Can the 'biology-plus' standard still be considered constitutional when it can no longer be justly applied?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , Between 1972 and 1989, this Court decided five unwed biological father cases. None of those decisions, however, discussed constitutional rights regarding an infant placed for adoption at birth. With this fact being perverted for unscrupulous gain, the salience is undeniable. When an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood, “due process entitles him to substantial protection of that interest.” This father, not fitting the mold of any archaic gender stereotype, has demonstrated that commitment tenaciously. However, as gender assumptions and open-ended construction render adoption statutes vulnerable across the country, Father’s substantive due process and liberty rights were overtly violated as the bond he shared with his child had been coldly : severed. As written, he had reasonably satisfied the statute’s demands. Father has maintained a fervent desire to raise his child, being sensibly fit and percipient to do so. 1. With the familial landscape having evolved over the last thirty years, neither parent fitting assumed roles and a bond formed between father and child as a case in point, can the “biology-plus” standard still be considered constitutional when it can no longer be justly applied? 2. Ultimately having a negative impact on the children, does it serve the ends of justice if fundamental rights afforded to parents by the U.S. Constitution are unethically contemned when contesting adoption? . 3. As federal laws provide encompassing standards with which state adoption laws comply, any action based on the implemented statute, which a broader definition of support is to be affixed, requires that all relevant surrounding circumstances be considered. Once accurately interpreted, is there clear and convincing evidence that Father did not provide support to Mother for the last six months of pregnancy? i)