Fathers: Second- or perhaps third-class citizens

[Backroads]

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.

I guess I don't see why the adoptive parents automatically are chosen to be "righted" over the biological father.

[Anddenex]

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.

No, my preference is what is best for the child, that has been my whole argument, and I will state my question again that I specified in the beginning of my posts:

Is it better in this situation for the child to remain with the adoptive parents? Or is it better, for the child to be given back to the father?

I haven't read any argument which gives a good basis for the child being returned to the father.

I have read comments saying the "adoptive parents" should be prosecuted, and are conspirator and accomplices. They were parents who went through what they considered a legal adoption, and that the child is legally and lawfully theirs. Is is amazing to me people are unwilling to recognize this.

Viann's comment is inline with everything I have been trying to share, and again, she is spot on.

@Backroads - I never said the father should loose his rights to the adoptive parents. I have declared this whole time, "What is best for the child"?

Is a single father better for a child than an adoptive mother and father? If the father is best for the child, then the child should go with the father. If the child will be better off with the adoptive mother and father, then the child should remain where she is.

[Vort]

I haven't read any argument which gives a good basis for the child being returned to the father.

Really? "Because he's her FATHER!!" doesn't qualify as a good basis for the child being returned?

Is a single father better for a child than an adoptive mother and father? If the father is best for the child, then the child should go with the father. If the child will be better off with the adoptive mother and father, then the child should remain where she is.

Since you are saying the child is better off with the Utah couple than with her own father, you have answered your own question that "a single father" (your words) is not better for the child than a stranger couple willing to adopt her. Therefore, based on your own logic, we should remove all children from single-father homes and place them with adoptive couples.

Your logic, Anddenex. I am not misrepresenting a single word you wrote. I'm just curious if it's only single fathers who receive the brunt of your displeasure, or if you think single mothers are likewise unfit to raise their own children.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Vort

[Anddenex]

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.

No, they are not reading my whole comment, as I have had to quote my position over-and-over again.

People are welcome to disagree with me.

Again, bringing up the Mormon thing, which wasn't my argument. If they weren't Mormon, my argument would be the same, "What is best for the child"? And being with the biological parent(s) is not always best.

As does your argument have terrible ramifications. It is the father's right, thus it should be without any thought regarding the child.

My wife's parents went through an ordeal to adopt a kid, who was in the foster system since he was 2. His mother was a drug addict, a whore, and drunkyard, and couldn't keep any job due to her habits (she could not provide any physical or emotional well being for this child), however as you have stated the state kept the premise, it was better that this child be moved from home to home (in the foster system), than be adopted because the mother was unwilling to give up her rights. Yes, of course, in this case it is better, as you share, the child should be with their biological mother.

This is part of the reason why my wife has seriously considered going into family law because the rights of the children are constantly overlooked by the argument, as you suggested, "The rights of the biological parent(s)."

[Anddenex]

Your logic, Anddenex. I am not misrepresenting a single word you wrote. I'm just curious if it's only single fathers who receive the brunt of your displeasure, or if you think single mothers are likewise unfit to raise their own children.

Wrong! You are misrepresenting me and my words. Quit putting words into my mouth for your own benefit!

Point in case, and I quote myself again, Vort:

If the father is best for the child, then the child should go with the father.

But of course you have not misrepresented my words, not a single word at all.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Anddenex

[beefche]

I think what Addenex is saying is that if the father is shown to have some sort of failing, such as abuser, drug user, etc., then he would not be fit.

[Vort]

No, they are not reading my whole comment, as I have had to quote my position over-and-over again.

You have not had to. You have assumed they haven't read your whole comment, seemingly merely because they disagree with you.

Again, bringing up the Mormon thing, which wasn't my argument.

Actually, yes, it was your argument. You are the one who brought up their Church affiliation. Had it not been a part of your argument, you would not have mentioned it.

As does your argument have terrible ramifications. It is the father's right, thus it should be without any thought regarding the child.

Wrong. It IS with regards to the child. By default, it is in the child's best interest to be raised by her own father. Only in extreme circumstances of neglect or abuse would that interest change. The neglect and abuse in this case is not to the child, but to her father. The child has been neglected and abused only in the sense that she has been deprived of her rightful father.

Wrong! You are misrepresenting me and my words. Quit putting words into my mouth for your own benefit!

If I have misrepresented your words anywhere (and I have not), you have only to show where I have misquoted you.

