Deseret News | Reader comments: Adoption turns into nightmare

Reader comments
Adoption turns into nightmare

128 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Bob G | 2:04 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

If it's a nightmare for all the adults how do you think it will affect the child as it grows older? This kind of adoption should never have happened in the first place. They are all victims of their own greed and stupidity. Adopted children should have only one set of parents with no intervention or contact by birth parents. If intervention by birth parents is allowed then child support is also an obligation of the birth parents. This kind of adoption makes the adoptive parents care takers of a child rather than a parent. If the father did not agree with the adoption, or was pressured into the adoption, then he has the right to claim the child as his. Whoever legislated this adoption should have their credation revoked and be chastised to cover all the expenses of both parties. They really botched this one.

What is Right? | 2:12 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

What is right for the baby? Doesn't he count? He has a loving home with parents who love him with all their hearts. The biological parents don't sound to stable. What happens when they get a divorce and the child will be left in a single parent home. If the biological parents didn't love him or each other enough to get married when he was conceived then what makes anyone think they will do any better in the future. They are selfish, selfish people who care more about themselves than their child. Anyone with a heart can see what the decision should be.

sally | 5:04 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

If the birth father wanted custody of his child, why didn't he make that known before the baby was placed for adoption? Once the child was in a loving home with two parents, he should have no rights. This beautiful baby boy should be left with his adoptive parents.

Comments continue below

Mary | 6:25 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Why wasn't the birth father contacted prior to the birth, when the adoption was being planned? These things go badly, when the process forgets to include the birth father at the time of the papersigning. I have worked with adoption agencies that always seem to think these pregnancies are immaculate conceptions. They are not. There is a birth father somewhere and he ALWAYS needs to be included in the arrangements. These unwed girls and these adoptive parents need to know this LONG before any child is born or taken home. I'm sorry for the Nielson's predicament, but this should have been resolved 6-7 months ago.

Curtis Blanco | 6:41 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

This keeps happening. An adoption only to find out much later the father wants the baby. Why don't people bother to get the fathers signoff? Don't we learn from past mishaps, or is there something I am not taking into account?

Responsibilty | 6:47 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Many of us are sick and tired of hearing about a birth father who has come in and botched an adoption! While it is true that the fathers should be involved in that decision, it is also not only true but a fact that these same fathers are the very ones who want nothing to do with any support of the mother while she is pregnant. Then they suddenly decide that a child is going to change everything and get them some attention in the process. If there were truly that much desire on the fathers part, it would not have even taken the 2 weeks it did.
There are too many couples out there who are CHOOSING to be parents, not falling into parenting irresponsbily! Leave the adopted children in the loving environment they are in!
We have all seen and heard of too many times this has happened and the child is ripped from the adoptive parents home then later not properly cared for.
To the fathers: Quit being selfish! Leave the child where they are loved!
If you play, you pay! It's not like you weren't aware of the birds and bees!

ED | 6:56 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I will not mince words in this situation. The "father" had every chance in the world to be the father of this child. When he found out about the pregnancy, he should have married the mother and provided a family and home for this child of his. It is a telling sign when the mother says that she "hadn't seen him for the last few months of her pregnancy." It's obvious that he knew about the pregnancy. His choice to abandon this young woman to have this child by herself should be recognized for what it is... no further interest or claim to rights on this child. If he had been involved, none of this chaos would have ever happened. The mother was trying to do the right thing. Shame on this young man.

steve | 6:57 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

The birth father probably did not know about the pregnancy, let alone the birth as we men get our rights trampled on all the time. It should be the court's responsibility to contact the birth father whenever possible so this sort of thing does not happen.

What a nightmare! The baby should go back to the biological father, and the biological mother who has already revoked her parental rights should have visitation rights but not custody.

cricker1 | 7:02 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Bob G, Mary, It's not as simple as either of you (or I) would like it to be. Anyone who has been through adoption would know that.

My wife and I have been though this exact scenario with our adopted son. We were told the "birth father" had paid the birth mother to obtain an abortion and that he wanted nothing to do with the baby. In fact, no one could even find the birth father - supposedly he moved out of state. She terminated her rights and the placement took place. Two weeks before the adoption was to become final the birth mother looked at the picture that we were required to send her of the baby and "realized" the birth father wasn't who she first said. She then contacted the birth father - who was in prison - and told him he was the father of a baby. At that point the birth father and his parents initiated proceedings to get the baby back. We won and his rights were involuntarily terminated, but it was expensive and painful. It took 18 more months to get the adoption finalized.

