  Providing a biological template does not make you a father. It makes you a male progenitor. A night of intoxicated fornication does not entitle you to be a father; fatherhood is much harder. Fatherhood is being responsible for a child. Fatherhood is caring for them when they're sick. Putting them to bed every night. Fatherhood is giving a part of yourself to raise someone new.
It requires a huge commitment in terms of both time and money. It is not something you have simply by an accident of biology. It is something you earn. When a child trusts you, misses you when you're gone, is happy when you return, and sometimes wants you over any other living person, then you can call yourself a father. The state of Wisconsin goes out of its way to preserve the paternal rights of a child's male progenitor. It gives them every chance to become a father, even when they have made it repeatedly clear that they do not desire such. It allows an entirely neglectful person, who has seen his son a grand total of once the child's whole seven month life, who has never contributed a single red cent towards the expenses of raising a child, to retain paternal rights. Apparently as a male progenitor, you need to actually physically abuse your offspring before the state will step in. Now this is distinctly different from Wisconsin's attitude toward mothers. If a mother were to deposit her child with its father, never seeing it, never helping with the expenses, constantly avoiding any responsibility it, after a few months of this Wisconsin would declare her unfit. Her actions would be considered nearly criminal neglect. She would have to fight tooth and nail in order to even get supervised visitation.
If a neglectful male progenitor requests paternal rights over his offspring, he gets them. This even if he requests that he never wants to see his child. Even if he makes it clear that he means to pay at best lip-service to the duty of raising a child. Still Wisconsin doesn't protect the child from this man's destructive influence. Wisconsin assigns to him rights that he has not earned, will never earn, and flatly does not deserve. Nothing like the blindness of Lady Justice to brighten one's week. However I suppose all is not lost.
Possession being nine tenths and all, if someone is never around it doesn't matter if he's got the right to make decisions regarding a child. If someone is uninvolved in fact, what rights he has on paper are of little consequence. 
