Reader comments
Adoption turns into nightmare

128 comments | Read story

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3

CALIFORNIA | 4:10 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

GET OVER IT IS CRAZY. SOCIAL SERVICES DOESN'T GO IN AND TAKE ANY CHILD IT WANTS.ON TOP OF THAT UNFORTUNATELY NOT ALL PEOPLE WHO "MAKE" CHILDREN ARE CAPABLE TO RAISE THEM.BETTER A CHILD GO TO SOMEONE WHO CAN LOVE THEM AND GIVE THEM A GOOD HOME. I HAVE TWO DAUGHTERS WHO HAD CHILDREN WHEN THEY WERE TEENS AND KEPT THE BABIES.YEARS LATER NOW IT HAS ALL WORKED OUT BUT THE ROAD WAS HARD EVEN WITH OUR SUPPORT.WHO KNOWS WHERE THEY AND MY GRANDCHILDREN MIGHT BE IF THINGS HAD BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY.I LOVE MY GRANDCHILDREN VERY MUCH BUT THEY WERE PUT THROUGH AN AWFUL LOT IN THEIR EARLY YEARS

Emmotions | 4:14 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

This is sad comments om the emmotions of this situation. All of us make mistakes and do not always see the consequences of our actions until they happen. Two thoughts:

Both Birth Parents have rights and are both DNA donors. Since when does a mother or a father have more rights than the other and most birth parents are given one year for the right to rescind their parental rights and to give up their baby. These adopting parents know this could happen and they agree to this risk.

Two - There are plenty of couples out there that if their parental actions and reactions are measuring tools for keeping there kids then all of us should plan on DCFS watching for any moment to take our kids away and give them to more responsible parents!

Parental Rights are what is most important - Let the courts determine the facts. If some of you were there with the Savior and he asked you "He who is without sin - Let him cast the first stone" She would of caught a ten punder right between the eyes.

Laurie Dunfield-Baker | 4:16 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Not only was the adoption not finalized at the 2-4 week mark, but it still was not finalized at the time this article was written. The adoption does not finalize until 6 months after placement in a potential adoptive home. It does mention that in the article. This child actually is not adopted.

Anonymous wrote:
"For those calling the father a 'sperm donor' go back and re-read the article. His rights were not terminated at any point, and he contested two weeks after the adoption. Harvey was two to four weeks old at the time and the adoption was not finalized."

Comments continue below

Adoption in AZ | 4:23 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Having adopted 9 children. Let me chime in here.

1st I don't know all the fact BUT the child should have never been given to the adoptive parents until ALL the I's were dotted and the T's crossed. This includes long waiting periods for terminated rights of parents etc. This seemed to drag on and on and on with some of my children. Who is at fault here, again I can not say for sure but the adoption agency should have been on top of that. We had a parent come back after her rights were terminated and they had no leg to stand on. He is now 21.

My guess is that the fault is not with the adoptive parents. They are only doing what they are told to do. They are not experts in adoption. Been there done that. I am an active member of the LDS church but our experiece with LDS social services in the past was not always positive. Based on several things we went else where. A great service if done correctly but from my 50,000 foot point of view it looks like the adoption service did not do their homework.

Reply to Emmotions | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Actually, Emmotions, whats best for the baby is the most important thing.

Michelle B, the adoptive parents have been providing and caring for this child since he was born, and the birth mother provided for his care before that. If anyone has a sense of entitlement, it seems to be the birthfather, who wants to step in and take over now that it is convenient for him. This boy has a serious case of the Little Red Hen. Seems Clear Cut to Me has the right idea. If the bio father cannot even sign a few papers, talk to an attorney, or pay a couple bills before the baby is born, why should we trust that he will step up and accept full and complete care and responsibility for a REAL LIVE BABY? These poor adoptive parents are just trying to do the right thing for their baby.

cricker1 to Adoption in AZ | 5:01 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Our experience with LDS FS wasn't 100% great either. However, they WERE very careful to inform us that there was a small chance of the birth father showing up and asking for the baby since they didn't have a paternity test and he hadn't signed to term his rights. That's why you have to take the foster parent classes - because technically the adoptive parents are just foster parents until the time period passes and the the adoption is finalized.