Why? | 7:06 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

If the fathers cares sooooo much, why didn't he file BEFORE the child was born?
OUR LAWS NEED TO QUIT BAILING THE FATHERS OUT!!!! All birth fathers should be required to file before the child is born! Otherwise, NO OPTIONS!!!
However, it seems that more times than not the birth father doesn't get busted messing around until the proof is there, BABY. Then it is his parents who want him to go after the baby!
The loving couples who give so much to make a family through adoption should NOT have to continue to pay! Otherwise our adoption system will be as credible as our politicians!
Same old story: good thing ruined by a few!

You' all wrong! | 7:07 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I completely disagree with most of the comments on here. The birth father has the right to raise his child, if that is what he chooses to do. If he was not aware of HIS child being set up for adoption, then that is the fault of the adoption agency, not the father. And in this article, it seems to clearly state that the mother did not have contact with the father during the final few months of her pregnancy, so I'm sure he knew nothing of the adoption. The comments that say he is being selfish, and that he won't be a good father because they had this child out of wedlock, these comments are judgemental and typical for the state of Utah. Wake up, get a clue!!! THIS IS HIS BIOLOGICAL CHILD!!!

cricker1 | 7:10 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

A couple of more comments please from one who has been through this.

It's usually the birth father's parents that try to prevent these types of adoptions. They think they are going to make their son be responsible and take care of the baby he fathered. Or, more likely, they are the ones that end up enabling their son's behavior by raising the baby themselves. I'll bet the farm that the birth father in this story is being pushed by his parents to prevent the adoption.

Another likely scenario is that he (the birth father) is using the baby to try to retain some sort of control or contact with the birth mother.

One last comment - any of you who don't like the adoption laws need to participate in the political process and make your voice known. I'm sure that whatever is happening is this case is entirely legal. Fair for the child? Probably not. Legal? Probably so.

I've been long frustrated by the adoption laws in most states. Unfortunately not enough people usually speak up to get attention on the matter so the laws can change.

Sad fact | 7:19 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

This continues happening in too many states!
These fathers need to wake up. A child is not like the puppy or kitten you wanted when you were young, then didn't take care of when it grew to be a dog or cat! A child is a life long responsibilty, which adoptive couples have considered and chosen. He too will grow and not always be so small and sweet as he is now. There will be trying days. He will grow to have an opinion and share it often. He will talk back, break your belongings and be dishonest. All the while not being as easy to ignore as your dog was!
Kids are GREAT and I wouldn't trade mine for anything! However, some days are difficult...and this is a decision I made intentionally, you didn't!
Shame on your parents for always giving in and getting you whatever your little heart desired with no responsibility to show for it!

D | 7:23 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

These botched adoptions happen because states like Utah and Idaho don't take reasonable steps to protect paternal rights. The father should have just as much legal right to the child as the mother.
The birth mother doesn't have to "register her interest" in the child's life with the state. The child isn't going anywhere without her say-so. But for some reason these basic rights don't apply to the father. The mother has to take action to give the baby away, the father has to take aciton to keep it.
No matter what you think of the moral circumstances of the pregnancy, the father still has rights to his child. I feel for the adoptive family, and can't even imagine what they are going through. But if the father didn't agree to the adoption, the right thing to do is to give the baby back, not start a legal defense fund. They need to adopt another child, and make sure the adoption has the blessing of BOTH parents.

Becky | 7:30 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Instead of this couple spending all their money on attorneys, why don't they just give the baby to his father?

What kind of a person keeps something that doesn't belong to them? If I find a diamond ring, and someone claims it--is it still mine?

These people are selfish, they need to let this child go back to his father--it's ridiculous that he has to fight at all.

What they have done is taken a baby, just because you can't have your own doesn't mean that you can help yourself to someone else's child.

Sunny | 7:39 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I'd like to help the natural father of this child. Why don't you publish his bank information in your article?

This couple's 'nightmare' is every adopted person's dream come true! Why not let this family that God created exist?

Give back his child!

LeaveTheBabyAlone | 7:41 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

It doesn't matter what religion you are... keep it in the pants, and your legs together until you are married! Look at all the heartache that 2 selfish unmarried people cause when they bring a child into the world! That's all it is...selfishness!! Satan wants you to think that sex is great and nothing is wrong with it before marriage.

