Reader comments
Letter asks for baby Harvey back

Page:
1
2
Next >

This smells like grandparents | 12:56 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Sounds like a couple grandparents want to raise their son's child...

How else could a 20 year-old pay for two lawyers and a baby room? I make a decent living, but I sure can't afford two lawyers.

Good luck Nielson family

Steve J | 1:29 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

It seems to me if you miss the deadline, you given up your rights. If this 20 year old father really was interested in raising the baby there is no way he would have missed the deadline. Harvey needs to stay with the Nielsons!

give the baby back | 1:49 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

its right to do

Comments continue below

Laura | 4:26 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

The adoptive parents should be able to keep the baby after all of this time. The father didn't want anything to do with the mother while she was pregnant so he doesn't need to have anything to do with the baby now. Leave the baby where he is.
I am an adoptee and I was raised in a very happy home. Good luck!!

Learn from history | 5:50 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

The case of Baby Evan in Florida should give the adoptive parents in this case pause. The Evan case was nearly identical... mother gives up child, father contests and intervenes at urging of grandparents, court maintains custody with adoptive parents until litigation is concluded.

Fast forward 3 1/2 years, after much litigation -- baby became a preschooler who lost his entire world at almost 4 years old when he was ripped from his family and given to biological mother, and father given visitation and adoptive family removed entirely.

He was later abused in mother's home because of his behavior (typical for a traumatized and grieving child with no bond to his biological mother)and removed from mother, and given to father.

Court documents show that child suffered from PTSD, attachment issues, regression and learning and motor skill issues brought on by the incredible trauma of losing his family and not knowing where he belonged.

Harvey is headed right down that same path...

Selfishness | 6:06 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Sounds to me like the grandparents are thinking more about themselves than what is best for the baby. Not only did the 20 yr. old father miss the deadline but how long does it take to make a decision? Did he not know that his girlfriend was pregnant and couldn't he have made a decision about keeping the baby before it was born and then adopted? Now we want to take this child from a whole family who loves him and put him a in broken relationship to be shuffled back and forth? Come on...think about the child and not yourselves!

Anonymous | 6:50 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

The blame should be on the birth mother. It does not sound like she communicated with the birth father at the time Harvey was born. How could the deadline be less than two weeks? This is a very sad situation.

Michael R. Loveridge | 7:33 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

This whole mess is a complicated and immoral fiasco! Someone ought to write a book, "Adoption for Dummies," and have the birth father and his parents read it! On the "bright" side, the baby will be well-nurtured in the arms of his selfish father (and grandparents), who absented themselves from the baby's pregnant mother.

Jana | 7:46 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

My heart breaks for the child. All the individuals involved need to take a good look at what is best for the child, period. They need to ask themselves where the child will have the most stable, loving home. By stable, I include emotional, physical, and financial stability. I beleive the birth father and grandparents should be able to see the baby if they desire, but the child should be returned to the adoptive parents.

Sad | 7:59 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

This is a very emotional issue. We don't know the whole story. All I could think of reading the article was a conversation I overheard once. Four or five boys who had been separated from their fathers at early ages because of different family problems were talking about how much they each wanted to find their biological father. They were sharing their ideas on how to go about finding these men they desperately wanted to meet.
The long-term best interest of the baby should be the deciding factor here. We can only hope and pray that the decision will be made by someone with clear eyes and a kind heart.

to: Anonymous 6:50 a.m. | 8:05 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

"The blame should be on the birth mother. It does not sound like she communicated with the birth father at the time Harvey was born. How could the deadline be less than two weeks?"

The guy had 9 months. He had every opportunity to NOT get her pregnant and then -- at any time -- without the birth mother's assistance or cooperation, could have filed paternity with the state.

He was in contact with her til her seventh month and then disappeared. he had plenty of chances to assert his paternity but CHOSE not to.

Time's up. They followed the law, and he abdicated responsibility.

If I were the Adoptive parents in utah, I wouldn't give the boy back either, and I'd fight a faulty Idaho ruling.

Texas Social Worker | 8:18 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

We just lobbied the legislature hard (and won) to create a paternal registry down here in Texas. The whole point of the parental registry is to avoid situations just like this (and they typically are fueled by grandparents, who sometimes didn't do a real good job parenting the first time around, and are looking for redemption). What's the point of a paternal registry if judges are going to thumb their noses at it? I guess some judges don't believe that state law is important enough to follow.

