Baby Emma

[Jenamarie]

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.

One thing I've seen mentioned in several articles about this is how incredibly hard it is to find this registry and get yourself on it. And I think it's a bit unfair for out-of-state dads to be held to it, since they may not have even known that the mom sent the baby to Utah, and you can't reasonably expect every prospective father to know the adoption laws of a state he doesn't live in.

[Just_A_Guy]

One thing I've seen mentioned in several articles about this is how incredibly hard it is to find this registry and get yourself on it.

I agree with you there. It's particularly odd because Utah is usually pretty good about putting their state government stuff on-line. I don't think the Utah registry's relative inaccessibility is accidental, and that needs to change.

And I think it's a bit unfair for out-of-state dads to be held to it, since they may not have even known that the mom sent the baby to Utah, and you can't reasonably expect every prospective father to know the adoption laws of a state he doesn't live in.

True; though again, Utah only starts the clock running from the time Dad is given reasonable notice that the adoption may happen in Utah (or that the baby is/may be born here, or that Mom is living here).

In this case, barring the Compact issues, the question is whether telling Dad you're talking to Utah adoption agencies constitutes "reasonable notice". I suspect a Utah court would say that it does.

[Jenamarie]

So this week Utah amended their adoption laws. From my (very limited) ability to read legaliese (yes, I made up a word) it looks like they're claiming they have jurisdiction over ANY birth father, no matter where he lives, if the child is being placed for adoption within Utah? Anyone care to interpret this?

Utah Legislature HB0074

[talisyn]

Wait wait wait, JaG, is there seriously such an animal as a 'pre-birth intent to parent' list?

You're totally pulling my leg, I hope

[clarepa]

I am astounded at the people saying the father should just move on with his life. He is her father. He has a responsibility to raise her and has made every effort to do that since long before she was born. His daughter has been a victim of kidnapping; not "something similar to kidnapping" but people literally lied to him and hid the child from him then took her out of state. The people who have her do not deserve to be called adoptive parents because they are neither. She is not and will not be adopted; not legally and certainly not ethically. Her father and grandparents have a good home ready for her. As a parent I cannot believe that anyone wants a devoted father to just disappear. Whoever they are, they certainly are not thinking of her. Children do not benefit from parental abandonment. I hope the people who do want the father to just give up are at least not parents themselves. Certainly, if they were they would have to apply the same standard to themselves. How many people out there would just accept this. If your newborn was smuggled out of the hospital and the state and it took a year for the police and the courts to catch up with the kidnappers would you just quietly walk away. If the people had really nice Christmas pictures of themselves with YOUR child and a nice nursery and a puppy? Can any of you honestly say you would just walk away and meekly accept the vague promise of an "open" adoption from people who you have every reason to doubt? The child is today a little over fourteen months old, half the age "Baby Jessica" (Anna Schmidt) was when she was returned to her parents (in 1993). She has stated she has no memory of the people who kept her from her parents for so long and has no interest in contacting them. Emma will also eventually grow up! Imagine her learning that the people raising her today deliberately kept her from her father! If they have any sense of right and wrong at all they will reunite Emma with her father, apologize to both of them and hope to God they avoid prosecution, though honestly I doubt anyone will place a child with them in future, knowing the contempt they have for natural families.

[Just_A_Guy]

Talisyn: No, I'm not pulling your leg. In Utah, a male who has intercourse is legally on notice that a pregnancy may result, and if he wants to keep the child from being adopted out from under him he needs to get on the putative father registry ASAP.

Jennamarie: In essence, yes; they're basically stating that unmarried out-of-state fathers need to comply with Utah procedures in order to prevent a Utah adoption.

Clarepa: "Parents" have an honest-to-gosh, two-way relationship with their children. Wyatt has none. He is not a parent; he's a sperm donor. One may argue that his inability to develop a true parental relationship was not his fault, but at the end of the day we're back to a toddler who has only known one set of parents--who acted in good faith and according to the law of their own jurisdiction. Were I in his unfortunate situation, I would hope I would have the courage and the maturity to step back and consider what's best for the child at that particular point rather than remaining wrapped up in my own possessory interests.

And I'm more than a little troubled by your apparent assertion that it's OK to traumatize a young child as long as she has no memory of the event once she has grown up.