Take it from a (MARRIED FOR 18 YRS) mom of 7...having children is not easy! I can't imagine ever doing this alone.

Grandparents shouldn't have to raise the child. Chances are that when the father gets the child, he'll goo-goo and ga-ga over him for a few months, and then the grandparents will end up raising him. See it all the time. So sad.

Anon | 7:43 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Unless you have been in both side's situation, you really ought not comment, as you cannot empathize.

RPG | 7:56 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

My question is, if the birth father wasn't interested enough to have much contact with the birth mother during pregnancy, why does he suddenly think he has any rights to the child? I wonder if his parents are pushing him because they want their grandchild back. As far as I'm concerned, the grandparents shouldn't have rights. It's a hard line to take, but more often than not, I think they are the ones who are exerting the influence that leads to contested adoptions, not the birth parents. Let the people whose lives will be most affected make the decision--with parental input of course, but not to the point of taking it to court after the fact.

Julie | 8:08 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

As someone who will adopt in the future, it sickens me to think that my baby could be taken away from me after me taking care of them for the first few years of their life. The baby would be mine. It would definitely be a nightmare.

Rob | 8:11 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Gosh how sad for everyone involved. I too get upset when the biological father has nother to do with the biological mother. She does all the work for 9 months alone and then he wants to swoop in and take over. I wonder how much this is his familiy wanting that baby. I know we don't know the whole story but LDS Social Services knows to make sure everything is done right. Did he even sign the adoption papers or was he AWOL when they were trying to get it all done?

Kim | 8:15 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I'm sorry but if you want to be a dad, then do the right thing and step up to the plate and get involved at the get go. If this guy wanted to be a dad they why not marry the birth mother right at the beginning? MMMMMM? The birth mother has every right to place her baby up for adoption if she feels that will be best for the baby. What a hero she is to have given that baby a better chance. It seems that is was what was right if all of a suddent this guy wants to play daddy all of a suddent. So give the baby to two people who have distain for each other over a couple who waited and planned to bring a baby into their home as a family? What are they thinking up in Idaho?????????????

Andie D. | 8:17 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

You are sick and tired of hearing that the child's FATHER wants to parent his own baby?

I'm sick and tired of people thinking that adopted parents are ENTITLED to a baby because of money or marital status. Don't forget that the baby is a human being who deserves his own family - especially if they want him so badly.

Lisa Sainsbury | 8:17 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Word to what Mary said.

Adoptive Parent | 8:19 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

We have adopted all of our children. Many of the above comments accuse the adoption agency of not including the birth father. This is far from the truth. A child cannot be placed unless the birth father agrees, or has his rights severed by the court. This is done by notifying him of a court date. More often than not, the birth father doesn't even bother to show up. We've worked with several agencies and this is always the case. I think there is more to the story than we know.

My experience | 8:24 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I am the adoptive mom of 8 children. Often, it is not the young father who chages his mind, but the father's/mohters' parents changing it for them. I have found that grandparents are the biggest problem. They have the idea that they can raise their grandchild as their own, and recapture their youth. In reality, they are not allowing the birth parents to get on with their lives. That is why when we are contemplating another addition to our family, we talk to the grandparents first, to get their thoughts. If it looks like they are not committed to the adoption, then we back out before our hearts are broken.

Birthmom | 8:33 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Bob G your comments are very ignorant. Just because an adoption is open doesn't mean the birthparents have any "intervention" as you call it. The adoptive parents are the only parents to that child, but having it open means the birth parents may write letters and see them occasionally (like a cousin) not in the capacity of a parent.

When I placed my baby for adoption 8 years ago I personally went with the social worker and made sure the birth father signed the papers after she was born (even though I wanted nothing to do with him). Even though it's not required in Utah for the birth father to sign I wanted to make sure my baby's new parents didn't have to go through what this poor couple is suffering right now.

Ellen Y | 8:46 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

The same thing happened to my younger brother and his wife, and they had to return their 8 month old to an 18 year old biological father who had problems with drugs and alcohol. This is just heartbreaking and terrible for adoptive families. Their rights should be protected, especially since if the baby goes back to the biological father the rights of the birthmother, the adoptive parents, and the baby would all have to be violated.

wbm5 | 8:48 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Hey, I feel for the Dads that want to keep their child. Since we don't know everything about this situation then we shouldn't make blanket statements. My son nearly was in this situation. Do you think that if the mother didn't want the baby, the dad can just take the baby? Why should the dad have to go to court for what really is his? I don't think they make single mothers got through this when they leave the hospital. Its, "bye see ya." But if a dad wants his baby he has to go through the ringer.
Sometimes the mothers don't include the dads.
Sometimes they are just being vengeful.

