Deseret News | Idaho senator slams LDS adoption agency

Reader comments
Idaho senator slams LDS adoption agency

206 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
Next >

viking | 12:59 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

As an attorney who handled adoptions years ago, I know the birth mother in many cases does not want anyone to contact her. She may have cleaned up her act and does not want anyone, including her present inlaws, to know of an out of wedlock child. Having been assured of lifetime confidentiality she may have given birth and allowed the child to be adopted out. Under present circumstances, a prospective mother may choose abortion rather than adoption to keep the matter private.

gizmo | 1:09 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I've heard a lot of nightmare stories about ldsfs. Most people I know here in N Utah will not even consider ldsfs.

Adoption Advocate | 1:18 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Seems to me Sen. Jorgenson (who would appear to be the birth father's senator, judging from the geography) is doing a bit of grandstanding here. He knows full well his constituent is completely at fault, having failed to establish his parental rights prior to the deadline via the putative father registry. Funny the birth father is all-of-a-sudden interested in his offspring, AFTER the OB/GYN and hospital bills were paid. Having failed his early responsibilities as a father, he's now "stepping up"--how noble!
As far as Sen. Jorgenson's rant--he admits the birth mother and LDSFS followed Idaho and Utah law. If you don't like the law, Senator, by all means fix it, but don't blame the Idaho Senate's inadequate legislation on others.
And last of all, where does young Harvey fit into all this political and legal wrangling? At some point the "adults" in this affair need to stop the tug-of-war, take a step back, and determine what's best for the child. Research is startlingly clear that children in traditional mother-father homes fare dramatically better in key areas of their development. As a society let's promote that where we can--for the children's sake....

Comments continue below

Adopted | 1:23 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I was adopted through LDSFS in the late 1940's, as was my sister. We have the same birth mother, so we're happy to have been raised together. At that time, records were sealed so, except for her name, we have no information about our birth mother. Our parents have now passed on, and we would like to find our birth mother to let her know that we have had a good life, to thank her for giving us life and making sure we were put into a good home, and to let her know she has grandchildren, if she wants to know. Also, there is at least one other sibling, as my sister was listed as the 3rd child on her birth certificate. I would like to see legislation that would provide a means whereby birth children can find birth parents, if the parent wants to be found. We would like to know medical history, as the importance of that was not known 60 years ago. Our mother would be about 82 now, if she is alive. I will follow this closely to see what happens.

Filthy Lucre | 1:26 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Don't these adoption agencies make a profit on "helping" distressed young mothers by taking their babies away from them?

To Gizmo | 1:37 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

A tad irresponsible, passing on innuendo as though it were established fact, don't you think? Have you any direct or personal experience with LDSFS? We have, both in our immediate and extended family and with friends, and have not seen anything to suggest any impropriety. My observation is that LDSFS goes overboard to avoid even the appearance of anything inappropriate. They have very strict guidelines their case-workers must follow, which in some circumstances have been somewhat frustrating to us, but when seen from both sides make a lot of sense.
In fact, one of our case-workers was let go over a violation that wasn't, but could have appeared to be, favoritism. Not saying there couldn't be isolated problems, but they seem to be dealt with decisively and swiftly.
Bottom line: LDSFS provides a much-needed, much-appreciated service that has blessed the lives of thousands of birth mothers, children and adoptive parents. Be cautious about carelessly bad-mouthing them!

Steve J | 1:40 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Sen. Jorgenson comment does not make sense. The adoption agency followed the law but more is required. If more is required of the agency why isn't more required of the "father"? He failed to follow the law but now the good ole boys of Northern Idaho have decided even though the "father" did not follow the law he has rights! From all the accounts in the DNews, the "father" does not seem fit to have sole custody of the baby when he barely is able to provide for himself.

