Baby Emma

[Jenamarie]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines)

Thoughts on this? A birth father in Virginia claims that he never wanted to give his daughter up for adoption, but the birth mother contacted a Utah adoption agency, placed the baby with adoptive parents, and then the parents flew the baby to Utah, all the while the birth father was kept unawares of the child's wareabouts (he knew she was born, but not where she physically was). He followed Virginia law to stake his claim on his daughter, but Utah adoption laws (where the adoption took place) say he has no rights.

Is it fair for adoption laws to so heavily favor the bio-mom over the bio-father? Is it okay for an adoption to be allowed to go through if there's a bio-parent ready and willing to parent, and who hasn't been found "unfit"? (and not just "unfit" in the court of public opinion, but in the legal sense of the word)

And does achieving the ideal of children being raised in two-parent homes justify such uneven laws? (favoring the birth mother over the birth father)

[Gwen]

i'm very big on father's rights. i think father's should be given equal consideration when making those kinds of decisions. the laws of the state the child was born in/both parents live in should have say over the laws of the state that is handling the adoption.

[Just_A_Guy]

Generally speaking, I'm OK with Utah's adoption laws as they pertain to children conceived and born within the state. If Dad wants to be a dad, he's got nine months to get his name on the state paternity registry before the kid's going to be adopted out from under him.

Here, though, it strikes me that the law is somewhat clear cut. Utah (like Virginia) is a signatory to the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children, enacted in Utah law at UCA 62A-4a-701. I read Article V, paragraph (1) of that compact as stating that jurisdiction remains in Virginia until the child has actually been adopted (which it hasn't). (Incidentally, the adoptive agency may well have violated the Compact and could be subject to legal penalties.)

My sympathies are with the adoptive couple. They're the only family the child has ever known, and Dad's wanting to tear the baby away from them because he looks at her as "his". He doesn't really seem to be weighing what's best for her at this point in her life--she's just property, to him.

But my money's on Dad winding up with custody.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Elphaba]

Generally speaking, I'm OK with Utah's adoption laws as they pertain to children conceived and born within the state. If Dad wants to be a dad, he's got nine months to get his name on the state paternity registry before the kid's going to be adopted out from under him.

Here, though, it strikes me that the law is somewhat clear cut. Utah (like Virginia) is a signatory to the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children, enacted in Utah law at UCA 62A-4a-701. I read Article V, paragraph (1) of that compact as stating that jurisdiction remains in Virginia until the child has actually been adopted (which it hasn't). (Incidentally, the adoptive agency may well have violated the Compact and could be subject to legal penalties.)

My sympathies are with the adoptive couple. They're the only family the child has ever known, and Dad's wanting to tear the baby away from them because he looks at her as "his". He doesn't really seem to be weighing what's best for her at this point in her life--she's just property, to him.

But my money's on Dad winding up with custody.

I'm surprised at your decision to favor the couple. In past conversations, you have indicated that is unfair that the father has no say in what happens to the child whereas the mother can have an abortion or have it adopted regardless of what the father wants. You even likened the father's dilemma to slavery.

[hordak]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines)

Thoughts on this? A birth father in Virginia claims that he never wanted to give his daughter up for adoption, but the birth mother contacted a Utah adoption agency, placed the baby with adoptive parents, and then the parents flew the baby to Utah, all the while the birth father was kept unawares of the child's wareabouts (he knew she was born, but not where she physically was). He followed Virginia law to stake his claim on his daughter, but Utah adoption laws (where the adoption took place) say he has no rights.

Utah needs to change some stuff to stop baby snatching from occurring in their state.

Is it fair for adoption laws to so heavily favor the bio-mom over the bio-father? Is it okay for an adoption to be allowed to go through if there's a bio-parent ready and willing to parent, and who hasn't been found "unfit"? (and not just "unfit" in the court of public opinion, but in the legal sense of the word)

No.

