In Matter of "Male F." (97 Misc. 2d 505 [Sur Ct, Bronx County 1978]), the court stated that "clearly, section 111-a is not intended to give a putative father any substantive right he does not otherwise possess." The court also stated that: "Naturally flowing from a right to notice is the right of a putative father to be heard, if he wishes, on the subject of the disposition of his children before a final determination is reached which can affect his relationship, if any, with the child. Neither the Malpica-Orsini case, nor our statutes, have in any way further expanded the substantive rights of a putative father in an adoption proceeding. He is given no right other than to be heard and have his views considered in reaching an appropriate determination that is in the best interests of the child" (at 510).