???? | 1:52 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

@ Filthy Lucre--
Where on earth are you coming from? I'm certain there are those who profit from adoptions (attorneys come to mind, but many of them offer their services at very reasonable rates), but there are a slew of non-profit agencies, many affiliated with different faiths.
And what's up with the "taking their babies away from them" theme? Who gored your ox?

ida-who? | 2:04 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Mike Jorgensen is talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he slams LDS Adoptions and on the other he admits that they followed the law.

Typical politician!

To- "To Gizmo" | 2:16 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Don't try to suppress other's opinions because you don't like them. A builder needs 2x4s. A baker needs flour, and an adoption agency needs babies or they are out of business. The ads I hear on the radio soliciting babies are unseemly in my opinion. Sure, you can provide a service to those who really desire it, but stop marketing just to keep your business going.

Some thoughts | 4:21 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

To Filthy Lucre, LDSFS perhaps more than any other adoption agency, does not profit. In fact it runs at a "loss" because it is substantially subsidized by the LDS church. Private adoption agencies usually charge 3-5 times what LDSFS charges.

I think that when you have a good family that clearly offers a better future to a child than the one it currently has, there can be some pressure to get the adoption done quickly before time expires and the birth parents decide to exercise their rights. This is not the first time I have seen an adoption go forward without an attempt to contact the birth father in hopes that the statutory period for the father to exercise rights expires. The Idaho law appears to say there is no obligation for the agency to contact the father. But for adopting parents (I am one also), it raises a risk that the birth father may find out and decide to exercise rights. I know it's hard for adopting parents who have waited so long for a baby, but I can't say it's unreasonable to expect an agency to contact the father and ensure consent in advance.

Camille | 5:24 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I agree with Adoption Advocate and Steve J. Personally I feel that the birth father's parents are the driving force behind this mess not the LDSFS. I really don't think the birth father really cares about the baby or he would have started to care during the pregnancy. Think about the child. Leave him where he's at. It would be a more stable environment for him.

meri | 5:27 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

To Filthy lucre: There is absolutely no profit involved in LDSFS. Check things out before making accusations.

To Gizmo: I suspect that the reason some in northern Utah will not consider LDSFS (other than wild fictional rumors told in order to provide justification for selfish decisions) is that these same people will not consider ANY adoption agency. For a number of years, it has become trendy--even chic--to proudly wave the I-can-do-it-on-my-own-single-parenthood banner. I have had many, many college students doing this. They proclaim that they don't need a father involved in the baby's life. In the meantime, taxpayers are supplying food stamps, rent subsidies, welfare checks, medical cards, tuition waivers, etc. so that the single parent proves he/she can do it alone. And during this time the single parent banner is also supposed to be accepted as an excuse for not studying or not doing the assigned homework.

In addition, it is often the grandmother who is behind the anti-adoption movement, unable to bear the thought that a different grandmother will usurp "her rights."

Those who make unselfish decisions are to be praised for recognizing what is best for the child.

Bob G | 5:30 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

For the good of the child, how mundane the phrase has become. Both states laws are very vague and an easy target to strip fathers of any parental rights. The mothers are always present and can make their wishes known, but failing to contact fathers is an outright injustice to the children and the biological father. Both states present laws are speaking for the father and the child. As long as the biological father has not been contacted no child should be allowed to be adopted. Actual contact should be required whether the parents are married, commiting adultry, or having out of wedlock affairs. The child deserves and has the right to be with it's natural parent if the parent wants the child. Laws on adoption are interpeted many ways by different laws in every state. In some states, like Utah, the birth or genetic father of an adopted child can be charged with child support payments by state agencys, retroactive and accumulative. Child support laws and adoption laws also need to co-exist. Don't see anything in the law either that says a father should be notified of any secret pregnancies. An adoption coverup are what the laws allow.

Grandpa | 5:48 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Senator Jorgenson wants to turn the baby over to a 20-year-old kid who isn't responsible enough to be around when the baby was born? Now THAT'S responsible! It seems to me that the law is about right as it is. The primary goal should be what's best for the child -- not what's convenient for some pimply "parent" who drifts in and out the child's life at will. No, "Filthy Lucre", LDS Family Services does not make a profit on arranging adoptions. Other services might. One of our greatest blessings is a granddaugher adopted through LDSFS. In her case, they did find the father early in the process -- on another continent!

