Reader comments
Birth dad in custody fight faces allegations

The biological father admits to smoking two bowls of marijuana and drinking wine. First off, isn't marijuana illegal in all states including Iowa? Second, he is a minor if the legal age for alcohol is 21 in Iowa like it is in most states... and third, consensual statutory rape? Doesn't sound like he needs to be raising a baby!!! He needs to raise himself to become a responsible, law abiding young man!!! I pray this beautiful baby gets to stay with his adoptive family!

It seems that this case would be a slam dunk for an appellate court to reverse, especially with the relationship between the Judge and the birth fathers' family (not the mention the Father failed to preserve his rights according to the procedures proscribed by law)

The procedures "prescribed" by law (not "proscribed" as that means prohibit) rest first and foremost in the 14th ammendment to the US Constitution, which gives the father de facto parental rights (That is a very good thing, as we, like the self-perceived well-intentioned Nazi's, often seem to find such well sounding reasons to violate inalienable rights to sever natural bonds), and then may be supplemented by state law. Anything requiring the biological father to do some sort of dog and pony show during the pregnancy is simply not a principle that constitutional republic as ours can live by in good conscience. People need to stop moralizing with their own skewed personal biases and judge by principles that must govern and rule if we even want to pretend to be just. This article is another smear by the press against fathers. It's interesting that they dug into the his past (remember we elected a president who smoked pot; I don't think it's a valid reason to strip someone's right to his own child) but not into the adoptive parents. I doubt they are perfect either. The point is it's the wrong thing to smear. Shame on LDS Family services for this.

How DARE he try to have his son when he can't be perfect like the rest of us are. Two whole bowls of marijuana! WINE! Oh, the humanity!!!

. . .but one must wonder what a look in the adoptive parents' past might reveal . . .

Previously I wrote in this forum, asking why this keeps happening, why isn't the father notified? I didn't realize then what I have since learned, that LDS social services followed Idaho law to the letter. This being the case, the couple ought to be able to keep the child.

I still feel sorry for the bio father. I put myself in his shoes and I really do feel his pain. Nevertheless the law was followed and any changes at this point would hurt the couple, the baby and peoples confidence in the adoption system. Let this be a lesson to fathers, if you have a girlfriend why may become pregnant, you need to find out what the law is in your state and protect yourself if keeping the baby is something you want to do. Let all sides learn a lesson from this.

That boy doesn't deserve to have Harvey. If he can't obey the law himself. I don;t think he's grown enough to handle any responsibilities. And this Judge Burton needs to be expelled from this case if he thinks that a boy can be a "parent" when he's broken the law in so many things. Crazy!! The Nielsens deserve to keep Harvey cause they are responsible and have shown it already. Buying presents for a baby as the so-called natural father has doen is no basis for being ready to be a parent. Hold on tight to Harvey Mr. and Mrs. Nielsen!

The law about the parental rights are what should be changed. Parental rights should exist for eternity unless revoked in writing, not by an implied law. Who knows if the father was left out and not notified on purpose to instigate the adoption and subvert the fathers rights. This law implying the father must show intention is very easy to manipulate by attorneys and is wrong. The father, 2 weeks after the baby was born was trying to gain custody, and before the adoption was approved, that shows his intent. The courts and law have been manipulated in this case. These new accusations have no bearing on his parental rights, if it did, there are many children would be taken from their birth parents. The adoption laws and courts are being manipulated again and public opinions and emotions are also being manipulated. Just give the boy to his real father and stop all the haggling over a law that has subverted his parental rights. The only thing that matters is the natural father wants his child back that was stolen from him.

He smoked marijuana, drank wine, and then DROVE her home? What a winner.

It is plain to see that the birth father is all about himself. Do judges look at what is best for the child?

Dear AnotherReader
It is nice you know all about the law of Iowa, but the birth father is from IDAHO, the state just north of UTAH. I do agree with you about his fitness to be a father, maybe the next time he gets a girl pregnant he can make sure he gets the baby he wants so bad. Or maybe he could get married and have a baby with his wife. What a sad case. Adoptive parents make sure that the father is in agreement with the adoption before you take the baby. I also think that there is some blame to LDSSS for not doing their part in the adoption, is this their first adoption?

maybe he has grown up? give him a chance.

This makes me so sick! When a judge makes a ruling using pure emotion and disregards even the rules and timelines of a legal adoption, his ruling should definitely be overturned, retired or not. I have had similar problems with Idaho judges in a custody case. It seems they favor the father quite unduly, and in our case, it has nearly ruined the children's lives permanently. What is it about some judges who never really consider how a decision will affect the children? Obviously a child will do better in a home where there is a father and mother who are old enough to be responsible, rather than a weenie for a teenager who makes minimum wage and lives with his parents, smokes, does drugs, and sleeps around. How hard could that decision could have been???? Will someone stand up for these adoptive parents? Who will rescue the child?

So, what we're saying here is that a parent's rights should be revoked just because he or she experimented with sex and drugs? Do we really want that kind of governmental intrusion into our parenting? What would be the next "bad act" that would qualify for revocation of this right?

I think it's worth remembering that our rights as parents are fundamental and protected by the Constitution. They should not be revoked so easily. As a parent, I applaud the judge's ruling. It allows a "time out" so that the biological father's rights can be appropriately addressed. He is, after all, the parent here.

I sympathize for the pre-adoptive couple here. This is a very difficult situation. But just because they may well be able to provide a better life for this child does not justify steamrolling over the biological father's rights. I mean, there certainly are many well-meaning people out there who could provide a much better life for my kids that I am able to do. Does that mean that our legal system should allow them to take away my kids?

It's Mr. Tenneson's son, give him back and not tomorrow .. TODAY.

Upon first hearing this case I sympathized with the birth father. But if these allegations are true the system would be stupid to place the kid back with him. This guy doesn't even seem to be able to take care of himself let alone his own child.

What does Iowa have to do with anything?

if this is the respect of the Nielsen's to a court order, perhaps it is time for some 'balanced' reporting of their 'past'.
This father (perfect or not) is simply asking the family to honour a legal decision, instead they seem not to to respect the court or only wish to if it goes their way.
If this is their attitude now - I hate to imagine what type of parents they are!

What a shock! A pair of unwed teens fornicate and produce a child and now everyone's up in arms because one of the two isn't perfect? This is the first 19 year old boy who had sex with a 16 year old girl??? What they smoked some pot? I pray that we'll start to get some unbiased reporting on this case. My heart goes out to this troubled young man and his family and I'm sickened by the hand wringing and lack of compassion for him that is shown by well-intentioned LOCAL people who have been prejudiced from the slanted reporting that has been presented here. I want to know what relationship exists between the reporter and Tyler's guardian family! Send Tyler back to his father in accordance with the judges' rulings! Obey the law of the land!

Some stories, like this one, unfortuantely, are hard to read. It is terrible to even try and imagine two people that sound as good as the Neilsons do have to go through something like this. I do not think it is right, but obviously, I am not the judge. This birth father not only should have said something waaaay earlier, but also does not sound like the kind of father that deserves to raise a child, especially at 19. Good luck to the family. I hope you get to keep your child for Christmas. Merry Christmas to all.

"I still haven't come to grips with the fact my baby is coming home and we have the responsibility of taking him on," the 19-year-old Knight said.

Knight said she and Tenneson discussed the baby's future often...

"He couldn't make up his mind," Knight said. "It was emotionally wearing.