[Anddenex]

I think what Addenex is saying is that if the father is shown to have some sort of failing, such as abuser, drug user, etc., then he would not be fit.

Thank you beefche. However, it is high time I withdraw myself... I am loosing my own composure and will probably break some rule of LDS.net, if I haven't already.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Anddenex

[Vort]

I think what Addenex is saying is that if the father is shown to have some sort of failing, such as abuser, drug user, etc., then he would not be fit.

Clearly, he is not saying this. If he were, he would not object to this non-abusive, non-drug-addicted father reclaiming his own daughter.

[Vort]

Point in case, and I quote myself again, Vort:

If the father is best for the child, then the child should go with the father.

But of course you have not misrepresented my words, not a single word at all.

Correct. I have not. Because you have made it clear that, in your judgment, THE FATHER IS NOT BEST FOR THE CHILD. And why not? Well, you brought up the Utah couple's Mormonism, but then you disclaimed that as a reason. The only reason left is the father's single status.

Your words.

So because the man's wife fraudulently sold off their baby and then divorced him, therefore that makes him less fit to raise HIS OWN CHILD than some stranger couple half a continent away.

Your logic, Anddenex.

Now answer the question: Is it only single fathers that merit your disdain, or should single mothers, too, have their children forcibly taken from them and redistributed to the more deserving? For the sake of the children, of course.

[Anddenex]

Correct. I have not. Because you have made it clear that, in your judgment, THE FATHER IS NOT BEST FOR THE CHILD. And why not? Well, you brought up the Utah couple's Mormonism, but then you disclaimed that as a reason. The only reason left is the father's single status.

Your words.

So because the man's wife fraudulently sold off their baby and then divorced him, therefore that makes him less fit to raise HIS OWN CHILD than some stranger couple half a continent away.

Your logic, Anddenex.

Now answer the question: Is it only single fathers that merit your disdain, or should single mothers, too, have their children forcibly taken from them and redistributed to the more deserving? For the sake of the children, of course.

My last comment. You have misrepresented me, you continue to misrepresent me for your own benefit.

I will restate myself again seeing you are having a hard time. What is best for the child? Your last statement about single fathers and mothers is far off.

If you read my last post about a single mother, and also cared to listen to beefche, you would already have your answer.

But you won't.

[Vort]

My last comment. You have misrepresented me, you continue to misrepresent me for your own benefit.

What "benefit" do you suppose I'm heaping upon myself, Anddenex?

If I have misrepresented you AT ALL, you have but to quote my misrepresentation and explain why I have not represented your words correctly. You have studiously avoided doing this, however.

I will restate myself again seeing you are having a hard time. What is best for the child? Your last statement about single fathers and mothers is far off.

Yet it is the very logic you have offered for your reason.

If you read my last post about a single mother, and also cared to listen to beefche, you would already have your answer.

But you won't.

On the contrary, I read both your post and beefche's, and it has not clarified anything. According to beefche, your only criterion for unfitness is if he is "shown to have some sort of failing, such as abuser, drug user, etc." What failing is it that you perceive in the girl's father? So far, I have seen you accuse him of nothing, just that you think the Utah couple should raise HIS daughter.

Your cry of me misrepresenting you is itself a false accusation, Anddenex. I have not misrepresented anything you have written; if I had, you would have pointed it out by now.

[Guest]

No, my preference is what is best for the child, that has been my whole argument, and I will state my question again that I specified in the beginning of my posts:

Is it better in this situation for the child to remain with the adoptive parents? Or is it better, for the child to be given back to the father?

I haven't read any argument which gives a good basis for the child being returned to the father.

But I have! Repeatedly.

I have read comments saying the "adoptive parents" should be prosecuted, and are conspirator and accomplices. They were parents who went through what they considered a legal adoption, and that the child is legally and lawfully theirs. Is is amazing to me people are unwilling to recognize this.

And it's amazing to me that you are unwilling to recognize that the adoptive parents were SPECIFICALLY notified that there is a risk of the father coming to claim the child for which the adoptive parents ACCEPTED that risk.

@Backroads - I never said the father should loose his rights to the adoptive parents. I have declared this whole time, "What is best for the child"?

Is a single father better for a child than an adoptive mother and father? If the father is best for the child, then the child should go with the father. If the child will be better off with the adoptive mother and father, then the child should remain where she is.

I have answered this. What is best for the child? THE FATHER.

