Deseret News | Idaho senator slams LDS adoption agency

Reader comments
Idaho senator slams LDS adoption agency

206 comments | Read story

me | 1:57 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Our adoptive experience with LDS Family Services began after years of infertility. They conducted a thorough investigation of us, requiring medical exams, tests, case studies, psychological interviews, home visits, and preparation for adoptive parenthood. They were highly professional. Completing the paperwork and process preceded the wait!

State laws of both states were followed protecting rights of biological parents and the baby; we were alerted the baby was born only after both states agreed to the adoption! Now grown, she isnï¿½t interested to ï¿½findï¿½ her other family.

We knew many other couples involved in the adoption process with LDS Family Services; all report positive experiences with the professionalism, ethics, and sensitivity for biological and adoptive parents, assisting everyone involved. Prospective parent screening and counsel prepares for adoptive parenthood ï¿½ many regular families would not survive! It is an important service linking stable married couples with children, and an avenue for mothers hoping to place babies in homes with opportunities they cannot provide.

Adoption is an act of love by both sets of parents, facilitated in compassion and professionalism by the LDS Family Services that is not a financial business of profit and is supported by member contributions.

Mike A | 1:57 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

What is best for the child be dammed.

Anonymous | 1:59 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Monitor, how is Gorman B. Hanckley's comment about "tar and feather can happen again" not abusive or offesive. It's clear threat. Please explain.

Comments continue below

james stowe | 2:04 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Anything and everything the LDS have any say in is soon to be trouble. Don't trust um.

RE; Mahonri | 2:13 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I guess I will have to call all my friends and tell them that they "despise" me.

This is a devastating revelation. Because I am sure you know what your talking about.

Mormon Democrat | 2:16 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

No, Ernest T. Bass, he's a Republican. That's what the "R" stands for after Jorgenson's name and before Hayden Lake. Why do you feel the need to generalize and offend Mormon Democrats who feel the same way about Jorgenson's claims? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Pathetic.

Fredd | 2:17 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

All: Go through the DMN archives and read the series of stories from the beginning. The father's attorney showed up in court when the papers were being filed to contest the adoption. The Nielson's have known since they took this baby the father wanted it. The locals are very hateful in their comments. Its become very emotional. But if you think you could steal my child on a technicality you are crazy. If I had a court order that child would already be in my possesion. I don't know if it being a state court, or if LDSFS got an injunction or what, but this poor father has every right to come get his child. And all you who say its all based on LDS haters think what you would say if Catholic social services took an LDS infant if the LDS father and grand parents were willing to raise him? Its got nothing to do with religion. Its got to do with what's right. And hiding behind a technicality (and using tithing money to do it) is shameful.

Mike | 2:24 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Following the logic of Senator Jorgenson, a rapist would have 'parental' rights, simply because he was the biological 'father' of the child.

To imagine that Mr. Jorgenson is allowed to represent the people of Idaho shows that adjustments should be made the next time he runs for office.

To insult an organization whose purpose is to give an unwanted child a family, is beneath contempt. Does anyone have any idea of the number of children who were NOT aborted because LDS Family Services made adoption possible?

Somehow, our society has forgotten nobility. For a family to make room in their hearts and their home for a baby who was thrown away by his birth 'father' is noble. For an unrelated family to want to give an unwanted child the full love and support that every child should automatically have by his birth mother and birth father is noble.

To be a judge that subjectively applies law or a state senator who panders to public opinion is abominable.

The father is to blame... | 2:24 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Who cares about the father? The only consideration here should be to the child. How is the child going to be reared? The father sounds like a person who has been derelict in his duty and, out of convenience in this point of his life, 'wants' a child as though he's/she's some kind of a possession. LDSFS's responsiblity is to the child, how he/she can best be reared in a loving, supportive home.

The fact the father is trying to get him/her back is the height of selfishness.

re: mahonri | 2:25 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I'll take my chances as a 'utah mormon' as opposed to the hate full, bigoted, ignorant fool-that you are.

I wouldn't attempt to speak 'universally' for everyone like you, but, I will take a guess that your ignorant, bigot attitude would actually be more despised.

