Fathers: Second- or perhaps third-class citizens

[Anddenex]

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?

I believe you and I read a different article. The father had no clue his child was adopted until later on, and was still paying rent in Texas toward a mortgage he thought she was still living at. Not sure how they knew from the "GET GO" that the father still wanted the child.

Does the "end" of being raised in an LDS family justify the "means" of defrauding a man of his rights to HIS child?

Nope. Wasn't my point. I am thinking no one who is siding with the father -- outright -- is truly thinking upon the needs of the child. The "end" is the child's mental and emotional stability, not the adoptive parents or the biological father's desires, whether legal or not.

[Jenamarie]

I believe you and I read a different article. The father had no clue his child was adopted until later on, and was still paying rent in Texas toward a mortgage he thought she was still living at. Not sure how they knew from the "GET GO" that the father still wanted the child.

Nope. Wasn't my point. I am thinking no one who is siding with the father -- outright -- is truly thinking upon the needs of the child. The "end" is the child's mental and emotional stability, not the adoptive parents or the biological father's desires, whether legal or not.

The adoptive parents knew that the father hadn't signed off on the adoption, and that he was married to the birth mother. That right there should have stopped everything.

If the child had been blatantly kidnapped and raised as someone else's child for two years, would you still be arguing that it might be better for the child to stay with the "adoptive" parents?

It's my opinion that the best place for this child IS with her biological father.

[Vort]

Yes, a darn good reason like an adopted child who has been with their adoptive parents for two years.

Nope. She was kidnapped from her father. There was no adoption.

If it were my daughter, I would go to any length to retrieve her, perhaps including deadly force.

[Anddenex]

The adoptive parents knew that the father hadn't signed off on the adoption, and that he was married to the birth mother. That right there should have stopped everything.

Not the adoptive parents fault that the biological mother and the adoptive agency were in the wrong.

I won't put any blame on a couple who is unable to have children, given an opportunity, and then take the opportunity. It is easy to be the judge when people have never been in this situation. If you have been in this situation, then the question is, how would you be feeling? Would you still think the child "IS" best with the biological father -- I would assume any parent who has raised a child for almost two years would think not.

If the child had been blatantly kidnapped and raised as someone else's child for two years, would you still be arguing that it might be better for the child to stay with the "adoptive" parents?

Not even close to the same scenario. We are talking about a legal guardian giving the child up for adoption, not in the least a good comparison to a child being "blatantly kidnapped" and then raised by someone. Not a good comparison.

[Guest createmm]

I am so glad this internet thing works and your article really helped me. Might take you up on that home advice you

Mac Cosmetics Mac Hello Kitty Collection

Mac Disney Venomous Villains

Mac Lady Gaga Makeup

[Anddenex]

Nope. She was kidnapped from her father. There was no adoption.

If it were my daughter, I would go to any length to retrieve her, perhaps including deadly force.

She wasn't kidnapped from her father. Her father was wronged indeed, but not kidnapped. The father new who the daughter was with, the mother, although ignorant to the decision of the mother.

Yes, there was an adoption, obviously seeing we are all speaking about adoptive parents who legally went through a proper channel to have a child of their own.

If my daughter was kidnapped then yes, I also would go to any length, perhaps deadly force also.

However, in this scenario, the daughter was not kidnapped, and as a sane person, I would look to my daughter's health and safety over my own desires to have her back.

Her needs would come before my own. In this case I would also be a single father, and knowing that my daughter was actually being raised by two potentially good people, then I would also be more likely to withdraw, knowing God would work it out in the end.

[Bini]

Anddenex, I understand what you're saying but I just cannot agree.

There was a story some time ago, long time ago, about two couples that had their babies accidentally swapped at the hospital. Each set of parents took their newborn home and raised it as their own. It was something like a decade later, when they learned that the child they were raising was not their own. Long story short, the parents finally got to reunite with their biological child but for obvious reasons, chose to continue with the lives that they had. This, I can understand, it makes sense.

[Anddenex]

Anddenex, I understand what you're saying but I just cannot agree.