Anonymous | 8:22 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Well, if Idaho is going to give the father his rights, then he needs to reimburse the adoptive family for all of the monies spent on this adoption and legal battle. I think that's only fair, since he didn't file anything in a timely manner. He knew in plenty of time what needed to be done and he didn't. His own fault!!!!!! Idaho needs to back off and back out. Everything was done legally and the father is just plain out of luck.

How Sad | 8:23 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

What a very sad situation. For everyone, but especially that little innocent baby. Someone better stop and think of how this will or might affect him....

Judge Knot | 8:25 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

One judge rules he has some rights, a second judge refuses to overturn the ruling, and a third judge grants custody based on judge #1's ruling. BioFather signs register 23 days after Harvey makes an appearance and nobody is talking about whether or not the little guy was carried full term. BioFather is out of loop at 7 month stage of pregnancy and in most cases that means he is also out of luck. Maybe BioMother breaks off communication with BioFather so he won't know her deliver date in an attempt to foil his desire to be listed as the BioFather and judge #1 understands this and makes an exception to the statute's required timeframes. BioMother is clearly biased and BioFather's not talking. But pick up them stones and let them fly anyway!

As U Wish | 8:57 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

The solution is easy. Let the brith parents take care of the toddler and Jed and Callie Nielson can adopt my 15 year old!

Anonymous | 8:58 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Did some of you not read the article? The birth mother gave the birth father papers to sign and "he didn't sign them". He had his chance and chose not to. Idaho judges really blew it on this one. Birth father's Mom wants to play Gramma and is behind this fiasco. Leave the kid with the only parents he has known, his adoptive parents.

How the judge stole christmas | 8:59 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Why can a Birth Father oppose the birthmother's wishes regarding adoption when a birthfather can't oppose her wishes regarding an abortion?

ID Jazz | 9:06 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Being from Idaho all that I can say is how embarassed I am by the judicial system in Idaho and the Idaho judges who have seemed to ignore the laws of the state and ruled on feeling instead of law. If Idaho is stupid enough to give this child back then the adoptive family needs to be compensated by the state and the birth family for all expense of the child and court costs.

Anonymous | 9:18 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I am the grandmother of two adopted children. There is communication with 3/4 birth parents. They will never be sorry for their decision. All involved look forward to the children being of age when they can meet. I pray that Harvey and the Neilsons can remain a family and that someday the birth parents will be meet the fine young man they birthed.

Think about it | 9:24 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Isn't one of the reasons the deadlines are so short after the birth is to stop stuff like this from happening. Babies bond to their primary cargivers quickly. To baby Harvey the Nielsons are his parents. They are the ones who have loved and cared for him. What a rotten christmas gift for them if their son is taken away. Hopefully this is taken care of quickly so everyone can move on with their lives. Hopefully with the Neilsons as the rightful parents of Harvey.

Ridiculous | 9:36 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Shame on that judge in Idaho. He is obviously not concerned with the baby's best interest. It makes no sense to take him away from the only parents and home he has known to give him to a kid. I'm ashamed of our court system.

suspicious | 9:58 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

When the baby was still a newborn the father made it known he wanted to parent his child. Why would LDS social services pursue adoption when a biological parent is able and willing to raise their child? Could it be because the adopive parents were LDS and the father wasn't or was not active?

Protest | 10:02 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Anyone know how to get thousands to protest this judge or form a human wall in front of their house. I'll be there.

george | 10:04 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

any sympathy for this family vanished as they have ignored the legal order awarding custody to the Father.

It would seem the real cause of this is LDS Family Services not doing the right thing from the beginning.

re: suspicious | 10:07 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

The law is very clear about what the bio father can do to claim paternity. And he has NINE MONTHS in which to do it.

And he was ASKED to sign for paternity and chose not to.

I am the biggest LDS basher out there, but this has nothing to do with who is and isn't Mormon.

This has to do with following the law, which the young man willingly made decisions on that put them all in this position.