Blaine | 6:06 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I'd say that Sen. Jorgensen is using this situation mostly to expose his religious bigotry.

diligentdave | 6:23 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Headlines, like the one on this story, are misleading. They tend to give credence to an assertion. I know this is often common journalistic practice. But anyone can make a claim. And headlining it makes the claim much more often than not have an air of credibility, when in fact, as in this case, the assertion has zero credence in fact.

JoAnn | 6:31 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

This baby should be left with the adoptive parents. The biological father now wants to be involved AFTER the fact. Had the BF had any contact with the birth mom BEFORE the baby was born he would have known she was giving the baby up for adoption. Only after it has happened did he decide to seek custody. The BF could have taken whatever measures necessary to get the baby then. The adoption agency is not at fault they followed protocol. Let these adoptive parents raise this baby they love so much.

Rachel | 6:43 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Jorgensen needs to get his brain right. It's the father's fault. He had his opportunity, he was too late, it was his responsibility. Blaming an agency when they followed the law, and the law actually makes sense... he's an idiot. At what point are people going to take responsibility for their own actions, instead of blaming everyone else and suing?

outraged | 6:56 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

The Idaho judge didn't follow Idaho law. There were 3 requirements for the birth father to satisfy, according to law in order to establish his interest in his child. He did none of these, yet the judge gives him custody? Where are the rights of the adoptive parents? Where are the rights of the child? Just because your DNA caused life doesn't mean you have rights!

sandra mc | 6:58 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Sen Jorgenson comment does make sence. This adoption agency has done this before I should know. This has happened to my son and he has been in a 2 year fight to get his son back. His child couldn't be adopted. And where do you all beleive that LDS or the couple payed for the birth, The tax payers do. In my son's case they hid the child from my son even had the name sealed in court so he couldn't find him. LDS family service and the adoption agency have been found in violations for their actions on ethic's and not informing the father of his rights. LDS Church, family services and even this couple need to give this man his child back or they could be in a second lawsuit. In texas right now LDS church is going to have to show their fincial records, The first time since 1959 all because of tearing a family apart. Father's do have rights and until LDS learn this they are in for alot of lawsuits. And these adopted parents can be sued to. Wake up people a child is gave life by a mother and father.

Abducted | 7:10 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Filthy Lucre is right. These agencies counsel young women NOT to tell the father involved

elsie | 7:26 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Seems like the father contributed nothing but one cell to that child. That does not make him a "father". Nothing indicates he did anything toward support and care of his pregnant girlfriend and their child. The mother who carried that baby inside her for nine months made the wrenching choice of adoption, to giver her baby a chance at a better life. Now some selfish, walking sperm bank wants his rights?!

LDS profit mill | 7:55 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

The church is always concerned with money! If they weren't why wouldn't they share their income statements with everybody. Kind of makes me wonder, of course you can't do that, you have been told not to concern yourself with that. The leaders will take care of that for you. Sheep!

BH | 7:56 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Sen. Jorgenson states that LDSFS is at fault for not doing enough, then admits that LDSFS did everyting according to Idaho law, and that the law falls short. Am I the only one that thinks Senator Jorgenson is giving us a political runaround.

Sad when a man will attack an organization that does as much good as LDSFS, only for the purpose of political mileage.

Anonymous | 8:01 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

So if the problem is the law, why is Jorgensen beating up LDSFS? That's kind of dumb. Why doesn't he beat up the state of Idaho for their adoption laws?

If we're not careful, we're going to make adoption so difficult, and so unappealing that no one will go through that torture.

I say it's the biological father who is the problem, he gets a girl pregnant, doesn't marry her, disappears, then claims some right to custody of the child. Yes, change the laws, but change them so that duds like this cannot claim a child they previously "abandoned".