There was a story some time ago, long time ago, about two couples that had their babies accidentally swapped at the hospital. Each set of parents took their newborn home and raised it as their own. It was something like a decade later, when they learned that the child they were raising was not their own. Long story short, the parents finally got to reunite with their biological child but for obvious reasons, chose to continue with the lives that they had. This, I can understand, it makes sense.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, we all have our differences of opinions, and this is evident on LDS.net (this is one reason why I love this site -- and it annoys at the same time )

I don't think this is a good example, for I see it verifying my point. In this scenario the biological child, as everyone said, should be the right of the biological parents. Thus this swap should have been fixed and the biological child should be with the biological parents. The reason why, because both parents were level headed and were thinking upon the needs of their children, as well as their own.

Two years have passed, thus my question then, how long or how many years must pass before the situation is no longer the father's right?

Why argue that the biological parents keep their non-biological daughter in this situation, but in this adoptive situation not the non-biological parents right?

Why didn't these parents want their biological child back? As Vort shared, I would use "perhaps deadly force" to get my daughter back.

Let's add a twist to your scenario. One of the daughter passed away one year after birth? The biological parents realize that the child that passed away was not their own, but the child of another family, and the other family has their daughter. Whose right then is it to the child, daughter?

If you argue it is the biological parents, then the daughter will be driven from her home? Thus my question, what age does the biological parent no longer have any right? The hospital made the mistake, not the non-biological daughter.

Anyways, I am not expecting anyone to agree with me, but not afraid to share my point or perspective either. :)

[Bini]

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, we all have our differences of opinions, and this is evident on LDS.net (this is one reason why I love this site -- and it annoys at the same time )

I don't think this is a good example, for I see it verifying my point. In this scenario the biological child, as everyone said, should be the right of the biological parents. Thus this swap should have been fixed and the biological child should be with the biological parents. The reason why, because both parents were level headed and were thinking upon the needs of their children, as well as their own.

Two years have passed, thus my question then, how long or how many years must pass before the situation is no longer the father's right?

Why argue that the biological parents keep their non-biological daughter in this situation, but in this adoptive situation not the non-biological parents right?

Why didn't these parents want their biological child back? As Vort shared, I would use "perhaps deadly force" to get my daughter back.

Let's add a twist to your scenario. One of the daughter passed away one year after birth? The biological parents realize that the child that passed away was not their own, but the child of another family, and the other family has their daughter. Whose right then is it to the child, daughter?

If you argue it is the biological parents, then the daughter will be driven from her home? Thus my question, what age does the biological parent no longer have any right? The hospital made the mistake, not the non-biological daughter.

Anyways, I am not expecting anyone to agree with me, but not afraid to share my point or perspective either. :)

That WAS my point - verifying ONE case where I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion.

[Anddenex]

That WAS my point - verifying ONE case where I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion.

Then I fully miscomprehended your post -- my apologies for a lengthy rebuttal -- :)

[Vort]

Yes, there was an adoption, obviously seeing we are all speaking about adoptive parents who legally went through a proper channel to have a child of their own.

Wrong. The judge determined that there never was an adoption, as he had to have done.

Her needs would come before my own. In this case I would also be a single father, and knowing that my daughter was actually being raised by two potentially good people, then I would also be more likely to withdraw, knowing God would work it out in the end.

That you might do so does not suggest that any other sane man would, or should, follow your lead.

[Guest]

In the article, the adoptive parents were notified at the time of adoption that the biological father did not sign the adoption papers and that there is a chance that he will come to claim the child. The adoptive parents AGREED to take that risk. Now, the risk is realized and they're reneging.

Anddenex - to your point. For the welfare of the child, she needs to be raised by her biological father. It has been impressed upon us by General Authorities that the best situation is for the biological mother to raise her own child. This is also true for fathers. The baby is only 2 years old, she is still at that age where her psychological formation is still ahead of her. Especially since the biological father has been fighting this case for a long time. The child should have been given to the father at the first sign that he did not want his own child adopted. This would have been still in the baby's infancy.