If your position is that adoptive parents are better for the child than a single biological parent then you will propose to have every single widow/widower or divorced couples or abandoned mothers/fathers give up their children for adoption. Of course, that is not what is best for the child.

A single father's disadvantage is only if there is no female influence in the child's life. We don't know this - he may have a loving mother, sister, family, who will provide that influence.

I'll give you one example - Pursuit of Happyness. The wife abandoned the child to the father. The father was doing everything in his power to keep his family together. But now that he's alone, do you believe he should have put his child up for adoption? No. By the way, the movie portrayed the child as an older child. In the real event, the child was a baby.

There is a sacred bond between parents and children that a righteous biological parent, regardless of circumstance, will always hold the advantage over anybody else. If the parent decides he can't provide the proper environment for the child, it is his purview and he may give up the child for adoption. Until then, he has the responsibility to provide the child with whatever is required as outlined from the Family: A Proclamation.

Edited December 5, 2012 by anatess

[selek]

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

Sometimes, you just make it too easy:

"In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future."

The adoption agency and the Freis agreed to withhold this child from her father in direct contravention and violation of the law.

The judge- not the father's lawyer- the judge has stated this plainly.

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).

Utter rot. Your claim that "leaving the child in the hands of <her kidnappers> is best because she's been with them two years is in fact, nothing more than "finders-keepers".

Based on your logic and the evidence presented, the father's only flaw is that he hasn't been in the child's life for two years- a situation the "adoptive parents" have conspired to create!

You are arguing that they should get away with stealing this man's child because they've already gotten away with it for two years!

How is that any different than arguing that Bernie Madoff should be allowed to continue to rip people off on the basis that it took the government years to realize he was cooking the books?

It is circular logic, at best- a priori reasoning is more likely.

Let's assume, just for a moment, that the child was kidnapped by two total strangers- snatched from her front yard, smuggled across state lines, and raised by the kidnappers as their own without the mother's active participation.

After years of seeing his daughter's face on milk cartons and working with John Walsh, the cops finally locate the girl.

Do the kidnappers have the right to keep the child because they've been raising her for two years?

Or do they face jailtime for taking the child from her father?

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

Parents are convicted of kidnapping all the time, Anddenex." We've had a pair of amber alerts in just the past couple of months because of non-custodial mothers stealing their children and smuggling them across state lines in violation of the law.

Sneer all you like about logic (not that it helps your case), but "fact" always trumps "theory".

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

No- but you are arguing that the adoptive parents should profit from their misdeeds.

It's all good and well that in stories Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor- but Robin Hood was still a thief, no matter how noble his putative goals.

That the "Robin Hood Adoption Agency" dropped this child in their laps does not make the Freis any less guilty of receiving stolen goods- and participating in human trafficking.

According to international law (specifically, the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children):

"Trafficking in persons" shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs... The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth [above] shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth [above] have been used."

The Freis family are, by both court verdict and their own admission guilty of "receipt of persons" by means of abduction, fraud, and deception- and have attempted to abuse the power of the courts to hold on to their ill-gotten gain.

Sheer ignorance, "Skippy".

I agree- but I've been doing my level best to correct you.

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!

As you well know, the comparison was not between the particular crimes but in hiding behind the fall out of those crimes in order to reap a particular benefit.

Your only argument in favor of the Freis is that they've gotten away with it for two years and so should be allowed to get away with it from now on.

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny- which is why you get shrill and defensive, and toss out baseless accusations that we're misrepresenting you.

What we're actually doing is revealing that facts and reason do not support your argument- and so you try and make a big noise to scare us off from looking too closely.

Your "needs of the child" argument is a red-herring.

The law states plainly that- except where the parent is unfit or incompetent- the "needs of the child" are assumed to be with her biological parents.

You complained that we have shown no good reason that the child should be returned to her father.

According to the law, we don't have to. The law assumes- except where the parent is unfit or incompetent- the "best interests of the child" are assumed to lie with her biological parents.

As the judge plainly stated in his ruling, it is not up to us to prove that the child belongs with her father. The law already assumes that.

It is, rather, up to the courts to prove that her best interests lie elsewhere- a standard neither you nor the Freis have even attempted to meet.

You have offered no reasoning, no evidence, no facts to support the notion that the father is unfit.

You have offered no reasoning, no evidence, no facts to support the Freis are better for the child other than "possession is nine-tenths of the law".

The Freis have "possession" of the child because of criminal acts committed within their knowledge. They should not be allowed to profit from their complicity a/o indifference.