To Secrets Breed Deception | 2:26 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I don't agree with your statement that "If they prove to be poor parents, then the adoptive family can foster the child and later adopt if need be". Why not look at their parenting before they have a chance to prove that they are good or poor parents? That is what is done with adoptive parents. Just because this guy donated his sperm, does not make him a good parent. He should prove he is fit through background checks, interviews, financial and emotional stability and everything else the adoptive parents went through before they place this baby with him. The foster care system is OVERLOADED with children who have been removed from their biological homes due to poor parenting (abuse, neglect, etc.) Infant adoption is a choice that unprepared, loving parents choose when they know/feel that they are not ready to provide everything a child needs for a good, secure, stable life. If more people made this loving choice, and placed children for adoption as infants, there would be less child abuse and need for foster care later in children's lives.

KY LDS | 2:28 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I am an active LDS. My wife and I went through LDSFS but eventually dropped out of the process before adopting. I personally felt that LDSFS did some things that may not have been illegal but certainly were not up to what I consider church standards. Without giving out specifics it dealt with encouraging a teenage mom who knew who the father was to leave his name off of the Birth certificate so they could adopt the child easier. When we found out this info from the birth mom we backed away from the adoption. I know LDSFS does some fantastic things but we decided to go through a non-church agency and have been very pleased.

Let me help you mahonri | 2:31 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Mahonri,

Let me explain why writing what you did is so inappropriate (although I'm afraid it is not uncommon-sadly)

Imagine a someone speaking publicly stating: "African Americans" are universally despised!

Get it?

Please don't tell me that you are LDS just not from Utah. I would expect as much from an anti certainly not a brother.

That's Politics | 2:32 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

An Idaho state senator says an LDS adoption agency is solely to blame for the fiasco involving a set of adoptive parents in American Fork and a birth mother and birth father in Idaho.
...
However, LDSFS acted according to Idaho and Utah law, agency officials say.

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

But that is the whole problem, Jorgensen says. What is required isn't enough. And the law needs to be changed, he says.

Jorgenson plans to co-sponsor a bill that will "beef up" regulations for private adoption agencies."

So what IS the whole problem? Not the adoption agency, but the laws that don't require enough. But blaming the LDS adoption agency gets more people's attention, doesn't it -- that's politics!

Re:Buddy | 2:34 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

OK, I'll guess:

Santa Clause.
The Easter Bunny.

Ok, done guessing, who was it.

Why do people rant then say guess who did something. Just state it.

As for a father living in the same house with the birth mother, I'm feel bad he wasn't notified that there was a baby on the way.

I guess it's difficult for those of us with any lick of common sense to see how these "sperm donors" run and hide, and then jump out and all of a sudden have "what it takes" to be a parent.

Senator needs help... | 2:35 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

The senator is sounding a lot like a bully here. Perhaps change is needed, but to blast out against an organization that has done so much good for so many tells me he has a deeper agenda. I wish politicians would speak more fervently on issues that really matter (internet porn, family values, spending tax payers money responsibily, etc.) than barking out about how a derelict father has been wronged. I have no doubt this child would be in a far better situation with his/her adopted family than with a guy who cares only for himself.

gitano | 2:46 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Monitor: I have to agree with anonymous regarding the Gorman B. Hanckley comment. Why would you allow that to be posted? I have made comments not nearly as offensive that were not included.

Is is just okay to bash on the Mormon religeon? I really doubt that you would allow the inclusion of a post that is that negative regarding a Protestant religeon, or Islamic religeon, or?????

What gives?

i-DUHHHH-ho (my baby's Daddy) | 3:02 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Ernest T. has never let the truth influence one of his opinions on these boards. The Senator is a Republican, pos. one of the first in line to replace larry Craig, so he is definately making a name for himself, and not really looking after the best interest of the child.

An isn't it the responsibility of the judicial to "intrepret the laws"? Why are the legislators and judiciary in i-DUH-ho so confused as to what their jobs are?

...And Sandra and Hey Buddy:
I'm guessing the word you are looking for is injustice, not "misjustice", bucause it isn't a word. And this Shaun McDonald, sleeping in the truck in Texas, what does he have to do with this story?

