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

Leave a Reply

12 Comments on "This is not how to handle an adoption…"

Notify of
poppajoe49
Member

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

flashingscotsman
Member

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

poppajoe49
Member

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.

StrinaM
Member

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
Member

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.

RobertW
Member

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?

wpDiscuz