Marky | 8:02 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Sen. Jorgenson is demonstrating a profound lack of intelligence. He blames LDSFS for following the law? WOW! What a crime they have committed. Let's take them to task and get them to clean up their act. How dare they assume that if the follow the law, their actions are appropriate? What were they thinking?

Filthy Lucre? | 8:03 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

What in the world are you talking about?

IL adoptive mom | 8:36 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

We adopted a baby from LDS 13 years ago. The process from the time we submitted paperwork to getting a baby was seven years and seven months. During that time there were many problems. Every horror story I had ever heard plus more occurred. We were the victims, not of LDSFS, but of the fallout from the Baby Richard and Baby Jessica cases. Our judge made us advertise in the paper for unknown fathers just in case the birth mom lied, and the man who signed off his parental rights had also lied. LDS's screening was grueling with the worst item being an intimate marital satisfaction inventory. No birth parent has ever had to be questioned about such matters to make sure their marriage was stable. I may not have liked LDS's invasion but surviving their scrutiny meant we were pretty stable. Adoption is not an easy process under any circumstance. A subsequent set of adoptions for us to Russia was filled with financial loss from a bad private Utah adoption agency that went broke with our money. In light of these personal experiences. I would not say that LDSFS acted irresponsibly; if anything they went overboard to obey law.

david m | 8:38 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

It's about time! Sen Jorgenson is dead right. Please help us to inform him of the S.Mcdonald case in texas. In this case he did file the registry before the thirty days even objected before the child was born and LDS still took the child. How noble(to adoption advocate). So when LDSFS says this man did not file with the registry on time it probably would not have mattered, they most likely would have proceeded no matter what! In S McDonald, case the child was stolen from Texas,hid for 16 months, In guess-Ashton Idaho,before S McDonald even knew where or who had his child,and for such a period of time it would appear to be in the child's best interest to remain with them.S McDonald has to currently travel from Tex to Idaho once a month to see his child.LDSFS was ordered to pay 100,000 in attorney fee's. Once again LDS caused this tragedy! (See the pattern) ?

Big Bob | 8:40 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I've heard a lot of unflattering things about Gizmo, in fact there are a lot of people that think that Gizmo is not a nice person.

To Gizmo 2 | 8:41 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I shall try to contain my ire as I address your ignorant remarks. I am the grandfather of three adopted children all of whom are the most adorable children I have ever known and loved, and were adopted through LDSFS. The LDSFS is as professional as they come. They strive in every way to make the adoption process as agreeable to all parties concerned and to maintain the privacy and dignity of both the children and the parents.

As long as it is run by human beings there will always be human error.

To Filthy Lucre & Gizmo | 8:44 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

First of all, I must say that it is highly entertaining to read comments from people who have little knowledge and no experience with adoption. My wife and I have adopted through LDS Family Services. Many of our close friends haved done so as well. I have rarely heard a negative comment about LDSFS by those who used their services.

Secondly, LDSFS makes enough money on adoptions to keep the doors open. There is no set price for an adoption. It is based on a certain percentage of the families income that is seeking to adopt. Believe me, when compared to other agencies, LDSFS is a much, much, much more afordable. "Filty lucre"? "Taking their babies away from them"? Do you know that every birth mother that goes to LDSFS does so with zero contact from LDSFS. They are not actively seeking birth mothers to come into the agency. It is totally a birth mothers choice to place the child.

Ignorance can be extinguished with a little knowledge.

Abrazo Adoption | 8:44 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Sen. Jorgenson is right on target; the laws are the problem. Adoption exists to provide loving homes for those who without willing bio-parents available to raise them, but Utah laws sidestep this truth by enabling agencies to ignore the "father factor." Ethical agencies must go the extra mile to ensure that the best interests of children being placed require adoption; this means seeking out missing fathers, first, whether the birthmother wants him involved or not. A child's best interests should always supercede a parent's "right to privacy" lest a host of sins get committed under the cloak of secrecy.