If the dad takes the baby they can feel as if they are a bad person for being the one to give up the baby. Guilt is a terrible thing to live with. It is easier to give the baby up to strangers than the birth father so they can lessen their guilt feelings if they have them.

The situation is very emotional.

Get off the dad's backs and the have feelings and rights too!

ID Jazz | 8:50 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Usually what happens here is the young father does not really care what happens to the child and tells the pregnant girlfriend to do what she wants. In so doing no one seeks the signature of him to release his rights. Then the fathers mother has a fit that she is the grandmother of a baby and they need to get the baby back no matter what the cost to the family that has the bay or the mother that gave the baby up in the first place. I guarantee the father is not the driving force behind what is happening here.

Laurie Dunfield-Baker | 8:52 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Since when did adoption become about "making a couple's dream come true?" It's about finding homes for children who do not have parents. This child, who is not yet adopted, has a parent who wants to raise him. Adoptive homes are no different from non-adoptive homes in that they are made up of human beings with all of the shortcomings that human beings have. Adoptive parents even get divorced. Someone said to leave the child where he is loved. What makes anyone think that the father of this child will not love him? He's willing to undergo an expensive legal battle in order to hold onto his flesh and blood. The adoption process doesn't make this easy for fathers, as they are often the last to know what's really going on. As for what's best for the child, the child does deserve to be with a parent who loves him, but if a natural parent is available for that, does it not make sense that the child and parent belong together?

Nate | 8:55 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

The Birth Father is always informed of the pregnancy. Under Utah law (I'm unsure about Idaho) the act of procreation is how the birth father is informed that the birth mother may be pregnant. If you're not smart enough to realize that sex leads to babies (thats what it is for after all) then you are not fit to be a father. If a birth father feels that a birth mother is hiding a pregnancy and/or adoption from him he can sign a registry with the State. This registry must be checked and proof of that check must be presented to the judge in order for relinquishment to take place.
As the father of two adopted boys I know that open adoption works and does not entitle the birth parents to visitation rights or require them to pay child support. It is the best way to help birth mothers feel that they are placing their baby (not giving up for adoption) with a kind and loving family. Adoption is about providing a stable home for a child. It is not about greed and stupidity.

AnotherThought | 9:06 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Ed has the right idea. The biological father (he wasn't involved enough to be a 'birth father') knew of the child's existence, but he did not involve himself in the child's well being before birth nor demonstrate interest until far too late in the process. His motives at this point are highly suspect and hint at an abiding self-interest that doesn't bode well for the child. It's true that he should have been consulted early in the process, since his identify was known, but I can't agree with Bob G that he has the right to claim the child. His 'rights' to the child ended when he walked away from his pregnant partner without providing for the baby's well being and future care.

Anonymous | 9:06 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I know a woman who got pregnant when she was dating. The guy freaked out and left. She opted to keep the baby. The guy met the baby when born. That happened 5 years ago. They are married and raising together a wonderful kid. There was a lot of repenteance, forgiveness and sacrifice from both parts to give a decent home to the baby. The birth mother isn't telling much about what really happened. It's clear she doesn't want the baby but if the father was not involved in the adoption process and he wants the baby, the law is the law. Too bad for the Nielsens but I would recommend next time, forget the civilized part and just keep the kid away from his/her birth parents. LDS Family Services should be covering for this mess too. They are supposed to be the ones who follows all procedures and policies.

The Courts are to Blame | 9:11 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I guess the honorable judge in Kootenai county never read the Idaho Supreme Court's 1986 "In re Steve B.D". Unless the father asserted his parental rights immediately when the child was born and during the pregnancy (such as paying for the medical costs of the pregnancy), he has no directive to be notified of the mother's decision to adopt pursuant to Idaho Code ï¿½ 16-1505.

Since the father failed to establish his parental claim according to Idaho Code ï¿½ 16-1504 during the pregnancy and immediately following the birth (aka before the child was placed with the adoptive parents) he HAS NO CLAIM ON THE CHILD. It's the black letter law of Idaho. The adoption agency didn't make a mistake, the courts did.