The father's lawyers said it plainly - this is tantamount to child trafficking. And this gives me the heebie-jeebies because this used to happen a lot in the Philippines when a biological mother would "sell" their baby to an American couple unbeknownst to the father. And usually, the father is powerless to take the child back because the baby has now crossed international waters and it takes a lot of resources to fight it.

Edited December 5, 2012 by anatess

[selek]

Two years have passed, thus my question then, how long or how many years must pass before the situation is no longer the father's right?

A minimum of eighteen, according to the law. Until that child is an emancipated adult, or his rights are terminated for cause, then she is the responsibility of her father, not of strangers who conspired with an adoption agency to defraud him of his child.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an empty assertion of "hey, finders keepers". That may work well on a kindergarten playground, but not so much in family law.

At least one legal dictionary defines kidnapping as: "The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time."

Guess what, Skippy: both the mother and the adoption agency unlawfully seized this man's child and carried her away by fraud.

That's kidnapping by any sane definition- and they should be prosecuted accordingly.

For all your championing of the Freis, they became complicit in the crime (accessories after the fact?) when they conspired to with the adoption agency to unlawfully deny the father of custody of his child.

They knew the law required them to return the child immediately. They chose to drag this out for two years- and should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, if nothing else.

How is their conduct any different than a kidnapper refusing to release his hostage in the hopes of the statute of limitations to run out? (For the record, I don't believe there actually IS a statute of limitations on kidnapping).

Your argument that the Freis should be allowed to keep the girl because they succeeded in unlawfully keeping her from her father for two years is an attempt to allow them to profit from their participation in a crime.

It is every bit as hypocritical as the Menendez brothers (having murdered their parents) pleading for mercy because they are orphans.

Any pain the Freis are suffering is a direct result of decisions they consciously made: to defraud this man and his child of their legal rights. The judge said as much.

Once they chose to risk it- knowing that the father had not consented and knowing that he wanted his daughter back, they forfeited any sympathy they might have earned.

Let's use an analogy: through his feckless and deceitful ex-wife, the Freis deprived this man of $100 million dollars. They then spent that money and lived high on the hog, buying homes and yachts and cars with it.

Having now been convicted of fraud, do they have the right to refuse to return the man's money because they now owe car payments and mortgages?

Why argue that the biological parents keep their non-biological daughter in this situation, but in this adoptive situation not the non-biological parents right?

Because in this instance, the non-biological parents were part of a conscious attempt to deprive the father of his child (and the child of her father) in clear violation of the law.

All of your airy hypotheticals are pointless because they cannot obscure one concrete fact: the Freis chose to try and deprive this man custody of his child in clear violation of the law.

They lost. Any pain and suffering they must now endure is of their own making.

We expect the bankrobber, the car theif, and the Ponzi schemer to suffer the consequences of their misdeeds.

So why not the Freis?

Edited December 5, 2012 by selek

[viannqueen3]

(long)

These stories always make me ache because I've been there. I'm an adoptive parent and I've personally lived through a contested adoption. We adopted our oldest as a newborn through LDSFS a little over five years ago. Shortly after her birth it turned into an "at risk" adoption, which we were not prepared for. We flew out for her birth several states away and two weeks after placement, but before rights of either birth parent were terminated we found out that her 14 year old birth father was contesting the adoption. Birthmom had just turned 16.

We knew the risks, the situation and we chose to pursue the legal process. But granted we made that decision with enough legal counsel to believe that we had a good chance at winning. Her birthmom wanted her raised in a loving two parent home, not being bounced between houses. Birthfather had not been involved in the pregnancy, was on drugs half the time and constantly in and out of the juvenile detention center. And he was what- in 9th grade!!! Right before our trial he was sent to the juvie for over a month for something else the cops picked him up for. Regardless, their state laws were in our favor and after many months and a trial were were able to proceed with the adoption. Had he been over 18, or filed his petition for paternity before our adoption petition was filed and we would been up a creek without a paddle. Ironically after all of that and despite yearly updates for five years we literally didn't hear a word, receive a letter or a gift for our daughter from him or his family until this month. He tells us he's finally trying to get his life back in order. Let me just tell you that I am SO FREAKING GLAD that my daughter was not in his care for five years while his life was out of control.... makes my head spin.