Man, everyone:

We live in a twisted world, where two kids can go out and in one night mess up an entire lifetime for a little baby, and people trying to set it straight, and give the child a loving family, and you attack family services. If a male procreates a baby, he out to make sure he knows where his seed is spilt, so he can take care of the mess.

I have no compassion for the donor.

SADEYES! | 3:03 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

WHERE IS THE LOVE? I WISH PEOPLE WERE NOT SO IGNORANT AND DRIVEN BY HATRED. WOW! PEOPLE MAKING THREATS ON LINE BECAUSE THEY ARE COWARDS AND WONT GET OUT AND LEARN THE TRUTH THAT IS IN THE WORLD. HOW DARE PEOPLE BE SO INCONCIDERATE. I JUST HOPE THIS POOR BABY DOESN'T END UP WITH A CRAPPY LIFE BECAUSE SOMEONES HATE TOWARD A CERTAIN RELIGION. YOU KNOW WHAT STARTS WARS! IGNORANCE AND FALSEHOODS. I JUST WISH WE COULD ALL BE OPEN AND LEARN ABOUT EACH OTHER. BE LIKE CHRIST! WE DONT NEED NEGATIVITY! WE NEED MORE LOVE!

Anonymous | 3:05 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

HELLO

cinderella | 3:07 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I was adopted through L.D.S. services, and I have to say being L.D.S. it is very hard to listen to social services spill, when they come to church and teach a Sunday School lesson promoting their Adoption forum, seeking referals of anyone who may be pregnant and may wish to use their services... Give me a break people, If your not adopted dont try to pretend how frustrating it is to have everyone else make decisions for you that you have to live with for the rest of your life, and then to have someone say the Birth Mother should be able to choose weather or not she ever wants to be found?? How about why we are not able to choose weather we as adoptees have the right to our Medical History, I am sorry if you choose to have unprotected sex you should have to deal with the consequences...
If that is facing your unwanted Pregnancy from years ago so be it what is that saying we hear in church so often The truth shall set you free...........

To Moderartor | 3:21 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Why were Gorman B. Hankley's comments allowed through? That is threatening and offensive. He threatened violence similar to that of the mormon expulsion from missouri. That is really inappropriate.

Aunt Beatrice: Mayberry | 3:23 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Wouldn't this whole thing been a ton easier if Dude in Idaho or S McDonald (sleeping in his truck in Texas -- such strong parenting skills), would have:
A: Kept it in their pants.
B: Pulled out.
C: Used a Condom.
D: Had parents that taught them these simple skills and not be the first to run to protect "their little babies".
E: Man up and be a father BEFORE the baby is born.

Otherwise, I'm sure that they are great kids and should continue along their way, just leave the babies with their families and start your own family when you are old enough to move out of your parents house, or you pick-up truck.

Fredd | 3:24 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Mike, I hope you haven't read these articles, because you've missed the whole point. The child IS wanted! If the folks posting here can't boil down the facts to the simple position the birth father was in court when LDSFS was trying to file the papers. I don't know if they gave the child to the adoptive parents before the adoption was final or what. Lots of hate being thrown both ways on these boards. Both LDS and non LDS are being insulted.

Anonymous | 3:42 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

MR FREDD, You are forgeting this child has already bonded with new parents. You need to get a life and quit feeling sorry for EVIL!

Meri | 3:49 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Can anyone post a link to or the name of the hometown newspaper in Idaho that might carry this story? I'd like to see what that newspaper has to say about this. And it would be interesting to read comments made on those articles.

Winter | 4:26 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

We adopted a child and let me say to you, there was immediate bonding. I doubt that I would have been a survivor of such an ordeal if this happened to me, and if my child had been jerked from my loving arms at 6 month of age. This whole thing is extremely wrong! Someone wasn't using their noodle in this whole process on this adoption. Someone is morally wrong.

My prayers are for the BABY and the ADOPTIVE PARENTS who's hearts have been broken in the worst way possible! Too, too sad for words.

Prior to our last successful adoption, we also lost on an adoption that was very painful and hurtful. The money we lost wasn't a problem, but the child we wanted so badly was. However, God blessed us with another bundle of true joy. Thank Heaven!