This sort of mistake is what happens when judges are appointed by their friends and then keep office thanks to a voter "approval" of the job their doing in a retention election. How many voters that haven't actually appeared before a judge have any clue what kind of job their doing? Unless a judge gets negative press (hopefully that will happen in this case), voters just give him the benefit of the doubt and he stays in office.

a mom | 9:15 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

So easy it is for us to judge others. What do we know about the birth parents situations. look at your own children and see if you could give them away. it is different when a child is born and you have the chance to actually see a part of yourself, and it all becomes real. These situations are never easy for anybody. When the adoptive parents signed papers, i am sure ther were aware this could happen. Too bad for all. hope Harvey has a happy life with a lot of people to love him and take care of him.

Father Rights | 9:16 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

If the birth father(or DNA donor) is not there to support the mother in the pregnancy, he has no investment and no rights to the child. He showed no commitment before. He could have sued before so that the adoption did not take place. The baby has a family now. Supplying DNA does not guarantee any rights to a child. It is the proceedings that are happening now in courts after the adoption that are the farce. Idaho law is at fault on this tragedy. Law makers in each state should have this clearly spelled out.

Anonymous | 9:16 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

criker1, you were lucky to keep your baby. I guess because the guy was in prison and the birth mother not knowing who the father was in the first place didn't say good about her either. It would be interesting to know why the birth father left. I am a woman but I do recognize most people blame men in this kind of situation. She could had said it's not your baby and therefore, the guy left! Those details we will never know so we can't judge but if the birth father wants custody and he looks like a situable person, too bad for the Nielson!

Mom of 3 | 9:25 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I am also the mother of a 5 1/2 month old. I cannot even begin to fathom handing her over to be raised by someone else at this point as it would be such a disturbance to her development and well being. This baby needs to stay with the only parents he's ever known. I am praying that this couple will keep THEIR baby.

Catherine | 9:27 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

The fault lies with the adoption agency and adoption "laws." A child should not be placed for adoption until all t's have been crossed and all i's have been dotted. Get maternal consent to release the baby for adoption, and get paternal consent to release the baby for adoption. Have paternity tests for those women who are unsure of who the father is and get the proper releases from them. (Actually, paternity testing should be done in ALL cases just to rule out any mystery fathers popping up into the matter later.) Until then, however long it takes, no child should be proclaimed available for adoption. Messes like this would not exist if we would do the proper legwork before a child's life has been thrown into shambles because we didn't get the proper release forms signed. We're more careful with the purchase of a car or home, legally speaking. Seems we've got our priorities askew.

Michelle | 9:28 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

What an incredible sense of entitlement adopters have toward other people's children. The adopters have no rights. The child belongs with his father and people. How could anyone fight to keep a baby that does not belong to them? How could anyone fight to keep a child from her or his family?

Adoption is supposed to be about giving a child a home when no other options are available, not to help some infertile couple make their dreams come true by taking other people's children. It has now been discovered that the father of the child wants his son - isn't this great news? A child gets to be raised by its family! Let that child be rasied with his people. Why would people prefer a child be raised by complete stragers when there's a family to rasie him? The adoption system is inhumane and corrupt....strangers fighting a father for the right to take his son.

To the Nielsons | 9:29 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I know a couple who tried for 7 years to have a baby unsucessfully. They decided to adopt. Big surprise when the birth mother ended up with twins! When the twins were 3 months old, guess what? she got pregnant. They have now 5 kids, the adopted twins and three of their own, all now grown-ups. Be patience. That baby is not the only one in the world. I am sure the Lord knows why not that baby, maybe He has another one more for you in better circunstances. Just think if you keep the baby, all kind of problems you could get from the birth parents and their families. Instead of a joy, it could be a nightmare.

GWC | 9:30 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

If the birth father wants parental
.rights make him pay for the medical bills associated with the baby's birth and the costs with adopting and rearing the child. I'll bet that when faced with a bill the "father" will cease to be an issue.

To Sunny, Becky, D, etc.: Being a sperm donor does not automatically make you a father. If he was the least bit interested in rearing the child he would have been involved during the pregnacy and birth. He would have known about the pending adoption. The pregnacy wasn't hidden from him. How big do you think Couer d'Alene is anyway? I wouldn't be surprized if the guy wasn't fishing for a cash settlement.