And does achieving the ideal of children being raised in two-parent homes justify such uneven laws? (favoring the birth mother over the birth father)

Nope.

[Just_A_Guy]

Utah needs to change some stuff to stop baby snatching from occurring in their state.

The case still has two layers of appeal to go through. Personally, I'd let that process play out before I got too worked up over this.

[Jenamarie]

He doesn't really seem to be weighing what's best for her at this point in her life--she's just property, to him.

But my money's on Dad winding up with custody.

That's a bit of a harsh judgement on the father. He'd spent 9 months looking forward to being a father, and then suddenly had that snatched away from him. He's been fighting the adoption since the start, and it's the slow wheels of the law that are allowing so much time to pass, thus allowing the child to bond more with the adoptive parents than with her bio-father, who'd had every intention of being involved in her life.

If she was "just a piece of property" would he be fighting so hard? Lawyers aren't cheap.

And I question the motives of adoptive parents who are willing to take children from willing homes, even if 50% of the parties involved (bio-mom vs. bio-dad) are on board with the adoption, when no law has yet stated that the bio-parents are unfit or unable to meet their parental obligations.

[hordak]

The case still has two layers of appeal to go through. Personally, I'd let that process play out before I got too worked up over this.

If the reporting is correct...

Lawyers cite at least 10 recent cases in which babies were taken to or born in Utah and adopted without an out-of-state father's consent.

It is a problem that should be addressed.

[Wingnut]

thus allowing the child to bond more with the adoptive parents than with her bio-father, who'd had every intention of being involved in her life.

That will actually not have much effect on the child at all (probably). I remember reading while I was pregnant that up to about 8 months old, children don't necessarily know who they are bonding with -- the important thing is that they bond. The bonding helps them thrive, but they can easily transfer.

[hordak]

and it's the slow wheels of the law

Lawyers aren't cheap.

.

Come on JAG you should know this better than anyone

[Jenamarie]

That will actually not have much effect on the child at all (probably). I remember reading while I was pregnant that up to about 8 months old, children don't necessarily know who they are bonding with -- the important thing is that they bond. The bonding helps them thrive, but they can easily transfer.

Unfortunately, the child is already 4 months (at least?) past that point, and who knows how much longer it'll be before this case is resolved.

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, Mr. Wyatt has a website here.

That's a bit of a harsh judgement on the father. He'd spent 9 months looking forward to being a father, and then suddenly had that snatched away from him. He's been fighting the adoption since the start, and it's the slow wheels of the law that are allowing so much time to pass, thus allowing the child to bond more with the adoptive parents than with her bio-father, who'd had every intention of being involved in her life.

I can see why Dad doesn't want to give up. On the other hand: as of today, April 15, 2010, with the child being several months old, I don't see how you can make a straight-faced argument that it's best to remove her from a two-parent household and dump her on an individual who has zero experience caring for her.

If she was "just a piece of property" would he be fighting so hard?

That was probably a little bit of overkill on my part, though I'd note that one is often surprised as to what people will fight over.

Now, certainly Dad has invested--financially and emotionally--in a relationship with the baby. But as of today, that relationship is wholly one-sided. He's never seen the kid, never held her, never talked to her. All he's done is formed a very strong, one-sided attachment to pictures. It's like my relationship with Jessica Alba--very powerful on my part, but wholly unreciprocated and certainly not a moral indicator of whether or not I should be allowed to impose myself upon her.

It seems to me that Dad's moral argument is about what's best for Dad. With his emotional state, I'm sure he feels quite justified; but the bottom line is that he's about to do something utterly revolting to a child he purports to love.

Lawyers aren't cheap.

Some of us are. (But I digress. )

And I question the motives of adoptive parents who are willing to take children from willing homes, even if 50% of the parties involved (bio-mom vs. bio-dad) are on board with the adoption, when no law has yet stated that the bio-parents are unfit or unable to meet their parental obligations.