My guess is that this adoptive family was told that and knew that as well.

Hans | 5:15 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

My wife and I adopted a baby through LDS Family Services (he is now 7 months) and this was our biggest nightmare. Fortunately the father was aware of the situation and signed off in advance, which was ok by Louisiana law. Oddly enough, after the baby was born, he wouldn't sign the birth certificate and after we returned back home, denied that he was the father. While that is not relevant to this story, it is obvious that we don't have all the facts of this case. The mother may not have told the father about the pregnancy, she may have used duress to make him sign, a social worker made a mistake in the form that created a loop hole when he changed his mind (ours made tons of mistakes, makes you wonder how these people work for the Church). I am just glad that this didn't happen to us because I don't know how we could give back our son now.

To Sunny | 5:50 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Every adopted person's dream come true??

I must be strange, I've never had this dream. I love my parents and have never, ever wanted to seek out my gene donors.

no stones | 7:29 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Some here have mentioned an influence by the paternal grandmother over the father. She may not have known about the child until after his birth, then offered to support him in parenting his child.

What is not acknowledged is the probable influence of the maternal parents on the mother's adoption decision. Another influence is pre-birth involvement of adoptive parents. Other countries do not allow this as the expectant mother comes to feel she owes them her child, and tremendous guilt and pressure is put upon her if she wavers from the plan. Prebirth planning is premature. In other countries, ethical practice won't allow consents to be signed before six weeks. If such practices existed here in the states, this would have given time for both parents to get things sorted out.

Shame on all those who harshly and heartlessly judged this mother and this father without even knowing them or the true circumstances.

Mary Ellen

Adoption Worker | 7:58 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

I am really surprised at some of the ignorance in these posts. I work with adoptions every day, and many of you seem to know more than I do???
The truth is that the laws do lean towards the rights of the birthmom, as well as they should. Most "birth fathers" are exactly as described in these posts: heavily into alcohol and drugs and definitely not fit to raise a child. I'm sure all procedures and laws were followed by the agency, but even still, things can and do go wrong. At times an adoption agency's hands are tied. For instance, if a birthmother came into our office and refused to give us information about the birthfather: that is her right. If we do know who the birthfather is, we can't even contact him without the birthmother's permission. In Utah, the birthfather has 24 hours after the birth to register as the putative father, or his rights are automatically terminated. (I believe it is similar in Utah). And just for the record, young single women who choose to place their babies for adoption are the most incredibly selfless women out there. They want a better life for their baby.

no stones | 8:02 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

What is not acknowledged is the probable influence of the maternal grandparents on the mother's adoption decision in the first place, especially if they are religious. Instead, people make assumptions that her baby is "unwanted" by her. You could just as well knife her in the heart, as saying that.

Having an open adoption, I'm sure there is a great deal of pressure there also. She may be fearing that they close her out, if she were to join the father at this point.

I think the ideal would be for both of the young parents to be brought into intensive unbiased options-based counseling to help them sort through this together, as it should have been in the first place.

No matter what anyone else here wants to think - they are forever a part of their son, and their son will forever be a part of them, whether together or apart.

Why isn't there such an uproar when foster children are moved from home to home, something that happens every day.

Mary Ellen

LDS Family services | 8:54 p.m. Dec. 7, 2007

Our experience with LDS Family services was amazing. We adopted two children through that agency and I was impressed how careful they where. Our birthfather also had doupts and they would not let us do anything unti lhe had signed, so they must have had no idea that he wanted custody.

Where was this "dad" when she was pregnant, delivering, and making decisions. In any case I think the mother is the one that should make the decision abou ther baby. If she wanted him to have it she would have let him hav custody.

No one has said this yet... | 1:02 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

Over 200 posts, and not one has mentioned this fact about the biological father: while he was busy conceiving this baby, the LAST thought on his mind was "Oh, boy! Now I'm gonna be a daddy!"

You cannot tell me Bio Dad planned on becoming a father, wanted to be a father, or even thought it could happen while he was having sex with his girlfriend. It's not the urge to change diapers or get up for 3:00 am feedings that drive a young man to poke his young woman!