Legal Issues | 10:17 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Suspicious: This is a legal issue. The law states that the father needs to do certain things within a certain time frame. HE DID NOT DO IT! It has nothing to do with religion. The birth father did not act in a timely manner as stated in the law. Apparently, the mother went to LDS Social Services. I don't think LDS S.S. goes out conning pregnant women into giving up their babies. They tried to do what is best for the child. Amazingly enough, most (maybe all) of their clients are LDS. Go figure. They did what was required of them by the law which is the issue here.
Actually, I wonder if this is an attempt by the judge to slam the LDS church.

to many questions/no answers | 10:24 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

there are just to many questions and it seams like there are just to few answers. all the questions seam to deal with the bio-father though.
1.did he or did he not know his gf was pregnet? (yes)
2.did he or did he not help during the pregnecy? (don't know)
3.did he or did he not keep in contact during the pregnecy? (looks like it up until the 7 month, then where did he go after that?)
4.why can't we hear directly from him and not his attorney, or his mother? (lets have him tell his side of the story)(or could it be that his attorney and his mother don't want him to open his mouth?)
5.So when will some producer get involved and make a Sunday night movie about this whold stupid mess? (this looks like it someday will go to tv about the whole thing)

re:suspicious | 10:25 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I read about this story several weeks ago and learned that the mother was not cooperative in letting the father know what was going on. He was actively being excluded. At twenty years old he is going to be easily manipulated. He overcame that and came to the table while the child was still a newborn-- that should be enough for everybody. How could missing a deadline by a few weeks justify denying a parent his child?

goosserie | 10:27 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Another pushy grandmother longing to be mother to a baby again?

It seems to be one of the forces that has made "keeping the baby" so much more popular than giving it up for adoption for unwed mothers--the girls' own mothers have such a gooey desire for grandchildren, especially ones who will be utterly dependent on them since the babies' mothers aren't in a position to be mothers themselves. Why, they'll be living with grandma anyway since there isn't a husband-father present.

But this time it's the boy's mother--same phenomenon.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

Edited | 10:29 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Be careful what you say about the womens right to choose abortion. You might be edited. Women don't have the right to choose a good family in this country. The guy can stop it anytime he wants.

Judge is right | 10:34 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

LDS social services was wrong to pursue placing the child for adoption after they found out that the father had stepped up to the plate. They should have done what was morally right, not what was legally justified. Cut some slack for a scared, ill informed 20 year old. I bet suspicious is right about religion being the underlying motivator with legalities being the cover.

ladyblueyes | 10:45 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I am an adoptive mother. We sent out private investigators to find the biofather to terminate his rights as a parent. He could not be found. Two days before the adoption was final, he spoke up from who knows where. The judge said, "You abandoned your son for two years; you have no rights." and our son was ours!

BioGrandparents can request to be called grandparents of the adopted child. I would happily let the bio grands be grandparents. What a healthy idea: let the child know he is so loved by all, that he gets extra grandparents. He was loved enough by his bioParents to be placed in another loving home because they were unable to care for him as he needed to be cared for. Our boys (16 and 14 and handfuls) know that they were so loved by their bioparents that, even though they couldn't care for them at the time, they wanted my boys with a family who would love, nurture and care for them. Open adoptions are the best!

Fathers have no rights anyhow | 10:45 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Why should it be any different for him than for any other father who wants to be a dad, in a society which has relegated him to the role of "sperm donor"?

true blue | 10:47 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

this has nothing to do with religion. There was no father because he didn't have any legal rights to the baby. If he wants another baby there is an easy solution. The baby should stay.

If it were me | 10:48 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

If I were that baby I would want my blood relatives to do everything they could to keep me in the family. Whether that meant being raised by an aunt and uncle, grandparents, or my young father with some help from family. I would want to know that my family did what it took to keep me because I was valued that much. I know in some cases families really can't provide a home, but this is not one of those cases. Give away the grandkids... not in my family.

Anonymous | 10:49 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

We recently adopted a wonderful baby girl from China. The #1 reason why we chose to adopt from China was to avoid this type of unthinkable nightmare. We have no information on our daughter's birth parents, and it will be impossible for us or her to ever find out. This will be hard on her as she grows up - never knowing who her birth parents were, or what their situation was that drove them to abandon her on the steps of the orphanage. But I thank God at all times that I will never, EVER, have to worry about birthparents popping up and demanding that she be taken away from us. I can tell you from experience that she is every bit as bonded to us as if she was born to us. It makes me physically ill to think of human beings doing such a thing as dragging a baby or young child away from the only family he's ever known. My prayers are with this baby and the Nielsons, and I hope it is not long before sanity will be restored and this boy will be returned to his adoptive parents. They are his "real" family.

Simon Says | 10:54 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I have two older siblings that are adopted. I thank the Lord each day for the selfless sacrifice of the birth parents. I can only imagine how tough it must be to give up your child. However, what about the adoptive parents - they develope real bonds with their adopted children. What axe does this judge have to grind?

