Reader comments
Letter asks for baby Harvey back

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

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!

its right to do

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!!

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...

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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....

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.