Deseret News | Idaho senator slams LDS adoption agency

Reader comments
Idaho senator slams LDS adoption agency

206 comments | Read story

Anonymous | 9:56 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Oh no!
More fodder for the "You hate us Mormons" crowd.

Spring | 10:04 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

We adopted through LDSFS many years ago and we were extremely pleased. Our Child is grown now and NOT interested in knowing the birth parents. We have given our child that choice, but he says he is not interested in knowing the birth parents. He has said on many occasions that we are the only parents that he cares to ever know. Perhaps he will change his mind a bit later on in life, however, that will be his own choice.

We are so blessed and thankful to LDSFS.

Idaho Senator | 10:09 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Mr. Jorgenson, laws are made so people know how to act. In this case, the LDS agency followed perfectly the law that was established. How can you ask more or blame the agency? Maybe as a law maker you should be doing more to fix the law rather than criticizing those who follow the law.

Comments continue below

Joe Schmoe | 10:11 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Another Idaho Senator thinking clearly........

Sheesh! I hope he reads this article. He sounds like an idiot! And a bigot!

Reminds me of the joke | 10:15 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Q. How many kids do you have?
A. None that I know of.

Aside from the joke, how does it happen that a young lady can hide a baby from the child's father.

He knows what he did, who he did it with, and what has happened since.

If over a nine-month period, he sees no red flags and follows them up, then how can he claim that he will be a fit parent for an infant?

I KNOW there are no children out there that I don't know about.

meri | 10:16 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

To LDS Profit Mill: Are you willing to share all your financial dealings with anyone and everyone who asks? From your enemy down the street to all potential relatives to business competitors to greedy family members who may start complaining that you aren't sharing enough with them to adult children who expect you to continue supporting them?

ID Jazz | 10:16 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

RE:Thoughts Can you run over to the Psychology Dept. at the U and have that translated to english.

LDSFS is not to blame here its the interpretation of the law by inferior judges,lawyers, and senators.

I just wanted Utah to know we are all not as dumb as some of our red neck officials here.

Joe Schmoe | 10:23 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

One more Idaho Senator thinking clearly.....Sheesh!

I hope he reads this article....he sounds like and idiot, and a bigot!

Adoptive Parent | 10:31 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Yet another reason I would never adopt a child born in the USA. Even if you follow the law, paid the legal & other feees and bills, and been a responsible parent for your new child, a Judge with the strike of a gavel can "steal" your child years later becaue a birthparent (or worse the parents of the birthparent) change their mind. The choice to adopt is not an easy one...and in many cases it is the only option for some couples to have children. There are thousands of children in America that need to be adopted, and stories like this ensure that they will grow up in the state foster systems. I adopted internationally to avoid these legal and emotional pitfalls.
As to the writer of the article: quoting a non-submited bill? What is the point of this? What are the odds of the bill (a) actually being submitted as is, (b) surviving committe intact, and (c) becomming law as written? Where is the Journalistic integrety? It would have been just as responsible to ask the American Fork couple, "If you were to change the law what would you have it say?"

Anonymous | 10:32 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

LDSFS is an amazing agency that helped me through a hard time in my life and made a difficult situation a wonderful one. That senator is an idiot, I guarantee he would be singing a different tune if he'd ever been in my shoes.

sounds like | 10:32 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

It sounds like Jorgensen has been in touch with his good friends the Tennesons, but doesn't really have a very deep understanding of what he is proposing. First of all, he does not specifiy what "doing more" means. As the article states, requiring "more" could open up a can of worms. Does a 14 year old kid whose parents don't know his girlfriend is pregnant really want certified mail from an adoption agency coming to his house? What if the birth father is a child molester? Isn't the registry a great way to protect the privacy and "rights" of everyone involved, Mr. Jorgensen?

Jon | 10:40 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

This is unbelievable. LDSFS followed the law, as it was written and voted upon by the legislative branch of the Idaho government, of which SENATOR Jorgenson is a member. Jorgensen is a member of the group that made this law, and heï¿½s blaming LDSFS for this, even though THEY FOLLOWED THE LAW. Heï¿½s got to be the most idiotic moron in the world. For all intents and purposes, he said, ï¿½You followed the law that my group implemented, and therefore youï¿½re to blame." Anyone else see a problem here? What a jerk.

