Vort Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Father is ready to turn page on Utah adoption horror story | The Salt Lake TribuneI am not without sympathy for the adoptive parents, but any non-feminist who is unrelated to them can see that this is a staggering miscarriage of justice for the father. Nothing short of appalling. Heads should roll.
Anddenex Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) This is truly a travesty for both the biological father and the adoptive parents. As a father, I personally, would also want my child back. If they were married, and the adoptive agency had known (or possibly suspected) they shouldn't have given any rights to the adoptive parents until the father was reached. I truly have sympathy for the adoptive parents, more so for the child, to be potentially taken away from the parents she has grown up with, and then live in a totally different atmosphere when returned. I truly feel compassion for the judge who will be handling this case. EDIT: At the same time, both the adoptive parents and the biological father should think upon the needs, emotions, and mental state of the child to literally be torn away from her adoptive parents. Children are resilient though, they seem to bounce back better than adults. Edited December 4, 2012 by Anddenex
classylady Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) The case seems pretty straight-forward to me. The biological father was duped. He should get his daughter back. Some thoughts on Vort's thread title: Fathers: Second -or perhaps third-class citizens. It seems to me that the courts have favored mothers in custody cases without taking into account who would be the better parent. The mother isn't always the best parent to receive custody. That said, my husband received full custody of his two children when he and his ex divorced. This was over 33 years ago, and nearly unheard of. His ex still had the option of within 8 months of the divorce decree to come back and state she wanted the children, and she would have been given custody. She didn't. But, whenever there were any disagreements or disputations between my husband and the ex, she would threaten going to court to get custody. This was a real concern, because the divorce/custody decree was from the state of WA, and they all now lived in UT. Would Utah courts have given her custody? It was a real possibility, just by the fact that she was the mother. Also, it was never stipulated that his ex had to pay any child support. If it was my husband who didn't have custody, you can be assured that he would have been required to pay child support. So even though my husband received custody, the ex-wife in this case still got off easy because she was never required to pay child support (though she always had a job). My husband and I decided not to try to go to court to get child support because of the very real possibility of her then trying to sue for custody, and very likely losing the children to her, just because she was the mother. Edited December 4, 2012 by classylady
Guest Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 The world's diminishing of fathers is yet another bastardization of God's way for families. Even if things ever went terribly wrong between my husband and I, unless something in his life made him an unfit father I could never deprive my children of his love and influence. Fathers are so very important. As much as mothers are. This whole "I don't need a man, I just need a baby daddy" culture is devastating to children and their well-being, if you ask me.
Just_A_Guy Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Yeah, Utah's supreme court has been particularly unsympathetic to birth fathers in the past few years; but it seems even they've reached their limit. When I was practicing in Provo my website advertised adoption - mostly to reel in rather uncomplicated step-parent adoption cases - but I got two or three nibbles from biological parents who had been, in one way or another, worked over by this particular adoption agency (I always referred them out). So it's nice to see them getting their comeuppance, though you certainly feel bad for the adoptive parents involved.
Jenamarie Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Even a feminist like myself can see that this case is messed up. This is happening in Utah, not exactly a feminists stronghold. Utah's adoption laws have long been in need of an over-hall. Birth fathers are routinely cut out without due-justice and given little recourse in the decision of a mother to place a child for adoption. They have set up unreasonable hoops for birth fathers to jump through and then make them near impossible to find. Birth mothers routinely fly (or are flown) to Utah to give birth when they want to cut out a not-on-board birth father because the laws so heavily favor mothers.
Jenamarie Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 EDIT: At the same time, both the adoptive parents and the biological father should think upon the needs, emotions, and mental state of the child to literally be torn away from her adoptive parents. Children are resilient though, they seem to bounce back better than adults.I personally hope the father will have some legal option to sue the adoptive "parents" for therapy bills for his daughter, to help her cope with the transition. I cannot believe they thought they had ANY right to keep this little girl from her father once they found out that he had been screwed over by the birth mother. I can't imagine what could ever convince me to keep a child away from it's rightful (and obviously loving) parent, especially a child I claim to "love".
Backroads Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Looking at this from a strictly legal standpoint (though no expert), I'm on the father's side. Yet it seems the adoptive family was just as duped as he was. It's an extremely tragic case and I rather hope the adoptive family will still be allowed some contact with her.