STEWARDSHIP | 8:49 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

BETTER GET SOME!

To Gizmo's To Gizmo | 8:52 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

What's up with your overly defensiveness in critizing gizmo? You must be one of those pumped up on Joseph Smith Moes who just can't stand anything or anyone discrediting anything carrying those precious L-D-S letters. But the one thing you have right is that LDSFS does go out of its way to avoid the LOOK of inappropriate behavior even when there is. LDS deceit is second nature to that organization and all others connected with freak church Get a life you dried up Moe...anything LDS is suspect.

Anonymous | 8:55 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Yes, LDSFS Is very bad news! They need to cleanup their act! Some of the people they have working for them are not worthy to even be members...STINKS!

To Filthy Lucre | 9:05 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Sounds like you are just trying to get a fight going and don't have any personal experience with adoption. Those agencies help protect the birth mother's rights and choices much better than if it were left up to only lawyers and family members. No one "takes a birth mother's baby away from her." A birth mother who seeks out the adoption agency-private or public--is given educational materials to help in her decision-making process, so that she can choose what will be best in the long run for her and the child--not make a purely emotional decision influenced by pressure from family members and others. If she chooses to terminate parental rights and let her baby be adopted by another family, then she has not had her baby taken from her, has she?
Some adoption agencies might run a for-profit business, others base their fees on a sliding scale for the families, and others are run with only enough fees to work as a non-profit, charitable. And it's typically the adopting family who pays, not the birth mother.
Think before you jump to conclusions.

LDSFS Adoptive Father x 3 | 9:09 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I have adopted 3 children through LDSFS and can state unequivocally that they are a top notch adoption agency. Everything goes beyond the law's literal wording to ensure compliance. Why should LDSFS have to do more than the law requires? Safety of child and mother are paramount above his wants.

Since when was our judicial system made in charge of legislation. A judge is to interpret the law rather than decide the law is "bad" and rule in a way that the law was not intended. What is best for Harvey not for the biological father?

'Filthy Lucre' - Most adoption agencies are nonprofit organizations (including LDSFS) and are simply facilitators for birthmothers who recognize that their child would be better off not being raised by her. There is no "taking their babies away from them", but rather assisting with the identification of a family that will provide the child with the environment the birthmother considers ideal for her child. I admire our 3 birthmothers' sacrifice and devotion to their children.

'Gizmo' - Without question, LDSFS is not for everyone. If you don't want to have your child placed in an temple-eligible LDS family why would you consider LDSFS?

D Andrews | 9:18 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

LDS PROFIT MILL
Oh, yes I'm sure if the LDS church released their financial statements, all of the sudden you would become an avid supporter, right? NOPE, you would just use the information for fodder to feed your obvious bias against the church. I'm sorry you have whatever problems you have with the church. Have you thought about what things in life make you the happiest? May I recommend you focus your time and energy on those things. If your answer is "Lashing out against the LDS Church makes me happiest," then I am sorry for you and pray for something good to happen in your life so you can find true happiness. Life is far too short to spend it being negative. So, smile. It actually feels good!

Rich | 9:21 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

WOW.... I feel sorry for the child and the adoptive parents. The child's bio-father should have been more responsible and "put a hat on it" To me it looks like he wasnï¿½t responsible then, and he is still not responsible. Having sex doesn't make you a man and making a baby doesn't make you a dad. This young man needs to do the most responsible thing and leave the baby where he is, and leave him be.

private | 9:22 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

So the LDSFS is the one to blame for following Idaho law as it is written? Sounds like a typical liberal senator blame the agency for doing what we said and getting it right. LDSFS could have done more? The law you passed does not require them to. This is clearly a case in which judges and lawyers are making the simple insanely complex. Who is stuck in the middle of all this alleged benificial actions? A small child who will be damaged for the rest of his life. Is it a wonder why judges rate as high as lawyers anymore? Until the greedy lawyers and power mad judges can get thier act together this will have a chilling effect on all in country adoptions. Once again those who claim to have the "interest" of the children at heart have proven with actions that thier words are poisonous to any interests but thier own. I wonder what thier excuse will be if this child ends up a burden on society rather than contributing to it?