Neighbor | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

This is a story of selfishness. Whose? The birth fathers mother. The birth mother was scared, realized early on that she and the b-father weren't up to the task. Religion has nothing to do with this. The b-mother had by law rights to choose as she did. Why did the judge allow this to go so far? Where is Bill O'Riley when you need him. The senator from N. Idaho needs to get his facts straight and stay out of this. The B-father slept with other girls during this prengancy DID NOT come forward with monies or support and allowed his mother to get carried away with wanting to raise the child. The child has a home with parents who are married and love him. The young lady who made this selfless choice should not have to defend her choice or be put thru any of this. Do not make yet another child go thru being batted back and forth between houses and schools and holidays and the welfare system when that little person is where he belongs and was put there by this very brave young lady.

Hanyoltimbs | 4:40 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Don't you think it is better that the LDSFS had the child addopted out and not the Division of Family Services? At least LDSFS "trys" to make sure the adpotive family is not abusive. Maybe the bio-father should have been the Man to begin with and non of this would have happened. So whether it is LDSFS or Division of Family Services, the child needs to be where he will grow up healthy and happy. He should be the main concern. not who is right and who is wrong!

Mike | 5:17 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Idaho Statutes Title 16 Chapter 15 lists the requirements that must be met by an unmarried biological father before his consent is required before adoption can take place. Among the legal obligations of the biological father is the need to file necessary paperwork, including his plan for parenting the child, and the payment of expenses incurred with the mother's pregnency. There is, of course, a lot of legalese in the statute.

One very important point is that, even if he complies with the legal requirements, the court may decide to limit his rights:

"(3) An unmarried biological father whose consent is required under subsection (1) or (2) of this section may nevertheless lose his right to consent if the court determines, in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the termination of parent and child elationship act, sections 16-2001 through 16-2015, Idaho Code, that his rights should be terminated, based on the petition of any party as set forth in section 16-2004, Idaho
Code."

Lift Others | 7:22 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

.....allow the child to stay with his adoptive parents, and allow the birth father to visit him and share an appropriate relationship with him.

This relationship should respect the values and teaching of the adoptive parents.

Lift Others | 7:54 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

The very wise King Solomon had the answer for this situation.

When both women claimed the baby as their own, her had the baby brought forth and pulled out a sword. He said he would cut the baby in two to satisfy both women.

The pretend mother agreed, the real mother told him to give her baby to the other mother so that it would live. King Solomon then knew who the "real" mother to this baby was and gave the baby to her.

I have seen posts that say what about the baby? What indeed? Does the baby need to know his real father? Does the baby need a stable home? Does the baby need love, attention, and to be well cared for?

What if the baby WAS the real concern....his future...his life? Perhaps..those who truly love him would see that he would only be the better to share the love of all.

Rather than fight over him like wolves over their prey, someone could see an innocent, sweet little boy, who has now grown to love his family. A sweet innocent little boy, who would appreciate the love of his birth father....

To Sandra | 8:40 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

Sorry your son was irresponsible, made a baby then you the grandma wanted it back. It's not the church who made the mistake, it was your son. Now you want 'your' grandchild to pay the price. Gee, great society you want to raise. Sorry, as an adoptive mom of 7 (but not through LDSFS), I side with the Neilsons.

true blue | 10:02 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

If you have been following this story. The father had contact with the mother up until 7 months. She then sent him all the necessary paperwork, which he must have discarded. He wanted nothing to do with the child until it was too late. The judge and the BF's father work together and know each other.

This is the bf's fault. I'm glad that he is at least trying to clean up his life, but he needs to drop this and move on.

Birth mother | 10:50 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

I placed a baby through LDS Family Services. From what the law was at the time I did it, the law stated that if a male has relations with a female, he is to assume a child resulted and take action to preserve his rights. The only thing the birth father of my child wanted was to run fast and hard. Under no obligation to tell him anything at all, I still made sure he knew exactly what I was doing, my case workers name and number, and that he wanted to parent his child, all he had to do was say so. About 6 months after the birth, he started making waves about the whole thing, b/c I had a boy instead of a girl. Too little, too late. The law may not be the best, but let's not disregard it completely.
Through the whole adoption process , I knew a number of birth fathers that were just as involved in finding the best home for their baby as the mothers were. I think adoption is an awesome choice and hope that no one disregards it from some bad press.

