Utah adoption agency fails to “get it” — and what a poor way to treat a father.

But the true gem is in the comments in the original article about the “adoptive” parents: Allowing them to keep this child is similar to allowing a bank robber to keep the money, because he’d developed an emotional attachment to it. Pretty much explains the statist point of view about our tax dollars.

The link to the exact quote. Contact info for the DI’s lawyer, if you want it.

H/T Karmaa

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

RobertW December 5, 2012 at 11:30 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

the adopters were begging for donations for adoption fees and legal fees, tell me, someone, please, how the hell did they get to adopt the child if they couldn’t afford the fees up front?

or am i missing something?

perlcat December 5, 2012 at 11:56 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

From the original articles, what it looks like is that the DI was having marital troubles when his wife found she was pregnant. She suggested either abortion or adoption, as things were bad, and he didn’t want to do either. While he was away, she slipped off to some fly-by-night adoption agency in Utah, which induced labor 2 weeks early, so he wouldn’t know, and she lied to them and said that she was abandoned by him — who was reassigned by the military, and had been making house and utility payments on her house while she was doing this. Sounds like she did the whole thing out of spite — it happens. There’s a lot of bad emotions when couples divorce — but that is EXACTLY why the courts ask if the wife is pregnant at the time.

When he found out, and immediately contacted the adoption agency, they stalled, rather than doing the right thing. Maybe at that point, they should have all got into a room and discussed it. Now it’s become a big hairy issue.

Meanwhile, the ‘adoptive’ parents, who *did* have the cash to adopt, found themselves in a legal dispute, and thought that they ought to fight this attempt to take what they thought was *their* child from them. So they decided to pass the hat, and help it along with a few unfounded accusations that were probably based in the bile that the ex-wife had fed them. Now they have to walk what they said back, and ultimately, must give the child back, as she was never theirs in the first place. Like one guy said, in 2011, he’d have been sympathetic to them, but in 2012, with their continued refusal to do what they *now know is right*, they have become disgusting monsters.

Karmaa December 5, 2012 at 12:29 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

The adoptive parents knew at the time of adoption that the father hadn’t relinquished his rights, and there was possibility that he could come in to the picture. They said “OK – we’ll deal with it if it happens”. Their way of “dealing with it” seems to be fighting tooth and nail to keep the child.

There is no answer. The dad was wronged, no doubt. The adoptive parents were wronged, no doubt. The birth mother should be charged with fraud or something and the adoption agency apparently did some (not sure exactly what or how much) semi-shady stuff too.

But one of the biggest questions is: what is a baby? Is she a human, with civil rights? Or is she a possession? The courts can’t look at what is best for the child (whomever it may be), because that is a moot point. The father doesn’t need to prove that he is fit (which, fortunately in this case, it sounds as if he is) and the adoptive parents have the same rights, because the law sees them exactly the same as birth parents.

And, there is one additional issue that has not been brought up (and I am happy it has not) and that is that the birth parents are both black, and the adoptive parents are white. I am honestly glad that is not an issue in the case, but it added to the 2 hour conversation I had with my daughter last night – talking about all the ethics, laws, psychological, social and other implications of the case. It’s a MESS!

perlcat December 5, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

“The adoptive parents knew at the time of adoption that the father hadn’t relinquished his rights”

…and that goes right to the heart of it. They shouldn’t have been allowed to adopt, and should have avoided the adoption because they didn’t have any legal assurance that the father couldn’t reach into their ‘family’ at any time to claim his own. Their legal counsel should be sued for malpractice — first for not telling them that, and second for not informing them that they hadn’t a leg to stand on. They have knowingly had this child in their possession illegally for over two years now, and now their fitness as parents should be up for debate.

Could they foster the girl in the absence of a consenting father they did not know of (as long as no one knows where he is)? Yes. Adopt? No. It’s a sad world that we would tell someone to not buy a house unless there was clear title, but these people can adopt a human being, and then go on to deny the father his child without any legal protection or justification.

Karmaa December 5, 2012 at 3:59 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I read on a message board somewhere that the adoptive father is a lawyer. I don’t know that to be true, but if he is, then he absolutely should have known better! And your comparison to a clear title for a house is stunning! That puts it ALL in perfect perspective!

MDLION December 5, 2012 at 2:53 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Karmaa:”what is a baby? Is she a human with civil rights? Or is she a possession?”

Those questions go to the heart of the crisis of respect for human life afflicting the world. A child is a human being from the instant of conception and should be protected by law. Unfortunately, in our country and throughout much of the world, children are increasingly objectified and treated like possessions. When the Judeo-Christian ethic wanes, radical humanism, whether you call it Communism, Socialism, or Liberalism, takes over. With the takeover comes materialism because religion, faith and the soul are denied. And so in a materialistic atmosphere, even human beings are treated as objects to be accepted or rejected on the whim of the parents, as their exclusive possession. They care not about the child’s right to life but rather about how they “feel” about the child.

RobertW December 5, 2012 at 12:59 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

adoption-related costs led me to believe they didn’t have all the adoption expenses covered.

@ karmaa
The judge rendered the answer. The dad was wronged, no doubt. The adoptive parents were not wronged, if as you say they knew he’d not relinquished his rights. be that as it may, i’m just glad this little girl didn’t end up in a trash-bin, which, to me far outweighs the unethical induction of labor since neither the baby’s health was endangered, nor that of the bitch that bore her.

StrinaM December 5, 2012 at 12:53 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

As far as I’m concerned, the Bio-mother needs to be charged with human trafficking and the judge who approved the adoption needs to be disbarred. I don’t care if there is a marriage or not. If the biological mother and the adoption agency cannot prove that they made every reasonable effort to get the biological father to sign off on it, it shouldn’t happen. (Obvious exclusions in cases of rape and incest). And Fox messed up. They said she never met her father, seemingly siding w/adoptive parents, but she has met her father, twice.

Karmaa December 5, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

There is a lot more to the story than the one-sided media feeds us. The adoptive family WAS told that the bio dad existed and could come back to haunt them. BUT they were also told (courtesy of the bio-mom’s lies) that he did not want the child, had abandoned them and was not providing support. The bio-mom gave the adoption agency an address in TX (though he lived in SC), so when dad didn’t respond, the agency used that as further proof that he indeed was abandoning the child.

So, basically, everyone assumed that he was a d-bag, who decided to just walk away and not accept responsibility. That’s why the agency informed the adoptive parents that dad COULD show up later. They felt “safe” because the law says if he abandoned the child, the child can be adopted.

The problem is that he DIDN’T abandon them, and he can prove it. He was paying rent and putting money in the joint bank account. The mom lied.

There is no clear-cut answer here. The culprit is the mom. Period. Everyone else is kind of victims. The adoption agency didn’t really do anything wrong – they followed their policies, which say they don’t give information to bio-dads on the phone. I am sure there is a reason for that – imagine if some crazy spiteful dad went and blew a family away, based on info they got from the agency.

It’s a total mess, but it all comes to the shoulders of a mom, who probably was trying to do what she thought was the best thing she could do.

poppajoe49 December 5, 2012 at 7:51 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Kinda makes me glad I don’t have any kids. Sad, but glad.

flashingscotsman December 5, 2012 at 8:36 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I’m with you there, PJ. Except for the sad part.

poppajoe49 December 6, 2012 at 5:55 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Well, I am one of those guys that everyone says was meant to be a dad, I was looking forward to it. I was living with a girl once that just had a baby, and I relished the time spent with the baby. That is why I said sad.
I’m glad because I would have been crushed if something like this happened to me.