So coming from someone who has lived through it here are my thoughts...

I find it absolutely APPALLING that the lies of the birthmother have lead to this heartbreak for the adoptive family and for the birth father. Oh what a web of lies. Contested situations are so complex. Yes I get that the AP's decided to drag things out but you never know what they've been told by the birthmother or led to believe by the agency. In the article he sounds like a stand up guy but I wouldn't put it past birthmom to have led the agency and AP's into thinking that he was the most evil guy on the planet or who knows what other nonsense. There is a reason they were exe's.

I also admit it's hard for me not to have compassion on the AP's after being there/ done that. I think it's easy for people to say they should have never accepted an "at risk" placement but in the world of adoption often there are SO MANY RISKS. Risks of getting chosen/not getting chosen. Risks of failed match. Risks of birthmom changing her mind after birth. Often birthfathers are in and out of the process, or want to control the situation and make threats and demands on the birthmom's to assert control. Agencies deal with this all the time but still- shame on this particular agency for their policies. This whole situation could have been resolved much earlier and allowed the AP's to lick their wounds and move forward.

Something that caught my eye immediately with this case is once the AP's knew that the birthfather was MARRIED to the birthmother they should have known they were done for. Cases like that are pretty much cut and dry. Often AP's will hold out hope that things will work out but usually the situations are "pugitive fathers or potential fathers". This guy was 100% the legal father of this girl from the get go. My mother's heart knows why they have continued to fight but sadly it's just postponing the inevitable.

It's hearing these stories that make me SO GLAD that we are 100% done with domestic adoption- such a difficult process both emotionally and physically. I remember waking up at night with anxiety attacks when our daughter was a newborn. And I fully agree that Utah's laws regarding birthfathers need to be changed. We are going to continue hearing about these stories every year until these laws get changed. I'm on a national adoption forum quite regularly and Utah has a horrible, horrible reputation. I'm so ready for that to change.

[Anddenex]

Not of strangers who conspired with an adoption agency to defraud him of his child.

This statement is as ridiculous as saying the father should attack and sue the adoptive couple. Conspiracy? Please!

Your argument amounts to nothing more than an empty assertion of "hey, finders keepers". That may work well on a kindergarten playground, but not so much in family law.

Completely inaccurate. "Finders keepers", has nothing to do with my argument. The needs of the child is my argument, completely different than what you are specifying I said, and I thought I had comprehension issues at times. (facepalm).

At least one legal dictionary defines kidnapping as: "The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time."

Guess what, Skippy: both the mother and the adoption agency unlawfully seized this man's child and carried her away by fraud.

Ya, the mother kidnapped her daughter who was within her womb by fraud, ya that makes sense. You have some great logic skills.

That's kidnapping by any sane definition- and they should be prosecuted accordingly.

I never said the mother or the agency didn't do anything wrong, and I agree they should be prosecuted. Duh!

For all your championing of the Freis, they became complicit in the crime (accessories after the fact?) when they conspired to with the adoption agency to unlawfully deny the father of custody of his child.

They knew the law required them to return the child immediately. They chose to drag this out for two years- and should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, if nothing else.

Sheer ignorance, "Skippy".

It is every bit as hypocritical as the Menendez brothers (having murdered their parents) pleading for mercy because they are orphans.

Sheer ignorance again, "Skippy". Murder, verses an adoption. Ya, that makes a whole lot of sense comparing the two. Finished reading your comparison and lack of comprehension or actually even listening to a word I shared. The rest of your comment will probably be the same bad comparison, murder and adoption. Wow!

[Anddenex]

(long)

These stories always make me ache because I've been there. I'm an adoptive parent and I've personally lived through a contested adoption. We adopted our oldest as a newborn through LDSFS a little over five years ago. Shortly after her birth it turned into an "at risk" adoption, which we were not prepared for. We flew out for her birth several states away and two weeks after placement, but before rights of either birth parent were terminated we found out that her 14 year old birth father was contesting the adoption. Birthmom had just turned 16.