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.

Not according to the UN Protocol cited above. But this- like the rest of your argument- is a bit of special pleading.

You are arguing that it's not human trafficking because they "love the child".

You are arguing that it's not kidnapping because they've "raised the child for the last two years."

By that logic, Annie Wilkes wasn't a sadistic psycho because she "really loved" Misery Chastain.

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

None of which is relevant to this case. The biological mother, the adoption agency, and the Freis all acted (with varying degrees of illegality) to deny this man his child in violation of the law.

That's fact, not theory.

That is, in fact, the explicit summation of the judge's ruling.

All of your hand-waving and hysteria cannot conceal that fact.

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

You seem to define "ignorance" as "not agreeing with Anddenex".

Merriam-Webster, on the other hand, defines ignorance as "the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness".

Throughout this discussion, I have offered facts, definitions, and evidence to support my arguments.

You, on the other hand, have offered us spindrift composed of airy fantasies, insubstantive hypotheticals, and a priori assumptions based solely on maybes, what-ifs, and good intentions.

You have consistently refused to address or acknowledge the facts of the matter, and have instead cloven to hyperbole and histrionics.

According to the article and to the judge's ruling, the Freis family was aware of the following facts:

1) the biological mother had been grossly deceitful and fraudulent in arraging the adoption

2) the father had, in fact, been engaged, supportive, and wanted custody of his daughter.

3) the adoption agency had acted fraudulently and unlawfully in depriving the father of his child.

4) the presumption under the law was that the child would be returned to her father.

All of these facts rendered the yet-to-be finalized adoption questionable, at best, and highly unlikely to succeed.

And despite those facts, based on their own desires, the Freis family chose -knowingly and wilfully- to continue to fraudulently and unlawfully deprive this man of his child (and this child of her father) on the off-chance that a sympathetic judge would let them get away with it.

Neither you nor the Freis have offered up any substantive evidence that the benefits of life with the Freis would outweigh the natural law rights of a father to raise his own child, or of a child to be raised by her own father.

That, too, was explicit in the judge's ruling- but you and the Freis just don't want to hear it.

Their argument (and yours) can be summed up in one phrase: "But we want her!"

Too bad.

"Wanting" does not give you a legal right to something that belongs to another.

It doesn't justify the two-year old in stealing a candy bar from a store shelf-

-and it doesn't justify the Freis family in kidnapping the infant child of a man who has committed no wrong.

Edited December 5, 2012 by selek

[Backroads]

The way I see it...

-The father was cheated more than anyone else.

-While my heart breaks for the adoptive parents who are now ordered to give up their child, I can't imagine they are altogether surprised, nor do I favor them keeping the girl. As has been said, they weren't completely innocent in this, knowing that what was happening wasn't strictly by the books and that the father could still contest custody.

-Anddenex keeps bringing up what is best for the child. Now, I really do believe in doing what's best for the child, but I think in this case what is best and what is just and what is lawful is that she be returned to her biological father (though again, I would really like the idea of some visitation priviledges or a slow changeover). That is my answer to Anddenex's question. If there really is question of whether living with her father would risk real danger (dad's addicted to drugs and incapable of raising a child, dad will beat her, etc.), why hasn't it been brought up yet? Yes, there is some emotional trauma to this and I'm not saying the change will be easy, but I also believe that if handled properly it will be doable. But I think in the long run, that pain won't be the best assessment of "what is best for the child".

[Backroads]

selek, your "Misery" reference made me very happy.

[viannqueen3]

The whole argument of "What is best for the child?" is difficult because every adoption single situation is so different. Your never going to get the same answer. I also have to say I've seen more than one contested situation where the birthfather has fought the adoption and won- just so that his mom or aunt or whoever can raise the baby. Is that really in the child's best interest to be ripped from the only parents they've ever known so grandma can parent? We don't know the intimate details of this case and how things have unfolded over the past few years so it's hard to say. What we do know is this child is two and transition is going to need to be done carefully.

Unfortunately in the adoption world we see all too often unfit birthparents take their children home (but not quite unfit enough to get them removed by CPS). Just talking in a general sense but there were/are legitimate good reasons for an adoption plan to be in place for the benefit of the child but the tug of a beautiful newborn in the hospital and the match/placement fails. I've also known couples who have gone through failed placements where birthmothers who are literally homeless, no job, have addiction issues have decided to take their newborn home with them instead of follow through with their adoption plan. The one situation I know of where that happened the baby ended up in the care of DSFS anyway. Is that best for the baby? Like I said- it's going to be a different situation and answer every time.

