I'm on the child's side in this one. No two year old should be taken
away from their adopted parents. He should let it go, but work to change the
current laws if he feels that they are unjust. If he really wanted the child, he
should have married the mother before getting her pregnant. Divorce is extremely
easy. I actually hope that they don't change the adoption laws here in
@ Clarissa: So if a kidnapper can hang onto the child for 2 years the parents
should just give up all rights to the child, is that what you are saying? As
for the marrying before getting pregnant part - should the man be able to force
the woman to get rid of a child he doesn't want to support or pay for
because she didn't marry him before getting pregnant?The father
shouldn't have to give up his rights because he wasn't married to the
mother and/or because she successfully lied to him about the situation.Why is the biological father the one being called upon to make sacrifices for
the child "if he really loves her"? If the adoptive parents were honest
and ethical, they would not have proceeded with the adoption once it was
apparent the father had been lied to and wanted the child.And are
you really advocating that couples should marry, get pregnant/have a child, and
then divorce? So much for your pseudo concern for the well-being of the child.
No one day old should be taken away from his biological father. I'm on the
child's side. The biological mother should also have penalty.
Fraud. And the agency. You can't make permanat decisions clearly like this
after delivery.Imagine if this was your son's baby. When you adopt you need the permission of both parents to complete an adopton.
The prospective parents are the cause of these messes. If they had a signed
release from the dad the could have proceed with certainty. The
person who hangs on to the child longest doesn't win. The child should
never have been placed in the home in the first place. The child should have
been returned the minute the father realized his son had been placed after being
deceived. Two years is the fault of prospective adoptive parents, wasn't
final folks. They held on to the child because of them. It was not because of
the child. They didn't want to not parent. The dad didn't want to not
parent either. I'm glad he didn't marry her. She lied to
him. Is that the sort of person to marry?
Disturbing how a woman can have an abortion without the consent of the father,
but she can not adopte the child to a loving family? This would not
be an issue if the man had made a better choice of whom to have sex with.He had sex with a married woman, who did not want to keep the child. What did he think the outcome would be?Law in Utah, any child born
with in a marriage is the responsibility of the Husband. If this man wins, then
every divorcing man can demand paternity of the children and not have to pay
child support if the child is not geneticly his. Who will support these
I'm on the child's side. It is wrong to take a 2 day infant away from
his father. The only way to ensure and adoption can be completed is
to involve the birth father and mother in the selection of a family and get
their signatures. It's hard to believe a person can make a
irrevocable decision 25 hours after giving birth. The child should
not have been placed or allowed to remain with the couple for so long. It's
their fault they held on. It was not because they cared for the child but they
wanted to parent. So did the bio dad. Losing a child over fraudulent practices.
Would you want your son's rights to be severed due to the fraudulent
practices of agency and played out by the mom? Your grandchild. Do you want
agencies to behave this way?
K, Utah law assumes that the birth Father is the husband of the birth Mother.
This child is the results of an affair. The man who had sex with a married
woman, should have no right to any of her children. There needs to be a
protection to the children born within any marriage. What of other children born
into this situation? This man is not a father he is a sperm donor, he had sex
with a woman that was married. He knew she was married. He should have no right
to the child.
@ county mom, ignorance is bliss! Who exactly do you think you are passing
judgement on this biological father. The mother lied = fraud. There is NO black
and white moral issue here. Step outside the box for a few moments. You are
supporting the state of Utah to allow fraud dictate this child's life.
Utah, the state of morals and ethics allows adoption agencies and birth mothers
to LIE to sell children. You have no clue as to what is best for this child or
any other if you think a child's life within "marriage" is the end
all be all. Reality is that this man has fought and OBVIOUSLY still fights for
his son. No true to the term "sperm donor" man would do this. Whether this boy is 2 or 18 he will did out the truth and be reunited with his
father. Then, will YOU be there to explain why his "parents" built his
life on lies?
Actually the father did NOT know the woman was married. She was already
separated from her husband and getting a divorce, the marriage was over, she
lied that the divorce was complete but it wasn't. Her husband is on the
side of the bio dad. If you look up you can find more about this story.
Sounds like a complicated mess. This is why we need wise judges. Family law
can be very complex. Let's hope the legislature thinks this through very