So, if fatherhood was NOT his intent, & he didn't marry the girl, or support her during pregnancy, or be there for the birth-- WHY would ANYONE think he would be a good dad or have rights to this baby??

To those that argue that bio family is always better than adoptive family for the child: GET REAL. All of us have seen way too many situations were gramma raises baby (often more than one!) & immature, abusive, & neglectful bio parents make the kids' life hell.

Bottom line: if Bio Dad (& bio granny) TRULY love that baby-- leave him with the only parents he knows.

jds | 3:10 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

You think if he wanted the baby he would have been there for the mother during her pregnancy. From what the birthmother says it is quite clear he knew she was pregnant. Even if he didnï¿½t marry her at least he would have been there for her and been there when she gave birth. The birthmother is supporting the adoptive parents so she doesnï¿½t think the birthfather would be a good parent.

I might take pity on the biofather had he not known about the pregnancy but again it is clear that he did know. If the biomother did not place the baby for adoption and choose to raise him herself, who wants to bet that biofather would
a. not have been in the picture
b. not been a constant in the boys life.

An adoptive mom | 8:34 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

Being the mother of an adopted son, I want to make a few comments. He was born in Calif 40 years ago, before abortion was legal; and I have often thought that the birth mother (age 30 & didn't want a baby) would have opted for an abortion. We heard about him through an attorney whom we knew, and it was an independent adoption which we were advised not to get involved in. He came to us just 1 month after our 3rd baby died at birth, after we had applied for adoption at LDS F. S. We lived in Utah, and someone involved wanted to place him in an LDS home.

As he grew up, I told him how special he was because we got to choose him, and we traveled to CA to take him home from the hospital. We later had 2 more boys and 2 girls, and they are bonded as siblings as if they were all our biologigal children. He was never interested in knowing his birth mother, & I'm glad she never wanted to take him back.

My heart goes out to the Nielsons, & I hope they get to keep Harvey.

Chris | 12:43 p.m. Dec. 8, 2007

All i want to say is too often we all jump to conclusions about what has happened or hasn't happened in a situation like this. We need to understand that these people who have been affected by this, both the parents and the agency that handled the adoption, were aware of the process and i'm sure strived to ensure that everything was handled according to the law. I feel for this family and i think it's in everyones best interest not to point fingers or accuse until the full details are explained.

Erlene-A neighbor to the Nielsen | 1:43 p.m. Dec. 8, 2007

As a grandparent to 9 adopted grandchildren I have seen the love they bring into homes where a child could not be brought by "conventional" means. We have been through hard adoption processes as well. Please be aware that you do not know about the birth father or you would not be so willing to have the baby returned to him. A mother that wanted the best for her newborn child received the best for him when he was placed with Cally and Jed. He has been unconditionally loved and taken care of. Please pray that whatever is best for Harvey will happen. He deserves a happy life with his now parents.( And also extended family who have bonded with this happy little fellow)

Bundle of Love | 6:44 p.m. Dec. 8, 2007

Adoption is a wonderful thing, but once the child is placed in a home..BIOLOGICAL parents are out of the picture at their own choice, or they should have never placed the child for adoption, if they weren't certain to begin with. Think hard people before you place a child.. Otherwise you ruin the lives of so many innocent people!

AR | 6:48 p.m. Dec. 8, 2007

This is why so many couples are choosing international adoption over domestic adoption. No one wants to take the chance of giving their heart to a child only to have him or her taken away because someone changed their mind. To those of you who think infertile people are selfish for adopting "other people's kids" -- a) they AREN'T other people's kids anymore; their biological parents don't want to raise them & have relinquished custody & b) If it's infertile people's "lot in life" to just not have kids then I guess it should be the lot in life of newborns left in trashcans to just die of exposure? It should be the lot in life of babies to be raised by crack addict single mothers or spend their lives in foster care or orphanages? The world isn't perfect, we should all be doing our part to try and make things better, not worse by being ignorant & nasty like some of the people who've posted here.