[Backroads]

Like I said- it's going to be a different situation and answer every time.

Indeed, your post makes a lot of sense.

I guess in this case, I trust the court made the right decision and knew more than us. I don't think it's wise for us to speculate on "but what if he dumps her off on grandma?" or something because speculation can go on forever.

It seems we all agree the adoption agency and even Utah's adoption laws are severely messed up. They ought to be overhauled with all things to be up for consideration.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Backroads

[Anddenex]

The whole argument of "What is best for the child?" is difficult because every adoption single situation is so different. Your never going to get the same answer. I also have to say I've seen more than one contested situation where the birthfather has fought the adoption and won- just so that his mom or aunt or whoever can raise the baby. Is that really in the child's best interest to be ripped from the only parents they've ever known so grandma can parent? We don't know the intimate details of this case and how things have unfolded over the past few years so it's hard to say. What we do know is this child is two and transition is going to need to be done carefully.

Unfortunately in the adoption world we see all too often unfit birthparents take their children home (but not quite unfit enough to get them removed by CPS). Just talking in a general sense but there were/are legitimate good reasons for an adoption plan to be in place for the benefit of the child but the tug of a beautiful newborn in the hospital and the match/placement fails. I've also known couples who have gone through failed placements where birthmothers who are literally homeless, no job, have addiction issues have decided to take their newborn home with them instead of follow through with their adoption plan. The one situation I know of where that happened the baby ended up in the care of DSFS anyway. Is that best for the baby? Like I said- it's going to be a different situation and answer every time.

And thus we see one of the only people on here who actually understood what I am saying and what I have said.

Your two post are specifically in-line with what I have shared. Thank you Viann. Your examples are exactly my point. Thank you. I am not surprised the person who actually understood is a person who actually has been through it.

[Jenamarie]

Indeed, your post makes a lot of sense.

I guess in this case, I trust the court made the right decision and knew more than us. I don't think it's wise for us to speculate on "but what if he dumps her off on grandma?" or something because speculation can go on forever.

And even if he *does* "dump it on grandma", it's his right to do so. And they may end up being a very loving family for the child. I'm uneasy with the idea of determining a birth parents' fitness to parent outside of the courts. It smacks of "guilty until proven innocent" to me. Yes, Foster Care can be horrendous, but do we really want to require every parent to prove their fitness to parent before being allowed to leave the hospital with their baby?

I think it was in one of the comments to the article that someone pointed out that we don't make parents of kidnapped children prove their fitness before having their recovered children returned to them, why is this case any different? Just because we think the persons who have been fraudulently withholding this child might be "better"?

[Bini]

Everyone has great points!

Coming from an adopted child :)

[Vort]

And thus we see one of the only people on here who actually understood what I am saying and what I have said.

On the contrary, Anddenex, many of us have understood perfectly what you have said. Perhaps it was not what you meant; but that is not our fault.

[Backroads]

And thus we see one of the only people on here who actually understood what I am saying and what I have said.

Your two post are specifically in-line with what I have shared. Thank you Viann. Your examples are exactly my point. Thank you. I am not surprised the person who actually understood is a person who actually has been through it.

Sorry, but I'm really interpreting your statements differently than viann's. viann just seems to be championing the idea that adoptions are messy and maybe adoptive parents can be the better choice under the right circumstances. I keep getting that you think that law should be all-out thwarted.

[Anddenex]

Sorry, but I'm really interpreting your statements differently than viann's. viann just seems to be championing the idea that adoptions are messy and maybe adoptive parents can be the better choice under the right circumstances. I keep getting that you think that law should be all-out thwarted.

Nope, not at all. Viann, is exactly in understanding with what I have shared. Even her statement that "what is best for the child" is different for each circumstance, as she shares specific examples, which examples also highlight my point with my wife's parent's who sought to adopt a boy, but could not because of biological rights, even though the mother was a whore, addicted to drugs, and a drunkard, etc... This mother had no means and never was sober enough provide any physical or emotional well being for the child. However she sure would sober up enough, right before court, to make sure she kept her child and the child support coming in from the father (which went to drugs, alchohol, etc...).

beefche also, gave insight to my thoughts, which nobody listened to.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Anddenex

[Backroads]

Okay. No offense, but I think viann states it all better.