A few weeks | 10:58 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

We are talking about a baby. Not a playstation or video game left at your girlfriends house. We don't have weeks to change our minds about children. When a baby is placed. It is final unless the adoptive parents turn out to be bad, (very unlikely). The boy had 9 months to decided if he wanted to be a father.

If it were "you" | 11:05 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I hope "you" never have to get in the middle of a girl wanting to give her child a Mom and a Dad. That is a much better environment than a Grandpa (Dad) or a Uncle (Dad) who won't be around like a DAD should be. Having only a MOM and substitute dads, and that guy that hates my mom isn't as good as a stable two parent family. God Bless these girs that choose selflessly to give their child a chance at having a complete family. These girls are hero's.

Grandpa and Grandma are not a compete family. Yes, the child will survive, but statistically not as well as if placed for adoption.

quit pointing fingers | 11:05 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

We are a country based on law. If the laws were followed the adoption will be supported and the poor judges will be overruled with the good judges vindicated.

Paige | 11:13 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I placed my daughter for adoption almost eight years ago, but before I did so, I saw a lawyer and had the birth father sign papers forfeiting all his rights and responsibilities to her before she was born.

Why would I do that when so many others don't think to? Because of his mother. He had told me that she bullied him into fighting for custody over his first unplanned pregnancy with a former girlfriend. His mother never even found out about mine, but if she had, she would have done everything in her power to take my daugther, forcing me to keep her instead and deal with his family for the rest of our lives.

Since then, he impregnated another girl, married her, had a second child, divorced her, and now shuttles three children between two different mothers.

I will NEVER wonder if I did what was best for my daughter. He was obviously not ready to be a father, no matter how much his mother wished him to be.

just a thought | 11:18 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

here is just a simple little thought.
would the bio-father (and his mother) feel the same way if this little boy was say a special needs child? from the pics that i have seen in the paper the little boy looks happy and health.
but it is still a thought, really what if the child needed special care? could/would the bio father be willing to do it? or would the bio-father just pawn his baby off on his mother and father?
i still think this whole this is a big mess! i really think that it comes down to the bio-fathers mother wanting a grandchild.

Alex | 11:22 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I feel for the pain of the adopting parents involved. But a lesson I learn from this is that anyone adopting a child would be wise to get paperwork that's signed by both the father and the pregnant mother before proceeding.

Paige | 11:28 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Not sure why this didn't go through before, but...

Regarding the post from "If it were me" at 10:48am, it's not always in the best interest of the child to keep him/her with his/her blood relatives to make him/her feel "valued that much."

I valued my daughter enough to give her all the things I wanted her to have. It's preposterous to think that children placed for adoption are unwanted or unvalued. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

The birth father's immediate family has literally fallen apart with divorce, arrests, and the like in the eight years since my daughter was born. My daughter deserved much better than that, and I'm pleased to say I ensured she got what she deserved.

Reply: Alex | 11:30 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

You would do well to read the law, before making comments like that. The boy didn't come forward during the nine months and petition the court that he was the father willing to support that child. He in did in fact, by not going forward give up his right to decided the future of this child.

This law was put into place so this wouldn't happen. The Judge is wrong. He should read the law.

The baby should stay, it is the right thing to do. Common sense.

mommyrodgers | 11:35 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Let the judge and/or attorney be the ones to go to the Nilsens to remove Harvey. Let them see the face of a 6 month old as he is torn from the arms of the mother he knows. Let them see her face as this child is taken from her arms. Then, as they hand Harvey to his bio family, see what expression comes, despite the look on bio grandma's face. Will she calm his fears, or get frustrated because she doesn't have the magic that comes with bonding, such as Harvey has with his adoptive mom. I'm a grandma, I love my grandchild. But I do not have the "mom" magic with her. That magic goes with being a mom, not a grandma.

Edited II | 11:40 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

To Edited I - I thought that the Deseret Press had it in just for me when they edited my comment that this case is enough to encourage women to have abortions. I guess this fits the conservative standpoint that if we don't talk about abortions, no one will every think about having one.

re:suspicious | 10:25 a.m. Dec. | 11:43 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

It doesn't matter if she is cooperative or not. He has to go to the court and declare his possible paternity. He has to be willing to put up or shut up. She can't prevent this from happening. He could have done this anytime during the 9 months.

He didn't do what he should have done. There is not Grandparent disclosure by the way. They don't have to know anything.

Choice? | 11:48 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

It's a double standard. A girl can choose abortion, she just can't "CHOOSE" parents.

Where is the ACLU or the pro abortion groups to defend this adoptive family, who support a girls right to choose.

Page:
1
2
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.