Backroads Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 And... why is this adoption agency still in business?
Backroads Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 What also gets me is the apparent ignorance of the father's signature... from what I do understand of Utah adoption, that is required!
Backroads Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 I personally hope the father will have some legal option to sue the adoptive "parents" for therapy bills for his daughter, to help her cope with the transition. I cannot believe they thought they had ANY right to keep this little girl from her father once they found out that he had been screwed over by the birth mother. I can't imagine what could ever convince me to keep a child away from it's rightful (and obviously loving) parent, especially a child I claim to "love".This was my initial thought, but then... if I were completely desperate for a child, got one, and had it disputed, I'd probably put up my defenses and say "you want her? Come and get her!"Not saying their actions were right, but I think I see where they're coming from.
talisyn Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 This case was messed up in regards to the father. He should have been given back his child immediately. Wasn't there another similar case recently, involving parents who were not married, but the father desperately wanted his baby? Anyone know what happened with it?
Anddenex Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 I personally hope the father will have some legal option to sue the adoptive "parents" for therapy bills for his daughter, to help her cope with the transition. I cannot believe they thought they had ANY right to keep this little girl from her father once they found out that he had been screwed over by the birth mother. I can't imagine what could ever convince me to keep a child away from it's rightful (and obviously loving) parent, especially a child I claim to "love".It is apparent you really didn't read my comment, or maybe you read to fast as we do sometimes:As a father, I personally, would also want my child back. If they were married, and the adoptive agency had known (or possibly suspected) they shouldn't have given any rights to the adoptive parents until the father was reached.Ya, that makes sense, attack the adoptive parents because they were at fault. The agency and the mother were at fault, if anybody should be sued it is the agency and the biological mother, that is common sense.As a father, personally, yes, although I would want my child back, I would think upon the child more than myself. In this situation is it best for the child to be back with her father? Or is it better that the child continues with the adoptive parents?Because all that therapy being paid by the "adoptive parents (ridiculous)", the "mother", or the "adoptive agency" is going to so much better for a child, than staying with the parents she has called mother and father for I think the article said a year and a half.
applepansy Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 When things are done right to begin with we don't end up in these situations. I too wonder why this agency is still in business.
talisyn Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 The right thing is for this child to be put back with her dad, end of story.
Anddenex Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 The right thing is for this child to be put back with her dad, end of story."Right" is not always best. This situation isn't as black and white anymore seeing the father has only seen his biological daughter two times in nearly two years.I guess it is a good thing you aren't the Freis, otherwise your "end of story" may not be the end so quickly judged to be.
Backroads Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 But we do need a definite conclusion to this case. I still view it as Father as being the #1 cheated person here. Though I do think that article--and the comments attached--put the Freis in a bad light.
applepansy Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Maybe we need a King Solomon solution? Just kidding. I agree that the father's parental rights were violated. However, at this point the child should come first for everyone involved.
Backroads Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 I have to wonder just what entails the child's well-being here. I'm sure the father's is a stand-up guy. My biggest concern is the shift from old parent to new parent. I've heard of similar cases where the solution was a gradual changeover...
Vort Posted December 5, 2012 Author Report Posted December 5, 2012 I am NOT sure the father is a stand-up guy. But I still disagree with applepansy's contention that "the child should come first". This simply is not true. The FATHER should come first. Otherwise, we should go around proactively removing children from parents whom we consider less than ideal and giving them out to nice couples seeking to adopt. Children belong with their REAL, BIOLOGICAL parents unless there is darn good reason for them not to be there.