We knew the risks, the situation and we chose to pursue the legal process. But granted we made that decision with enough legal counsel to believe that we had a good chance at winning. Her birthmom wanted her raised in a loving two parent home, not being bounced between houses. Birthfather had not been involved in the pregnancy, was on drugs half the time and constantly in and out of the juvenile detention center. And he was what- in 9th grade!!! Right before our trial he was sent to the juvie for over a month for something else the cops picked him up for. Regardless, their state laws were in our favor and after many months and a trial were were able to proceed with the adoption. Had he been over 18, or filed his petition for paternity before our adoption petition was filed and we would been up a creek without a paddle. Ironically after all of that and despite yearly updates for five years we literally didn't hear a word, receive a letter or a gift for our daughter from him or his family until this month. He tells us he's finally trying to get his life back in order. Let me just tell you that I am SO FREAKING GLAD that my daughter was not in his care for five years while his life was out of control.... makes my head spin.

So coming from someone who has lived through it here are my thoughts...

I find it absolutely APPALLING that the lies of the birthmother have lead to this heartbreak for the adoptive family and for the birth father. Oh what a web of lies. Contested situations are so complex. Yes I get that the AP's decided to drag things out but you never know what they've been told by the birthmother or led to believe by the agency. In the article he sounds like a stand up guy but I wouldn't put it past birthmom to have led the agency and AP's into thinking that he was the most evil guy on the planet or who knows what other nonsense. There is a reason they were exe's.

I also admit it's hard for me not to have compassion on the AP's after being there/ done that. I think it's easy for people to say they should have never accepted an "at risk" placement but in the world of adoption often there are SO MANY RISKS. Risks of getting chosen/not getting chosen. Risks of failed match. Risks of birthmom changing her mind after birth. Often birthfathers are in and out of the process, or want to control the situation and make threats and demands on the birthmom's to assert control. Agencies deal with this all the time but still- shame on this particular agency for their policies. This whole situation could have been resolved much earlier and allowed the AP's to lick their wounds and move forward.

Something that caught my eye immediately with this case is once the AP's knew that the birthfather was MARRIED to the birthmother they should have known they were done for. Cases like that are pretty much cut and dry. Often AP's will hold out hope that things will work out but usually the situations are "pugitive fathers or potential fathers". This guy was 100% the legal father of this girl from the get go. My mother's heart knows why they have continued to fight but sadly it's just postponing the inevitable.

It's hearing these stories that make me SO GLAD that we are 100% done with domestic adoption- such a difficult process both emotionally and physically. I remember waking up at night with anxiety attacks when our daughter was a newborn. And I fully agree that Utah's laws regarding birthfathers need to be changed. We are going to continue hearing about these stories every year until these laws get changed. I'm on a national adoption forum quite regularly and Utah has a horrible, horrible reputation. I'm so ready for that to change.

Thank you! Finally, and what a relief your comment is, and at the same time how hard this must be which probably brings back some heartache. I am glad to read your position is much better now.

[Anddenex]

That you might do so does not suggest that any other sane man would, or should, follow your lead.

Wrong. An adoption did take place.

I never said anybody had to follow my lead, moot.

[Bini]

Great post, Viann.

[Anddenex]

Anddenex - to your point. For the welfare of the child, she needs to be raised by her biological father. It has been impressed upon us by General Authorities that the best situation is for the biological mother to raise her own child. This is also true for fathers. The baby is only 2 years old, she is still at that age where her psychological formation is still ahead of her.

Did you miss my comment about children being "resilient"? Is this why General Authorities also encourage adoption?

The father's lawyers said it plainly - this is tantamount to child trafficking.

And since a layer says it, it must be true? Child trafficking? Don't agree with this blatant term used here. Child trafficking has the connotation of sex slaves.

How many adoptions have taken place without the husband's signature? How many husband's have left their pregnant wives?

I agree they took a risk, however, talking like "Selek" that they were accomplices and conspirators to a crime is sheer ignorance.

