it away for adoption, she doesn't have to tell you.
Did you get that?
I don't mean that if your girlfriend gets pregnant, she can get an abortion and not let you know. That might be at least vaguely comprehensible given the defensible idea that she should be able to decide what she does with her body insofar as it doesn't harm another (depending, of course, on whether you think a fetus is "another").
No, I mean that she can take your baby to term, give birth and give your child away without you ever being the slightest the wiser.
Legally speaking, therefore, I honestly do not know what there is to stop your missus, mister married father-of-three, from putting all of the little cupcakes and snowflakes up for adoption without your consent, nor even knowledge, until all is said and done.
Say goodbye, if she lets you.
(And don't give me that line "she'd never do something like that". If she can, some mother will, somewhere. Just wait. Legally sanctioned evil is a very powerful and tempting force for the sufficiently spiteful. And let's not forget that classic fighting-words line "do what I say or you'll never see the kids again!"(*) Now she's got yet another way of making that actually happen, chum.)
Let's look at the case in question. The girl (I refuse to call her a woman) gets pregnant, then wants to have the kid, but also wants it adopted at birth. She doesn't want mom and pop to know, nor the father. A legal guardian and the local authority applied to the court to tell the parents and father. The court so ordered, but the appeals court reversed.
One judge, the unladylike unjust Lady Justice Arden, said the father's rights had not been violated because he did not have any to violate.
Could it be any clearer than that? The father of a now 19 week old child has no rights. None. Zip. Nada. Not even to be told.
How evil is that? It was Remembrance Day recently, wouldn't your own fathers be proud? Your country is now one big zipless fuck. She can do what she wants, and you have no say, all you have to do is provide the dick and I'm sure it won't be long before that becomes unnecessary too. If this is what women's rights are all about, then I am a full-on, dyed-in-the-wool, proudly unrepentant, male chauvinist boar.
Britain, you used to be a great nation. What in good God's name happened?
(*) My ex said (well, barely-coherently screamed) pretty much exactly that to me on one occasion. I said something like "don't be ridiculous" and laughed - I had little doubt that she might try if the anger took her, which it did and she did, but also thought that "family courts" and "the law" were there to prevent such a thing, which they clearly aren't. Do I feel betrayed? What the hell do you think?