Just_A_Guy Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) This case was messed up in regards to the father. He should have been given back his child immediately. Wasn't there another similar case recently, involving parents who were not married, but the father desperately wanted his baby? Anyone know what happened with it? Utah has had a couple in the last two or three years. Our Supreme Court typically finds against the father, complaining that its hands are tied by the stupid legislature and their inane statutory regimen. If you have the slightest hint that your baby-mama may conceivably wind up in Utah, you've got to get out here and get your name on the state's putative father registry, and the Vital Records Division's website has no information on how to do that- you've got to call in, hope you get a live person, and get transferred five or six times, and then wait for them to mail you a form. As a (relatively new-ish) lawyer, it's probably the most red-tape-intensive single thing I've ever had to do.That's why this case pleases me. McDade's a good apple, and I think the Supreme Court will respect his analysis if this gets appealed. To me, this is a signal that the tide is beginning to turn - at least, in Utah. Edited December 5, 2012 by Just_A_Guy
Anddenex Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Children belong with their REAL, BIOLOGICAL parents unless there is darn good reason for them not to be there.Yes, a darn good reason like an adopted child who has been with their adoptive parents for two years.In this situation, the child should come first. Let us look at the possibilities of this situation:1. The chances are high that the adoptive family are members of the Church.2. If they are, after 1 year the child can be sealed to the parents. The child is nearly two years old, if I am reading the article correctly, thus if members of the LDS faith chances are high they have been sealed. Obviously, in a court of law this won't be assessed, but nothing the more tragic if so. Comfort, if sealed, the child is still theirs and will be theirs in the eternities.3. The child will face significant trauma for a period of time while with the biological father, assuming this is done cold turkey. Yes, the article mentions 60 days child must be returned. They will now enter the household of a single father, verses a household of a father and mother who love the child. Single father? Father and Mother? Easy answer.If the child had only been with the adoptive parents for less than six, even pushing less than a year, then this is an easy answer. The child should always come first, depending on the length of time the child has been with its adoptive parents, especially if the adoptive parents through proper means adopted their child.
Backroads Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 I don't know how comfortable I feel basing a family situation like this on "but they're members of the Church". Vort has a point--biological parents should come first. Now, if I'm wrong on the father being a fine human being and this winds up being a horrible abusive and/or neglectful situation, hopefully that would be remedied. My cousin recently adopted, and they have to make all sorts of show on what wonderful parents they are before everything is 100% final. I recall thinking "why don't we do that to biological parents?" but that would probably wind up being just the sort of mess Vort hypothesized. I do sympathize with the adoptive family as they initially thought they were doing everything proper-like. Heck, they were going about it proper-like--the adoption agency messed up.
Jenamarie Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Yes, a darn good reason like an adopted child who has been with their adoptive parents for two years.In this situation, the child should come first. Let us look at the possibilities of this situation:1. The chances are high that the adoptive family are members of the Church.2. If they are, after 1 year the child can be sealed to the parents. The child is nearly two years old, if I am reading the article correctly, thus if members of the LDS faith chances are high they have been sealed. Obviously, in a court of law this won't be assessed, but nothing the more tragic if so. Comfort, if sealed, the child is still theirs and will be theirs in the eternities.3. The child will face significant trauma for a period of time while with the biological father, assuming this is done cold turkey. Yes, the article mentions 60 days child must be returned. They will now enter the household of a single father, verses a household of a father and mother who love the child. Single father? Father and Mother? Easy answer.If the child had only been with the adoptive parents for less than six, even pushing less than a year, then this is an easy answer. The child should always come first, depending on the length of time the child has been with its adoptive parents, especially if the adoptive parents through proper means adopted their child.I actually find it even more shameful that the parents are LDS. SURELY they understand the importance of family, EVEN less-than-ideal family (and I'm not disparaging the father, from my limited information he seems like a stand-up guy who ended up with a messed-up wife). How can a member of the church justify interfering with a parents' involvement with HIS CHILD when they KNEW from the GET GO that he wanted the child, and they had ZERO shred of evidence that the child would be in any real or lasting danger by being placed with him? (and even if they DID suspect that, I'm uneasy with the idea of adoptive parents or adoption agencies or birth mothers playing the roll of judge and jury).Does the "end" of being raised in an LDS family justify the "means" of defrauding a man of his rights to HIS child?
Anddenex Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 I don't know how comfortable I feel basing a family situation like this on "but they're members of the Church".I agree, this wasn't my argument, nonetheless, I think people are making a very difficult decision into a black and white decision when it isn't one.In this situation, my personal thoughts, the well being of the child should come first -- not the parent. What the mother and agency did was wrong, and now I keep hearing my mother's words, "Two wrongs, don't make a right."Father wronged. Now the adoptive parents are wronged.
Recommended Posts