5-year custody battle rages

A 5-year-old northern Utah boy likely has no idea of his starring role in a complex legal battle that pits the rights of biological mothers against adoptive parents and could clarify muddy issues of Utah's adoption law.

"These parents are very caring and loving and kind parents. They're not going to fret in front of him and bring anxiety into his life," said attorney Greg Hawkins, who represents the adoptive parents who have cared for the boy, identified as "E.H." in court documents, since his November 2000 birth.

The custody case has been in the courts for the boy's entire life and, with a June opinion from the Utah Supreme Court, will remain there for the immediate future.

"The proceeding in this court is the latest, but sadly not the last, act in a very human saga that has played out on the stage of our courts," states the unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Ronald Nehring. "Despite our determination that we must remand this case for further proceedings, we hold fast to the hope that in the near future E.H. will know who his parents will be and where he will call home."

Working through a California adoption agency, the birth mother selected the unidentified Utah couple as adoptive parents for her son. She flew to Utah, gave birth to the child and two days later signed a document relinquishing her parental rights. She and her two other children then lived with the Weber County couple for several months, during which time she began to rethink her decision and "became concerned for the welfare of E.H.," according to the opinion.

Among other things, the mother noticed that the couple's other children, also adopted and some with special needs, did little school work and appeared to lack social development outside the home, the June 6 ruling states.

Two months after moving out of the couple's home, the birth mother filed a petition seeking custody of her son. The adoptive parents countered with their own petition for adoption. The two sides negotiated a binding stipulation, the heart of the ongoing dispute, allowing an independent psychologist to determine what would be the boy's best interest.

A year later, the psychologist determined that custody of E.H. should be given to the birth mother. The adoptive parents challenged the finding, and 2nd District Judge Ernie Jones, the second judge to preside over the case, ruled the birth mother was bound by her earlier relinquishment of all parental rights. Jones subsequently voided the unique stipulation and finalized the adoption of E.H.