[Jenamarie]

And I'm more than a little troubled by your apparent assertion that it's OK to traumatize a young child as long as she has no memory of the event once she has grown up.

Do you believe there's any way to avoid trauma in this situation though? Do you believe her parents will be able to successfully hide the drama surrounding her adoption her entire life, especially if this ends up going all the way to the Supreme Court? (which I have a strong suspicion that it might. I don't think this dad is going to give up until he's exhausted every option).

[Just_A_Guy]

Do you believe there's any way to avoid trauma in this situation though? Do you believe her parents will be able to successfully hide the drama surrounding her adoption her entire life, especially if this ends up going all the way to the Supreme Court? (which I have a strong suspicion that it might. I don't think this dad is going to give up until he's exhausted every option).

To Dad? Unfortunately, no.

To Emma? It just depends on whether you believe it's more traumatic to a fourteen-month old to rip her away from her home, or more traumatic to a teenager to find out that, yes, she was adopted, and her bio dad belatedly tried and failed to get her back.

[Jenamarie]

To Dad? Unfortunately, no.

To Emma? It just depends on whether you believe it's more traumatic to a fourteen-month old to rip her away from her home, or more traumatic to a teenager to find out that, yes, she was adopted, and her bio dad belatedly tried and failed to get her back.

But what if she also finds out about his being lied to as to her whereabouts? (when she was in the hotel room) and how he was granted custody of her in Virginia? And how he was never allowed to even lay eyes on her? Depending on what her relationship ends up being with her parents and how she views herself as being an adoptee in general (because not all adoptees are happy about being adopted, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their birth) it could be a huge blow to her to find out that the paternal side of her bio family wanted her so badly and had no say in where she went after birth.

Also, unrelated to the trauma thing, I was thinking yesturday about this case, and I found it odd that, in adoption, if a single woman wants to keep her baby, that's it. No IF's or BUT's or legal forms to file. The mom gets to keep the baby. Period.

If a single father wants to keep his baby, he has to make sure he jumps through the legal loopholes (possibly in several states) to make sure he's allowed the privelage of having a say in who gets to parent his baby.

I find that tradgically unfair.

[Just_A_Guy]

But what if she also finds out about his being lied to as to her whereabouts? (when she was in the hotel room) and how he was granted custody of her in Virginia? And how he was never allowed to even lay eyes on her? Depending on what her relationship ends up being with her parents and how she views herself as being an adoptee in general (because not all adoptees are happy about being adopted, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their birth) it could be a huge blow to her to find out that the paternal side of her bio family wanted her so badly and had no say in where she went after birth.

Sounds like we're demanding certain trauma now to avoid possible trauma later.

Also, unrelated to the trauma thing, I was thinking yesturday about this case, and I found it odd that, in adoption, if a single woman wants to keep her baby, that's it. No IF's or BUT's or legal forms to file. The mom gets to keep the baby. Period.

If a single father wants to keep his baby, he has to make sure he jumps through the legal loopholes (possibly in several states) to make sure he's allowed the privelage of having a say in who gets to parent his baby.

I find that tradgically unfair.

Ultimately, of course, the reason is that we're not even sure if it's "his" baby or not. It's obvious that the baby belongs to Mom, but there's no practical way of forcing Mom to name the father. Dad has to affirmatively step forward and claim the child. It's unfair, but it's biology.

So the only question is, how long do we wait for Dad to step forward before we let the kid be adopted out? Utah says, twenty days from the date Dad has a reasonable idea that baby may be born/adopted within the state.

And let us be clear: We're not talking about Dad having to get on the putative father registry in all fifty states; we're just saying that if Dad knows Mom's in State B or thinking of adopting the baby out in State B, he has to file in State B within a reasonable time period--again, in Utah's case, twenty days.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[hordak]

To Dad? Unfortunately, no.

To Emma? It just depends on whether you believe it's more traumatic to a fourteen-month old to rip her away from her home, or more traumatic to a teenager to find out that, yes, she was adopted, and her bio dad belatedly tried and failed to get her back.

Admittedly i don't know a lot of adopted but of the few i have known there has been 2 views on the subject about their birth parents.