Anonymous | 11:04 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

This is not the first time this has ever happened. I think the social workers need to be more experienced.

IQ | 11:13 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

If there was ever a need for empirical proof of what an average IQ is, all one has to do is read most of these comments. Fredd has it right. Forget about LDSFS or religion or good and evil and try focusing on the fact that a magistrate ruled in favor of the biofather and the Nielsons are fighting tooth and nail to hang on to Harvey/Tyler, which is completely understandable.

DM | 11:45 p.m. Dec. 29, 2007

"Jesus said love everyone; Treat them kindly too. When your heart is filled with love, others will love you." (Children's Hymnbook, page 61) If we could only be more childlike - sweet, pure and innocent instead of so hateful, unkind and judgemental, happiness and peace would abound.

Victum | 1:02 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

I too had a run in with LDS FS in Texas. New to the church they wanted my 10 month old son and tried to make me think that no man would want me because I had a child outside of marriage. They were wrong. I was told that I truly didn't love my kid by being selfish and keeping him when he could be sealed to an eternal family. Although we were never sealed as a family we still have love and to me that is the most important thing.

Also, I know several lds women who have had a child out of wedlock and ended up marrying the b/father within 5 years of the kids being born. I did myself when my son was 5. We added 4 more kids to the bunch. Adoption is never in the best interest of the child but rather in the best interest of those who either can't give birth or just don't want to give birth. It's not about love

Larry Lawton | 1:08 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

The allegations of unethical conduct by LDSFS are shocking to me, because they contradict my experience. My wife and I gladly served as volunteer foster parents for LDSFS for many years. We did not succeed with every placement, but LDSFS was always there for us, and were unfailingly ethical and consummately professional. That same high standard marked our dealings when we eventually adopted two children. Our experience says the wrongs described here are the rare exception. Using them to condemn the entire LDSFS organization is grossly unfair. To extend that condemnation to the entire LDS church is incoherent, and says a great deal more about the writer than the religion.
As for those who think the LDS faith is all about money, I merely note this: Of all charities who seek my contributions, only one has asked that I donate less. Those old enough to remember ward budgets, on top of tithing, will know what Iï¿½m talking about ï¿½ and we need not mention the sacrifices once required to erect a new building!

30 years???? | 1:13 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

Anyone who is adopted should have access to their original birth certicate. It is the truthful one. Nor should there be a mediator - If my birthmom wants contact I want her to call me - heck I will call her. At the age of 18 I became an adult and therefore can make adult decisions. I have a neighbor who is 30 and very much wants to find her birthmom. Another neighbor wants to find her b/mom - has info about her but feels that if she does she is not being loyal to the couple that raised her.

Non-adopted adults can get their birth certificates (orginal) so shouldn't those who have been adopted. The privacy clause isn't there to protect the b/mom but rather the adopters. It's in their best interest.

Appalled by LDSFS | 1:30 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

I am a faithful member of the church but I am simply appalled by LDSFS. It is an organization of the LDS church and as such receives tithes. It is an egregious violation of a father's inalienable, moral, and spiritual rights (even if not spelled out in the well-known, woefully inept family law code) to not notify a father or make him aware of adopting out his son so callously. A father is a father de facto. Period. Women do not have to file paperwork, or be married, or do a dog and pony show to establish their biological maternity. Fathers are easily identified with modern technology and can easily be notified in a confidential way. Anyone who has any experience with family law knows that fathers are shut out and in the dark more often than not, and that mothers and the single mother's advocate network (apparently now holding sway also in LDSFS). I feel for those who want to adopt, but doing it by sanctioning the real father from his own children makes my stomach turn. There are many, many children in many different lands who could use parents who don't want to be in their lives.

Anonymous | 3:33 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

Adoption is never in the best interest of the child but rather in the best interest of those who either can't give birth or just don't want to give birth. It's not about love

As an adoptive parent I entirely disagree with this statement.