I doubt the adoptive parents knew, or were interested in, the soap-opera details of the bio parents' lives.

The agency should have done its due diligence in that regard, and it apparently didn't. And now everyone's suffering for it.

But at this point, the adoptive parents have something Mr. Wyatt never had: a genuine, two-way relationship with the child. I think it's hard to blame them for trying to preserve that.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Jenamarie]

It seems to me that Dad's moral argument is about what's best for Dad. With his emotional state, I'm sure he feels quite justified; but the bottom line is that he's about to do something utterly revolting to a child he purports to love.

.

What's utterly revolting is that this child was allowed to be placed for adoption without the Bio-dad's consent.

If the parents had upright kidnapped the child, and been raising it in a loving home, bonding with her and loving her, and she loved them back, would you hope the law would allow the child to remain with them? Would you still feel it was in the best interest of the child to remain in that home?

Because I'm 100% sure, if I were the father, that I would feel that my child had been kidnapped from me. I helped in it's creation, I went along for the 9 months of gestation, I was gearing up to become a parent, and then *poof* no more baby.

The state of Virginia aknowedges that he is the child's rightful father. It's Utah's legal system that has allowed this to drag out for so long, denying this little girl her RIGHT to be raised by the parent who has been wanting HER (not just a child, but HER) since those two pink lines appeard on the pregnancy test.

[Just_A_Guy]

With all due respect, Wingnut, the baby is now about 14 months old; not 8.

If the reporting is correct...

It is a problem that should be addressed.

Well, yes . . . and maybe not.

In the case the article cites, O'Dea v. Olea (217 P.3d 704), the article neglects to tell the reader that after the little abortion fiasco, Mom called Dad--while she was in labor, apparently!--and told him she would give birth there in Utah. Dad did nothing to assert his legal rights for two months. It would be interesting to see the other cases Wyatt's attorneys refer to, to see whether they are similarly mischaracterized.

With regard to kids who are "taken" into Utah, I'll be very interested to see why Utah courts don't seem to consider themselves bound by the Compact (or maybe they do--who knows?).

With regard to kids who are born in Utah, though: essentially, fathers have twenty days from the date they receive notice that the child is in Utah. See UCA 78B-6-122©.. That's not very long, but I think it's a lesser-of-two-evils scenario. Do we really want adoptions held up for months while we wait for Dad to make up his mind? Who cares for the kids in the meantime? Will potential adoptive couples be willing to temporarily care for infants (or any child), knowing that the child may be taken away from them at any time? If not, then what?

Do we want a system that steers children to the fathers who created them by sheer accident, or to two-parent families that have intentionally made significant sacrifices to have a family?

[Just_A_Guy]

What's utterly revolting is that this child was allowed to be placed for adoption without the Bio-dad's consent.

But again, should we stall the adoptions of thousands of kids whose dads don't care, in favor of the odd kid or two whose dads say they care but somehow neglect to timely assert their legal rights?

If the parents had upright kidnapped the child, and been raising it in a loving home, bonding with her and loving her, and she loved them back, would you hope the law would allow the child to remain with them? Would you still feel it was in the best interest of the child to remain in that home?

No, because they'd have committed a legal crime. Which is different from the case in point. Here, the parents acted in good faith.

Because I'm 100% sure, if I were the father, that I would feel that my child had been kidnapped from me. I helped in it's creation, I went along for the 9 months of gestation, I was gearing up to become a parent, and then *poof* no more baby.

I agree, as a general matter. That's why there's a statutory regimen whereby fathers can assert those rights. Utah essentially gives you twenty days after you've become aware that the child is in Utah. That's not a lot of time, but I think it's reasonable.

The state of Virginia aknowedges that he is the child's rightful father.

And it seems to me, that Utah doesn't really have the right to question that finding in this case.

It's Utah's legal system that has allowed this to drag out for so long,

I'm sure she'll find that comforting when the day of separation finally comes.