Wow! | 9:29 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Sure makes me want to run out and adopt....no thanks. I have two adopted siblings, but both not from this country....too many interpretations of law here and no one knows who has the "rights." Law makers need to set things straight first before I would even consider adopting here.

concerned | 9:31 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

The LDSFS have provided a much needed service throughout the years . My family has had several members work with them with very positive results.
From what I have observed and read they always do what the law requires. I think it is a shame that the Senator put the blame on them and not expected the young man to take responsibility for not registering nor with keeping contact with the young woman throughout her ordeal. If he wasn't responsible before the baby's birth I find it hard to believe he will be responsible afterwards.The child's welfare is the most important issue.

jeff g | 9:36 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

It's one story without all the facts. How about everyone keep an open mind till you know all the facts. LDSFS is wonderful probably 99% of the time but it's ran by people and people are not perfect.
Be a good jury and ask more questions before you decide.
Or go ahead and pick a side and condenm the other thinking you must be 100% right.
what the hell am I doing wasting my time here arguing with, well I don't know what.

------ | 9:40 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Jorgenson's comment does NOT make sense. LDSFS met the requirements stated by the law. If more was required of them, it needed to be stated in the law. Perhaps the law does need to be changed, but it was what it was when this all took place. Also, "what's best for the child" is NOT mundane. It's the truth!

Thoughts | 9:43 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

What is interesting to me in the discussion since this story broke several weeks ago are the statements blithely disparaging being raised in one-parent families. I believe the quality of childraising goes to the individual circumstances. Holding to the notion of a particular family configuration being superior discounts all the excellent people raised in "non-traditional" families, including many in the LDS hierarchy. As well, many people flourish in situations deemed horrific. Likewise, how many know the tragedy of a child caught up in a lifestyle of despair who was raised in a "complete" family? Family composition may not have the impact we've been conditioned to believe. This child or any child may become an exemplary member of society through its own initiative in taking responsible action for its life. This birth father or any birth parent may do the same. In the end, we are all the product of who we as individuals are willing to be responsible enough to become. Life is. Experience is positive or negative solely by our choice in how we allow it to affect us. Whine or grow up.

Hypnotist | 9:42 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I support a state registry in which children or parents can find each other after adoption. I have two adopted children who are adults now; both were able to find their parents and siblings. Both have bonded tightly with one of their siblings. In fact, in the case of my son, his brother came to live in our area as soon as we found him; he had been raised in foster care and literally had no one. When we met at the airport, I said, Eddie, if you are my son's brother, what does that make me to you?" He said, "Mom?" It's been Mom ever since. He was 30, my other son 25 at that time. When he was deployed to Iraq, my husband and I adopted him (at age 39), and he was sealed to us in the temple. He has returned from Iraq safely. My nephew, through a Florida registry, just last weekend met his biological mother and 3 brothers. All are thrilled to have the circle complete, including the parents who raised him. The thing about love is that is mulitplies as it divides. Let's get a Utah registry going.

Vegas Ed | 9:45 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

If you want your child to be raised by good LDS people, go through the LDSFS. If not, go elsewhere. Period. My brother adopted his two children, one through LDSFS, and the other elsewhere. Guess which adoption process was better.

To: Bob G | 9:47 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

What is all this about stripping the fathers rights? It is obvious that the only stripping that went on here involved the birth father and birth mother! But that does not mean that the birth father was wronged in any way! On the contrary, after all some of you are still entertaining his ludicrous ideas that the child "belongs" to him.

Just goes to show you that you can never argue with an idot (politician, judge or otherwise), they will drag you down to their level then beat you with experience!!! So which category does the politician and judge belong to?? Who's the bigger fool - the fool or the follower????? Point made!!

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
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.