EDIT: Seeing readers aren't reading my whole comments, I will quote myself:

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.

Thus, this shouldn't have happened, but unfortunately it did. I am glad Viann was able to make a post. Her comment is spot on.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Anddenex

[Bini]

Btw, maybe I'm reading into it but if you don't see eye-to-eye, you don't see eye-to-eye. Just seems like wasted energy with the back and forth banter, when no one is changing their views.

One more thought, and not solely, to this issue. There's so many variables surrounding "adoption". No adoption story is the same. Observing in a wide spectrum, it's rarely a solid black or white situation, as already shown from a couple stories shared.

[Bini]

Oh, and the above post was directed in "general" and not specifically to someone.

[Vort]

Wrong. An adoption did take place.

Perhaps I misread the article, or perhaps the SL Tribulation is lying again, but I was sure that the thrust of the article was that the judge decided that the adoption was null and the couple had to return the girl to her rightful father within 60 days.

[Vort]

Child trafficking has the connotation of sex slaves.

No, it has connotations of children being bought and sold, which is effectively exactly what happened here.

How many adoptions have taken place without the husband's signature? How many husband's have left their pregnant wives?

How many mothers have murdered their children? Therefore, we must allow children to be taken from their mothers, since we have already established that mothers tend to be murderous.

EDIT: Seeing readers aren't reading my whole comments, I will quote myself:

People are indeed reading your whole comments. They simply disagree with you. It is in the child's best interest to be with her father, not with a couple who are not her parents, no matter how Mormon they might be. Your assertion to the contrary, when followed through its logical course, has terrifying ramifications.

[Backroads]

Perhaps I misread the article, or perhaps the SL Tribulation is lying again, but I was sure that the thrust of the article was that the judge decided that the adoption was null and the couple had to return the girl to her rightful father within 60 days.

Indeed, I believe the reason we have judges is to make such final calls.

[Guest]

Did you miss my comment about children being "resilient"? Is this why General Authorities also encourage adoption?

Okay, we're doing some cross-speaking (Sorry Andy, my English is just completely gone today... there's a word I'm trying to use that I can't pull out of my head)...

I'm not sure how the "resilient" dovetails into my comment...

Anyway... what I said was - the Gen Authorities say the best situation is for the biological parents to raise their children. I didn't say, nor did the Gen Auth's say, it's the only acceptable situation.

Does that help? Or did I completely miss what your point is?

And since a layer says it, it must be true?

No, that's not what I said. I said the lawyers said it plainly - meaning, they expressed what I'm trying to say next plainly (better than I could express it)... not that because they're lawyers they have some special authority over truth or whatever. I mean, maybe they do as they're the ones with all the facts, but that's irrelevant in my post. Make sense?

Child trafficking? Don't agree with this blatant term used here. Child trafficking has the connotation of sex slaves.

I didn't say it is child trafficking. I said, it is tantamount to child trafficking - removing children from their rightful parents through fraud to benefit another.

How many adoptions have taken place without the husband's signature? How many husband's have left their pregnant wives?

The difference is - these fathers abandoned their children... basically gave up their rights as fathers. Their children were not stolen from them. The adoptive parents should see this distinction.

I agree they took a risk, however, talking like "Selek" that they were accomplices and conspirators to a crime is sheer ignorance.

I call it as a I see it as described in the article. They know they don't have rights to the child - they insisted on depriving the biological father of his right. Hence, they are complicit. Doing something bad for noble reasons is still doing something bad.

EDIT: Seeing readers aren't reading my whole comments, I will quote myself:

Thus, this shouldn't have happened, but unfortunately it did. I am glad Viann was able to make a post. Her comment is spot on.

And just because it did, it doesn't cause the father to lose his rights nor his responsibility to his own child. Yes, I understand your preference is for the father to "suck it up" and allow the child to be raised by others. I disagree with this preference... which, in the whole scheme of things neither or our preferences is relevant because, by law - both secular and spiritual - a righteous father (in which we assume this guy is) has every right and even the responsibility to his own child.

Edited December 5, 2012 by anatess