AbrazoAdoption | 8:16 a.m. Dec. 9, 2007

AR: this is about a legal issue that can and does arise in foreign adoptions as well as domestic; it has nothing to do with openness or who "deserves" a baby more It's about the laws and whether or not they were upheld. Adopting couples in the US know, when taking a legal risk placement, that they are nothing more than caretakers (foster parents, essentially) until or unless that child is legally freed for adoption. Children with biological parents willing and able to raise them don't need adopting, unless a court rules otherwise. That's a universal truth that applies whether they are born in America or anywhere else.

John | 4:38 p.m. Dec. 9, 2007

It takes a very special people who are filled with love to adopt.

There are many people who are too selfish to share their love and lives of someone not connected to them. These people usually treat even their own children badly!.... so beware of these people who say they could never adopt a child. It's probably a good thing they don't.... Because even their own blood children are intruders in their lives and their love is usually quite shallow.

J | 11:34 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

The adoptive couple should meet the bio father get to know him and work together toward Harveyï¿½s best interests? The A-parents are important they bonded with cared for Harvey since birth. The bio dad also has importance and value to his son. Does it ALWAYS have to be one or the other all or nothing? Moving Harvey would be traumatic and damaging at this point but the bio father could come to understand that and find comfort Harvey is secure and cared for. Perhaps the A-parents will find a man who is willing to get to know and support his son on some level? Maybe they could work together to do what is best for Harvey? Living in the home Harvey has known from birth is the best option but why can't it include the bio father's ongoing show of love and support for his son (if that is his intent)?
I am hearing entitlement on both sides of this debate but less about the CHILD'S entitlement. The child is entitled to remain in his secure home & he is also entitled to know his biological father if the man wants to be a positive contributor to his life.

J | 11:38 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

That first sentence in my other comment should not have a question mark (typo). These people SHOULD get together themselves to do what the child needs from each of them.

an adoptive grandma | 12:35 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

Abrazo, the legal risk adoptive couples take in these situations, before a child is legally free for adoption, is limited. In the state of Idaho, the risk is limited to a birthmother changing her mind. The risk of a birthfather changing his mind is really only a concern if the birthfather took the necessary steps to retain his legal relationship with the child before placement for adoption, by assuming some financial responsibility, being adjucated by a court as a biological father, or signing the registry. The risk of a child being taken by a father who has done none of these things should be nonexistant, according to Idaho statute.

David | 6:50 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

For all of you people that keep writing that the biological father didn't know about the pregnancy, reread the article which states that they stopped contact the LAS|T FEW MONTHS of her pregnancy. He KNEW she was pregnant and didn't support her or the baby. He made his choice and waited until after the child was placed to do anything about it. Not liking the biological mother is irrelevant when she is carrying your child. He failed miserably in that department. He clearly made his choice and should now have to suffer the consequences.

Scott | 12:33 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007

The father has every right to raise his child. He should not lose his child just because the mother arranged an adoption without his consent. Did he even sign the adoption papers?

The article just says "Knight confirmed her decision. Papers were signed". Both biological parents have rights, I don't don't think those rights should be cast aside just because the caretakers have gotten attached to the child. I do have empathy for them, but I think the biological parent's rights come first, and just because the young couple separated and perhaps no longer get along with each other, is not a reason to deny parental rights.

I find a lot of the anti-father comments to be extremely judgmental. The young man wants to raise his child instead of the child going to a strange couple. We should support him.

Kaydia | 12:22 p.m. Dec. 20, 2007

The natural father deserves to have his child- it is his child!

anon | 5:12 p.m. Dec. 24, 2007

The father certainly didn't seem all that interested in the baby during the pregnancy, and it took 2 weeks after the birth for him to say something.

So I'm wondering if there is pressure from his family. Maybe they are they ones who truly want this child.

My opinion, don't take the baby out of a loving home with parents who love him.

Does he even know his birth father? What would it do to Harvey if he was taken out of the only home he's ever known and from parents who love him?

I think the court needs to settle this quickly. Before the whole thing severely affects Harvey's life.

Also, I wonder if there is a neutral court that can make this decision? Cour D'Alene is a small town with (I've heard rumored) a good old boys club in the courts and legal system. I wonder if it is fair to have this small town court decide the fate of these 5 people.

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3

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.