Anonymous | 10:40 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Don't blame the LDS church for those who are hired to work for it. Employees are separate from the gospel. They are people with a job and people make mistakes rather they are LDS or not.

Mahonri | 10:42 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

"LDSFS followed the statute and did everything they were required to do," said LDSFS attorney David McConkie.

Typical of these people, the letter of the law to hide behind, unless it is them who are getting screwed. No wonder Utah mormons are universally despised.

sandra mc | 10:42 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

If you think that LDS family services does the right thing your crazy. The Texas state board of social worker found the social worker in the case of S Mcdonald guilty of ethics also LDS family services where found guity of not informing the birth father going against their rules (no 2 face to face contact). In this father's case the birth mother were in a 3 year relationship and she had moved in with another man and with the LDS Family services hid the fact she was having this father's child. So when you all say that the child needs to be left with a couple that most likely signed a high risk placement over a birth parent maybe this should happen to all parents who have children. Let's see who has the most money, bigger house ect.

Come On, LDS Profit Mill?? | 10:43 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Haters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints get a life. We sacrifice for the church and for Christ that his Kingdom may grow and fill the whole world. That is Biblical. We sacrafice for the kingdom...we want it to grow. (Ps.50:2-5) Read your Bibles! For you that don't, you are part of Babylon and just don't get it and have no business in prying into the financial affairs of God's Kingdom here on earch except for your own financial gain.

re:Vegas Ed | 10:47 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Which one?

Dude, can you finish a post?

Wolves in Sheeps Clothing | 10:47 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Mr. Jorgenson

How can you blame a third party for the lack of responsibility of the first party... ergo, the very legislative body which you are presently a part of. You sir, as did the other representatives have the responsibility to do the job right the first time. Fortunately, you also have the presence of mind to recognize the failure of the publicly elected body, that includes yourself, to get the job properly done. You should be commended for that, but you cannot be taken seriously by the public when you throw stones inside your own glass house......common sense rules on that one my friend..........I also beg to ask your whereabouts when this obviously inadequate legislative piece was introduced and voted upon.

LDS Family Services is a very good sevice and you have only brought condemnation upon yourself by falsely crying Wolf this late in the game......or are you just in need of attention????

Adoptive Father from Payson, Utah

Anonymous | 10:50 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

To so many people on this forum:

The birth father according to earlier articles in this and other papers did express interest in the baby during pregnancy. He found out that the baby was born and filed after the deadline. It was a mere two weeks after the child was born, and communication had broke down. Consider that some babies come early and you can see this poor guy's problem.

I see so many posts saying this was the birth father's parents motivation behind this. I never read anything that would indicate that. I would think it more likely he wants to have a relationship with his son then that. Even though the whole situation is painful for the adoptive parents, Harvey should be returned as soon as possible to his biological parents.

For those who state that he would be better off with two married parents, I would agree. But the government does not have reason to strip this child from his biological father. If it did then they should take any child under custody that is being raised by one parent. We all know that this sort of solution is wrong, yet that is what some want.

Fredd | 10:51 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

A very important fact is being left out. namely, The birth father appeared in court and asserted his rights BEFORE the child was placed. LDSFS went forward anyway based on the technicality of the law. While technicalities may be okay in contract law, don't you think there should be a higher standard in adoption? FYI, plenty of hateful comments directed to senator Jorgensen. I'll wager he's devout LDS and conservative. Another thing, it seems the folks who adopt are pretty universally supportive of LDSFS while families who fought adoptions are universally against LDSFS. Sounds like the natural position for each to take. I think its pretty lousy for a church based organization to hide behind technicalities in law be them catholic Social services or LDSFS. And be the law financial, molestation, or adoption.

Shame | 11:06 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I have heard many horror stories about the TEXAS LDS adoption deal above that has been mentioned. That was unbelievable. It is hard to believe that there are people like this working for the church. They should be fired or excommunicated. not good LDS members,,not to be trusted!

Jeepers! | 11:15 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Anonymous 10:50

Give me a break!...POOR GUY! Good grief! The guy has a kid out of wedlock and now he is a POOR GUY! May I ask sir? where did you get your morales?

sandra mc | 11:16 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Can any of you find another church funded adoption agency doing this? I can't. Is this only a LDS thing because you just don't hear about this misjustice with other religions.

