of this section regarding the effect of an adoption decree in the manner that it does today. I suspect that the majority’s attempt to find any way to affirm this case has more to do with a dislike of our rulings in M.K.C. I and King and a disapproval of the fact that the child’s father has never been identified. The majority simply does not think it is right for this mother to adopt her own child, particularly when they know nothing about the child’s father. The father’s identity is wholly irrelevant. It was undisputed that the father had never registered with the Arkansas Putative Father Registry or in any other way attempted to legitimate the child; thus, he was not entitled to any type of notice of the adoption proceeding. See Escobedo v. Nickita, 365 Ark. 548, 231 S.W.3d 601 (2006) (<HOLDING>). We are to presume that the General Assembly
holding that unmarried father is entitled to show that he could not have reasonably expected his biological child to be born in utah after biological mother left california immediately prior to childs birth without informing father where birth would occur holding failure to give putative father notice of adoption proceedings did not violate due process where he had never established a substantial relationship with his child holding no state court jurisdiction in an adoption proceeding holding child is entitled to know and be supported financially and emotionally by his or her biological father holding that the biological father was not entitled to notice of adoption proceeding where he failed to properly legitimate his child