Be fair | 7:09 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

A man once owned a lawnmower and one day went inside leaving it unattened for a short time only to return and find it missing. He looked to the property next door and there it was! He approached his neighbor for answers and was told he took it and would not return it and that now , belonged to him. arguing, He was told that he had neglected it and when it was new did not prove he would take good care of it and that his shed was bigger and better to care for it. niether side could agree, so they looked to a third party to settle the dispute.
If you were God and had to decide, who would you pick? If you choose to answer-Be fair !

Medically concerned | 7:18 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

One factor that has been totally omitted from this entire discussion is that of the birth father's medical history for the child's adoption record. How can LDSFS or any agency possibly get a medical profile of the father's family if he is not even contacted for input into the adoption process? In Utah, where adult adoptees are not able to access identifying information that could help them update their birth families' medical histories, it is vitally important that at least an initial history is gathered for inclusion in their adoption files. This omission has significance for the adoptive parents, as well. A paternal history of bipolar disorder, for example, needs to be included in information provided to adopters.

Granted, there will be rare cases where birth fathers cannot be identified. But in every case, it should be the adoption agency's obligation to push as hard as possible to get the information needed to assure that the child to be placed for adoption has every bit of medical history to which he is entitled. If LDSFS would do this routinely, birth fathers would KNOW of the pregnancies and the mothers' intended relinquishment in time to take steps toward filing for custody.

Art | 8:30 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

A child deserves a mother and a father, married to each other for stability and for an example. LDSFS makes that a top priority, and they followed Utah and Idaho laws.

Just wondering | 9:38 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

Everyone runs down the natural fathers in these case. But didn't I read a story where a black mother and grandmother fought to have a adoption overturned and won only to find out that the adopted couple who had the child was involved in drugs and was even put in jail because of drugs. So not all adopted couples are perfect.
What is going on is adoption agency's are playing with these poor babies lifes. And what about the 14th addmendment. Should we start going in to hospitals and deciding who should have their children and who shouldn't. What if the father's were able to say the mother's weren't good enought to raise the child so gave the child away with out the mother's consent. You all say the father's should have use protection what about the mother's over and over again. I could almost bet most adoption agencies and the adoption couple don't pay for these hospital bill you and I the tax payers do. Just my thoughts

Non-believer | 9:53 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

Why do we have to quote the church, the hymn book, the scriptures etc. etc. etc. This has nothing to do with that. Talk about tunnel vision. Just because the adoption agency is part of the LDS Church does not mean that it is perfect. They screwed up big time. It is time for them to MAN UP. Let them put their money where their mouth is and help this adoptive family.

anon | 10:11 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

Adoption is such a personal issue. No one, not even a representative of the LDS Church, has the right to tell a birth parent what should be done with his/her child. Both the mother and the father have equal rights to the child they created, even if this child was conceived under less that perfect circumstances. I personally feel sorry for the birth father in this story. I think he is being treated unfairly. I am a female and found myself in a similar situation as a young teenager. The pregnancy test came back negative, but one cannot imagine the things I felt while I waited for the results. I knew that I could never, ever, ever give up my child if I was pregnant. I could have more easily donated my limbs than give up my precious baby. And I would have given my partner an opportunity to be involved in its life. Fathers are so important to children, too! Even immature, selfish ones. I went on to marry someone else and have four awesome children. And my husband is a jerk most of the time, but let me tell you, the kids adore him!

To: Be Fair | 10:32 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

If you had a lawnmower, and you pushed it over onto your neighbors lawn, and left it there for 9 months, and sometimes you told her you were going to come back for it, and sometimes you told her to go ahead and give it away, but she was the one who would run outside and cover it when it rained. She bought a chain so it wouldn't get stolen. Finally after leaving your lawn mower there for 6 months, you stop talking to her. So she, at 9 months, pushes the heavy, heavy lawnmower off her lawn and calls someone else to come get it. They do. They grow to love their lawnmower very deeply. They spend thousands of dollars on repairs for the lawnmower, a shed, and a lawn, but most of all they love it. One day, after all the repairs are made, you call her back and tell her you want your mower back. She is worried you will soon push it back over to her lawn.

As God, a god who loves little mowers, what would you do? And be fair...

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.