B52 | 11:17 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

This senator is an idiot - he says himself the problem is "what is required isn't enough - the law needs to be changed" Well senator - you are the one (as a law maker) that needs to change it. How can you blame the agency that followed the law ?
Where do these people come from ?

Ed Clinch | 11:24 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Putative fathers need to be very active early on if they have sired a child out of wedlock. Licences for hunting and fishing are more stringent, why not a guy who has created life.

The ultimate moral is be LEGALLY and lawfully married when you procreate.

Adoption agencies provide a tremendous service, especially this one that is pro bono.

Justice | 11:28 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Apparently, this story has no morals or this would have never happened. I think the child is in for a life of heartache and trouble, do to the mistakes made by all these numb-skulls. I would say, the baby is the POOR LITTLE GUY! Look what he has to look forward to. The birth parents are not worthy of him! Save his life and let the adoptive parents have him. I need to find out more about the TEXAS scandal that the church had once...SOUNDS INTERESTING?

Hi Sandra | 11:30 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

My buddy, a catholic college professor and his wife a school teacher in So Cal, adopted their two children from the Catholic Church Adoption Services so that they could be raised in a catholic home... It was important to the birth mother.

I suggest if you google it, many different churches offer adoption services.

I am sure that the LDS church is not the only religion that gives this type of "misjustice" by placing children with loving, screened parents so that the innocent ones can be raised in a loving family, without having to pay exorbitant fees and service charges.

Re: Fredd | 11:31 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

"A very important fact is being left out" Really? I thought "fact" means something that is true. Also, you would lose your wager about Jorgasens religion, although religion is not important here. Check your "facts."

Adoptive father | 11:33 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I have been on two of the three sides of the adoption triangle - I am adopted and have adopted two children. On the second adoption, the birth mother gave a name for the father. When the guy was contacted he claimed he was not the father and to NEVER bother him again. We had to advertise in the newspaper for weeks asking a father to come forth, and none did. Finally, the Dist. Court Judge terminated the unknown fathers rights. That was several years ago in Colorado. How can you say contact the father first?

Sandra mc | 11:38 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

A current up date on S McDonald, the case in Texas. This father worked out of town yesterday in order to complete the job and instead of paying for a cozy hotel room chose to sleep in his truck to save money for his up coming visit to see his son.He still supports his daughter from the same mother as he does with this child. He has been in a 2 1/2 year battle which is far more than the 9 months the birth mother was involved. I think he deserves to be called more than a birth father or sperm donor. By the way it was 25 degrees where he slept last night..

Gershom | 11:40 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

No child should lose his/her parent JUST because his parent is single.
LDS has been involved in numerous adoption scandals, and this doesn't surprise me one bit. Fathers rights are continually being denied in adoptions, and it has got to stop! A woman shouldn't be able to surrender her child to adoption until the father has surrendered his rights, its just common sense. If a father is fit to parent, he should be given the opportunity to do so.

Onto adoptees and our rights.

This new bill that is being talked about possibly being drafted doesn't do ENOUGH for adoptee rights. This is STILL a violation against adoptees and our rights. Confidential Intermediaries are unncessary. Adoptees are not criminals, nor are our parents who surrendered us, adoption is NOT the witness protection program and we do NOT need 3rd parties going between us when we seek reunion. Adoptees deserve unconditional access to our original birth certificates so that we are EQUAL to all non adopted people. It is nothing short of discrimination and a violation of the UN child rights treaty to discriminate against us due to our ancestry.

Strange | 11:43 a.m. Dec. 29, 2007

This story is so amoral and wrong! I feel so very sorry for the the adoptive parents and the baby. It must be a nightmare for these people. Terribly sad. The birth parents should be ashamed...too crazy for a baby!

Anonymous | 12:01 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I disagree that because of "lack of morals" the father is not deserving of the child. However I would say that if LDS Social Services is correct about thier following the law of Idaho, then while unfortunate, the fault here lies with the father, not LDS Social Services. Let this be a notice to all in these situations, please be aware of and follow the law, and to the courts, please interperet the law correctly so that these types of situations don't continue to exist.

Also facts are facts, either LDS social services followed the law or they didn't. The fault here if they did, lies with the father, the lawmakers of Idaho, if their law is a bad one, the judge for not following the law and politicians for pandering to their constituents who got themselves into their own mess and then want to draw everyone else into it.