The angry "Screw them they didn't want me" in which case the adopted parents will have to say

" Well that's not true, your mother didn't want you, left the state and your father spent thousands of dollars on lawyers trying to get you but we fought him cause we wanted you"

The realistic "Well they couldn't take care of me so they gave me up for a better life" in which case the adopted parents will have to say

" Well that's not true, your mother didn't want you, left the state and your father spent thousands of dollars on lawyers trying to get you but we fought him cause we wanted you"

Personally as hard as it would be on a 14 moth old i think it would be much harder to explain to a 14 year old how her adopted parents fought to keep her from her birth father, who wanted her but was denied that right because her birth mother fled town.

[Jenamarie]

And let us be clear: We're not talking about Dad having to get on the putative father registry in all fifty states; we're just saying that if Dad knows Mom's in State B or thinking of adopting the baby out in State B, he has to file in State B within a reasonable time period. Utah defines "reasonable time period" as twenty days from the date of notice.

I personally find that to be way too short a time if they're going to apply it to out-of-state fathers as well. Adoption laws aren't exactly common knowledge.

And the dad WAS determined to be the father at birth! His name is on her birth certificate and he filed for custody in Virginia (the baby's home state) and was granted custody BEFORE the parents filed the adoption papers in Utah. (and I believe I read somewhere that it was even before the baby had left the state!)

This is one of the reasons why, if the father loses in May, I will be *shocked* if he lets it drop. I really think this is going to have to be taken to the Supreme Court if Utah is going to ignore the Federal Law that says that the adoption laws of a baby's state of birth (in this case Virginia) take precedent over the laws of the state the adoption is trying to be made in (Utah).

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it's all in how you phrase it, Hordak. For example:

About a week after you came to live with us we found out that your biological dad, a twenty-one-year old nightclub worker in DC, thought he could raise you himself. We loved you very much, your bio dad had never met you, and our lawyer told us we were legally in the right, so we held on to you. This is his name, and you are free to contact him when you are ___ years old.

[hordak]

I think it's all in how you phrase it, Hordak. For example:

About a week after you came to live with us we found out that your biological dad, a twenty-one-year old nightclub worker in DC, thought he could raise you himself. We loved you very much, your bio dad had never met you, and our lawyer told us we were legally in the right, so we held on to you. This is his name, and you are free to contact him when you are ___ years old.

Pin it on the lawyer. Nice:p;).

(but i get what you're saying , i don't think that it would be less traumatic , even though you can word it it better, )

In either event the child will not have it easy. Sad situation all around.

(Side note: I get the impression you favor the child current situation over the father and wonder if it is based the law or the situation. I.E. If the father was married with a 9-5 would you be more apt to "pull" for him?

[clarepa]

Just a Guy.......... I can only pray that you really are just a guy and not a parent because that would be just too scary. There is no possible way in Gods green earth that living with kidnappers, theives and liars is in this child's best interest. Do you also argue that a bank robber shouldn't go to jail if he has a fourteen month old because the child would be traumatized? This child is not a piece of property. She has every right to be with her own family who have always loved her and (unlike the people who have her now) have always respected the law in so far as her custody is concerned-- perhaps too much. The people currently holding the baby need to be held accountable for their actions by the courts. They do not deserve to be rewarded for ignoring her rights by gaining her custody.

[Just_A_Guy]

I personally find that to be way too short a time if they're going to apply it to out-of-state fathers as well. Adoption laws aren't exactly common knowledge.

Well, it gives Dad two weeks to pick up the phone and call a Utah lawyer or low-cost legal clinic, and another week for that entity to submit the appropriate paperwork (if Dad doesn't do it himself). I think it's quite reasonable, when you consider that someone's got to be taking care of the baby all this time.

And the dad WAS determined to be the father at birth! His name is on her birth certificate and he filed for custody in Virginia (the baby's home state) and was granted custody BEFORE the parents filed the adoption papers in Utah. (and I believe I read somewhere that it was even before the baby had left the state!)

In point of fact, he was not on the birth certificate at that point--he was added retroactively. Otherwise, though, I'm inclined to agree with you. It does seem to me that, under the Compact I mentioned earlier, Utah should have recognized Virginia's action.

This is one of the reasons why, if the father loses in May, I will be *shocked* if he lets it drop. I really think this is going to have to be taken to the Supreme Court if Utah is going to ignore the Federal Law that says that the adoption laws of a baby's state of birth (in this case Virginia) take precedent over the laws of the state the adoption is trying to be made in (Utah).