To D: | 9:36 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

DUH! It is honestly difficult to believe people like you exist and dress yourself every morning!

The mother doesn't have to register because it is pretty obvious to most of us that the child is hers. She takes responsibilty for 9 months. The VERY least the father could do is register! If the father is going to sleep around unprotected, he should monitor the happenings of those he has slept with! In other words, the "he didn't know she was pregnant" excuse should not be an option. HE alone should be held responsible for knowing who he has slept with and watching for the obvious signs of prenancy, possibly his child, then registering at ANY suspicion, just in case!

Bogus on his "rights"! His "rights" should be to act in a responsible manner, as a responsible adult! Every adult in an adoption situation acts responsibly, with the exception of those who cry "I didn't know. Fix it now."

Oh, and to those who say the baby wasn't theirs or just give back what wasn't yours - major stupidity. It is people like you that make situations like this. They are SUPPOSED to love this baby, not dispose of it easily!

E | 9:39 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Becky, are you a mother? Biological child or not, would you be able to hand your baby over to a complete stranger that you know nothing about?

It's not a diamond ring, its a baby. I think it is great that they are willing to do so much to protect his best interest. They didn't "help themselves to someone else's child." They were entrusted with this baby by his birth mother, who made a heartwrenching decision but one that she felt was right. (And she knows the birth father. There must be a reason why she doesn't want the baby with him.)

MAYBE this is every adopted persons dream come true. MAYBE a loving, two-parent, forever family is. MAYBE there are things we do not know about this birthfather that make the birthmother and the adoptive parents so concerned.

Choices and Consequences | 9:41 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

People keep saying they have their choice and can do whatever they want without worry of consequences. So a young couple plays around and experiments with a choice that leads to someone else's existence on this planet. More often than not the father then skips out so he doesn't have to take responsibility for the child or pay child support. Then the mother realizing she can't raise this child on her own gives it up for adoption. Then all of a sudden the father wants to be part of the child's life and have custody for why, so the mother can pay child support and then not allow her to be part of the child's life? Is that it? Let the child stay with the adoptive parents. There are consequences for our choices. Maybe we all need to learn to make better choices.

The right thing | 9:41 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

The adoptive parents should be able to keep the baby. The biological father knew she was pregnant. If he wanted the child he should have said so legally before the birth. Too many "fathers" want to play ball with their son but are not interested in the real parenting. It is so sad when a baby loved by two parents is taken "back" to one very unprepared parent. The birth mother did the right thing. I am glad she didn't change her mind like so many do. If you live the life of a child raised in a single parent home, you know two parents are better than one.

Peeved | 9:45 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I dont think people understand what it is like from an adoptees experiance.
You have Two Birthparents who are old enough to deceided to not keep it in their pants but when a pregnancy occures then somehow its o.k. to give the baby away even though they new pregnancy was possible when they were doing what they were doing.
Then they deciede they dont want the child so hey lets choose this Baby's future which by the way we want nothing to do with oh and Please dont ever let the CHild come and find us heaven forbid, Because who needs their Medical information in this day an age???
The CHild in this article and every other Adoptee always suffers knowing they were an unwanted pregnancy and that their birth parent or parents ultimatly didnt want them..
When do the adoptees have any rights?? Maybe if the Birthparents new someday they may have to face their unwanted pregnancy they would recognize abstinence before marriage is a beautiful thing...

JML | 9:50 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

This brings up an interesting question as to what rights the mother had before giving birth. If she had chosen, since it is her body, she could have aborted the baby without even a word the the biological father. In that case he has no rights.

Mom can choose to end life but not to preserve and enhance it.

I agree that he has some right to a claim of fatherhood, but this should be all about the child, not the father. Believe it or not it's very possible go grow up completly normal without ever knowing who your biological parents are. Being a parent invloves much much more that offering sperm and egg. My biological parents offered neither and I think came out pretty good!

It's difficult to make a judgement here without more of the questions being answered. What was the faters attitude towards the baby before birth? Was he at all aware of the planned adoption? Had he accepted any responsibility for the pregnancy?

Many many more...

Bill | 9:53 a.m. Dec. 7, 2007

This is a sad and frustrating case which is not supposed to happen.The fault lies neither with birth parents nor, obviously, with adoptive parents, but with the legal professionals who facilitated the adoption. It seems as if the step of ascertaining the reliquishment of both birth parents of their parental rights was not clearly accomplished.

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.