Midwest | 12:31 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I have been on both sides of the LDSFS fence. I was referred to them for depression after my mission. The individual that interviewed me spent a entire hour grilling me about possible parental molestation. I finally put my foot down and walked out. On the flip side, our family has had a great adoption experience through LDSFS.

I guess like several others have mentioned, there are one or two bad apples in every bunch. There is a common perception however, that a significant portion of individuals employeed by the church are so for a reason.

To those who hate the LDS Church in general and utilize the DN threads to bust we members' chops, please get a life. I REALLY dislike the UofU (and most of the fans) but, I don't waste my time on U of U blogs, or threads covering topics related to it.

What we should all be concerned about however, is how much legislation is coming from the judiciary. Of course, those with left leaning opinions typically don't mind the extra assistance with destruction of my civil liberties.

Kelly's dad | 12:33 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Our family has had dealings with the LDS familly services on two occasions. Both times they satisfied all legal, and emotional needs of the birth parents and those adopting.

As far as other churches offering the same service to unwed mothers. Yes, it is done. And it is done well.

Finally, there is no money being made by the LDS church in providing this service. It is a SERVICE that is funded mostly out of tithing paid in by members.

Sandra MC, your logic is as bad as your diction. From such a fountain of ignorance one can expect such half-baked thinking.

To Bob G | 12:35 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

As long as the biological father has not been contacted no child should be allowed to be adopted??? That is a ridiculous statement. I am an adoption professional and know through my work that it is not always possible to contact bio dads. One night stands at parties, where names are not even exchanged, happens. Rape happens. Men disappear. I do believe that we need to do all that we can to try and contact these men, but if they are not able to be contacted, a child should not be left to suffer with a birthmom who is not prepared emotionally, financially, and/or mentally to raise a child.

Jon B. Holbrook | 12:35 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

It appears to me that there are too many people who know how to make babies but unfortuneatly, some parents do not know how to raise the children they sire. This is where adoption is needed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has realized and is working to fulfil this need of putting responsible parents-not necessarily the birth parents-with children who need to be raised in a stable two-parent traditional home. When it comes to raising children, it is not time for social experimentation in an atmosphere of political correctness. I agree whole-heartedly with the position that the LDS Church has taken with regard to adoption so these children can receive the blessings of the sealing ordinanaces of the Temple. I used to live in the same ward as the lead attorney for the LDS Church back in the 1960's and the 1970's. The lawyers that the Church employs or retains are top calibre and make sure that all the t's re crossed and the i's dotted. Politicians have found it convenient to attack the LDS Church to further their own political ambitions. Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

No sympathy for bio dad | 12:37 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

How about people taking more responsibility for their actions? If you have sex, how about sticking around long enough to find out if that union created a baby? And if it did, and if you are interested in your parental rights, how about supporting the mother through the pregnancy and making your wishes known before the child is born? Let's not lose focus here people! The victim is not this bio dad but is this child, who has been placed in a loving home, where he is no doubt bonded to his parents. What a tragedy for him to go to a stranger who can barely care for himself, all because of "rights". Parenting is not a "right". It is a serious responsibility. Adoptive parents have been through interviews, background checks, and have been approved to be fit parents on many levels. Just because this kid had sex, does not make him a fit parent. He was obviously present when the child was conceived. Where was he for the next 9 months? Where was he when this birthmother was making the hard and yet, responsible decision to give this baby a better life?

Why the headline? | 12:39 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

"Idaho senator slams LDS adoption agency" - ???
Can the DMN really be so cheap, so tabloid, as to let that be thought the main point? Sure drew attention....
"Legislators and others weigh in on adoption tussle" would have been more honest.

Confused | 12:39 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Let me get this straight: According to the Idaho state senator, the Idaho State law isn't sufficient to prevent this tragedy, and the Idaho lawmaker says this is somehow the fault of LDS Family Services?

Hey Buddy | 12:52 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Misjustice is when a adoption agency goes out of their way not to inform the father's of their rights like in the case of shawn mcdonald of texas. Father lived in the same house that he shared with the birth mother and daughter they had together. Adoption agency knew who the father was and never contacted him. He only found out 2 days before the birth due to the mother hidding so she could give the child to a family member of her new boyfriend. Guess who the wonderful adoption agency was. Guess who hid the child for 16 months. Guess who violated Texas laws. I bet you already know.