. . . denying this little girl her RIGHT to be raised by the parent who has been wanting HER (not just a child, but HER) since those two pink lines appeard on the pregnancy test.

What is it about HER that he wants, other than the DNA he gave her by accident?

Everyone here is in the wrong (except the girl, obviously). Mom acted capriciously and insensitively. Adoptive parents probably should have given the baby back when they saw this mess developing. And twenty-one-year-old Dad, when all is said and done, doesn't even know who or what he's fighting for other than that she is "his".

And don't even get me started on the attorneys . . .

Edited April 15, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

Who Should Have Custody of Baby Emma? - Motherlode Blog - NYTimes.com

Baby Emma’s Fate is Still Unclear | KidGlue

[Wingnut]

With all due respect, Wingnut, the baby is now about 14 months old; not 8.

(1) I didn't read the article linked to.

(2) Being that I didn't read the article, I was speaking a little more generally.

(3) Someone else already pointed that out.

[divinemom5]

I have been following this case a bit. I am actually related to the mother in the Olea VS O'Dea case that someone else cited.

I do know that there is no way we can know all sides of the story by what is posted on the Internet and newspaper articles. There are so many who try to armchair quarterback situations like this. I pray this case will be resolved in the best interest of the child.

[hordak]

With regard to kids who are "taken" into Utah, I'll be very interested to see why Utah courts don't seem to consider themselves bound by the Compact (or maybe they do--who knows?).

This is the problem i was referring to.

[hordak]

What is it about HER that he wants, other than the DNA he gave her by accident?

Does she have wants? I mean i don't mean to sound insensitive but at that age, and much older, the courts decide what is best. I.E. a kid under the age of____ (varies by state) cannot decide what parent they want to live with in a custody dispute. Their wishes are irrelevant. It's all about what is best for the child.As it should be

Now from an LDS stand point most would say 2 parents trump 1 but from a legal perspective is this relevant? I mean in cases of custody battle they don't "give points" to the parent who gets remarried first do they?

[Just_A_Guy]

Does she have wants? I mean i don't mean to sound insensitive but at that age, and much older, the courts decide what is best. I.E. a kid under the age of____ (varies by state) cannot decide what parent they want to live with in a custody dispute. Their wishes are irrelevant. It's all about what is best for the child.As it should be.

I agree; I apologize if I conveyed an opposite impression. That was not my intent.

Now from an LDS stand point most would say 2 parents trump 1 but from a legal perspective is this relevant?

In Utah, for adoption purposes, it is. See 78B-6-117(4). Not sure about Virginia, though.

I mean in cases of custody battle they don't "give points" to the parent who gets remarried first do they?

They're not supposed to, though custody is kind of a different animal because we presume the child already has a pre-existing relationship with each parent. FWIW, though, I have seen commissioners threaten to quit allowing parents to have their kids overnight, if the parents are cohabiting but not married to an individual.

[talisyn]

I wasn't able to access the Washington Post link, but according to the link Moksha provided

Wyatt filed for custody in Virginia just eight days after Emma’s birth.

That seems to fall under the 20 days Utah provides. As long as one of the bio parents wants their very own flesh and blood baby there should be no adoption. Sorry for the adopters, but the fact is the child is wanted by her dad and that should trump all else.

A case could be made that the baby is now kidnapped

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, Utah starts the clock from the time Dad found out the baby may be born or adopted in Utah, not from the actual birth date.

[talisyn]

That makes it even worse, JaG, because from what I read the dad wanted the child pre-birth.

hypothetical question: Do unmarried dads need to register with their county clerk their intent to be a father from the time they are aware of the child's conception?

[Just_A_Guy]

Not necessarily; but it's a good idea. If they don't get on the putative father registry and take the other requisite steps within twenty days before the baby is born, and they knew the baby was going to be born in Utah, and Mom relinquishes the same day she has the baby--Dad may very well be out of luck.