Technically, there's no such statute that I'm aware of. It does seem to me that they have a good claim under PKPA, but any federal claims are going to have to come up through the federal court system. I'd guess that we're at least five years away from a SCOTUS decision on this.

[Just_A_Guy]

(Side note: I get the impression you favor the child current situation over the father and wonder if it is based the law or the situation. I.E. If the father was married with a 9-5 would you be more apt to "pull" for him?

Oh, from a legal standpoint, I think the adoptive parents are going to lose.

But from a moral standpoint, I favor the current situation primarily on the bonds that already exist, in conjunction with the fact that the adoptive parents took the child in good faith. (There's a bit of a preference for a two-parent home in there, but I don't think that shouldn't be determinative.)

Just a Guy.......... I can only pray that you really are just a guy and not a parent

And I can only pray that neither you, nor anyone close to you, ever has to go through the process that is adoption. From either side.

There is no possible way in Gods green earth that living with kidnappers, theives and liars is in this child's best interest.

There is zero evidence that this is the case. We have only a couple who acted in accordance with the law as they understood it, and at least one court that actually agrees with them.

Do you also argue that a bank robber shouldn't go to jail if he has a fourteen month old because the child would be traumatized?

Let's tone down the hysterics, shall we?

This child is not a piece of property. She has every right to be with her own family who have always loved her and (unlike the people who have her now) have always respected the law in so far as her custody is concerned-- perhaps too much.

OK, let's talk about "love".

How is it possible that the sperm donor--who never saw the baby, never held her, never fed her, never changed her diaper--can he "love" her more than the people who actually do all of those things on a daily basis? How can you say he has a "valid" interest, while alleging that the adoptive parents have only a proprietary interest in her?

Wyatt may be infatuated with her. By his own statements, he certainly feels like she belongs to him.

But love? No. That's not a slam about him; it's just an observation. There has been no opportunity for "love" to develop here. What he feels boils down to little more than a possessory interest.

And I say this as someone who will be a father (again) in two months. I look forward to meeting that little girl. I do feel that she is "mine". I like planning for her arrival; I enjoy putting my hand on her mother's belly and feeling her kick. But I wouldn't characterize that relationship as love--not yet, because I haven't interacted with her; I haven't really taken care of or served her. If, heaven forbid, she is accidentally switched at birth--it would be incorrect for me to claim that I "love" her more than whoever else has been taking care of her in the interim.

The people currently holding the baby need to be held accountable for their actions by the courts.

In all likelihood, they will be. Maybe there will be a camera there. Hope you enjoy the show.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Jenamarie]

How is it possible that the sperm donor--who never saw the baby, never held her, never fed her, never changed her diaper--can he "love" her more than the people who actually do all of those things on a daily basis? How can you say he has a "valid" interest, while alleging that the adoptive parents have only a proprietary interest in her?

Wyatt may be infatuated with her. By his own statements, he certainly feels like she belongs to him.

But love? No. That's not a slam about him; it's just an observation. There has been no opportunity for "love" to develop here. What he feels boils down to little more than a possessory interest.

The FATHER (not sperm-donor. I reserve that term for men who show 0% interest in their children) was in contact with the birth mother throughout the pregnancy. He went to the Dr's appointments and felt her kicking inside her mother's womb. You don't have to see someone in order to fall in love with them. I know without a doubt that my husband loved our children when they were still in utero.

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps we define "love" differently, then.

But how is contact with Mom, going to doctor's appointments, feeling the baby kicking - how does that build a relationship with the baby? Couldn't I just as easily claim to "love" Jessica Alba because (hypothetically) I keep in touch with some of her friends, go to places where she is present like the Oscars and Park City, and once felt a breeze as she walked past me?

I feel bad for what happened to the guy initially. But I wish he, and some of his supporters, would tone down the melodramatics here. Maybe it's just my line of work--I've gone through some nasty divorce mediations in the past couple of days--but I'm losing my patience for selfishness masquerading as love.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[divinemom5]

QUOTE]feel bad for what happened to the guy initially. But I wish he, and some of his supporters, would tone down the melodramatics

I have to agree. And again, the only side of the story we are seeing is his.