Gitano | 1:02 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

We have dealt with the LDS Family Services on two occasions with great success. They were more than sensitive to the needs of all parties involved, and even continued with counseling after the adoption proccess had been concluded.

We have friends who have received assistance from a different church (protestant) in their family's need to arrange for the care of a baby born out of wedlock. From what we saw, everything there went well also.

Anonymous | 1:08 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I have heard of other stories in the LDSSS decades ago when I was small . Some scallywag down in TEXAS Really did a masacre job on a adoption for a family. I was surprises that the church protected this guy. They should have fired him then and there.

Secrets Breed Deception | 1:14 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

The child belongs with his biological father and mother...if they prove to be poor parents, then the adoptive family can foster the child and later adopt if need be. And..regardless of whether someone wants to keep a birth a secret...it's deceptive and sick. As an adoptee, I discovered a coworker who is my 1st cousin...Do we have a legal and moral right to identify blood relatives for the prevention of incest?

The best interest of the child is not to satisfy us and our knee-jerk reactions to emotional newspaper articles or fraudulent attorneys or adoption agencies.

To the "viking" attorney, you're comment that the birtmother may have "cleaned up her act" and may "never want to be contacted" is pathetic. Obviously, you've capitalized on the social stigma long enough. That mentality is typical of the once-dominant male who continues to be glamorized for "knocking up" yet another from your little black book. You're as much to blame for lies, broken hearts and broken families as the people who breed too early in life.

LJS from Spokane, WA

Mike | 1:17 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

We're using the title "Father" rather loosely. Although there are many difinitions of the word "Father", many definitions include the words, "Protection", "Provision", "Teaching", "Support". To consider someone to be a "Father" just because he was there prior to conception, is really shallow. A "Father" cares more about his child than he does about himself. He doesn't wait for months and months before trying to make things right. He is there always, from the beginning, regardless of his own circumstances.

To elevate the wishes of a non-father over the well being of a child is callous contempt for "Fathers" everywhere who have lived up to their responsibility.

A child does not 'belong' to a sperm donner.

You've Gone Too Far | 1:33 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Not sure how Gorman B. Hanckley's (oh you're so clever) post was not deemed abusive by the monitor. It seems like we can put up with bigots and LDS haters (please keep it coming, it makes you looks so childish), but when you make physical threats like "Tar and feather can happen again," it crosses the line. This is similar to telling African Americans that "lynchings can happen again." As an Idahoan, I'm embarrassed by this low life.

Nonsensical Mishmash | 1:40 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Firstly, shame on Sen. Jorgenson for his verbal assault on LDSFS. Since at least two of his quoted statements are in direct opposition as to the true root of the problem, one can only assume that his irrational rhetoric is motivated by political expediency.

Secondly, shame on the D-News for the hyperbole in the headline of this story. I, for one, am getting tired of the local news media creating opportunities to turn page 19 stories into front page news by crafting some headline with negative connotations about the LDS church. Perhaps this modus operandi is even more self serving than Sen. Jorgensonï¿½s actions.

Third, shame on all the Mormon haters that look for any issue that is remotely tied to the LDS church as a chance to spew inflammatory bile no matter the story.

Lastly, shame on our politically correct society that gives everyoneï¿½s rights the same priority. When a person acts irresponsibly, itï¿½s possible/likely that some of their ï¿½rightsï¿½ become limited. In the case of this putative father, because he chose to impregnate a woman outside of a legally binding relationship, his rights become limited and are secondary to those of the child and the birth mother.

Anonymous | 1:46 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Hey! I agree with "Secret Breed Deception" You said that so well.

I heard about that Texas LDSSS worker as well. He wasn't fired only because he had a large family to care for. Nonetheless i feel the guy should have been fired. He was nothing very special let me tell you. I just remember his weasle tipe smile.

Chivalry is Dead! | 1:50 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

The only relevant issue here is 'what is best for the child'!

Plus: WHAT KIND OF DEADBEAT SPERM DONNER-WANNABEE DAD CANT EVEN FILL OUT A SIMPLE DOCUMENT STATING HIS DESIRE TO BE A DAD?

Considering how easy and simple being a good father is, I can see why the Jude or whatever he is, didn't think that level of interest or responsibility was necessary.

AN OUNCE OF COMMON SENSE HERE WOULD BE NICE.

Ernest T. Bass | 1:52 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

He's probably a democrat. They hate mormons and good people.

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.