Deseret News | Judge rules birth father should have temporary primary custody

Reader comments
Judge rules birth father should have temporary primary custody

What a Judge! | 4:01 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

So the judge in this case is the same as the bio father...a COWARD. It takes guts to do what is right. This judge apparently has none!

Does anyone know of somewhere to make or mail comments directly to him (the judge) so he knows how the rest of us feel?

Anonymous | 4:03 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Who is looking out for the best interest's of this child? It is obviously not the birth father, if he was, he wouldn't want to be putting this child in a disfunctional enviroment. The birth mother has stated that she wants this child in the adoptive home. She gets it!

How is it that our system is so messed up that a judge would rule against the BEST situation for the child. Who has he bonded with? Who does he know? Who loves him more than anything?

Our judicial system needs some help. What a shame!!!

Sad situation | 4:15 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

IT is too bad there was not the foresight for the Birth mother to come to Utah to have the baby. There would not have been the fiasco and upheaval. Some judges don't use common sense and may be prejudiced. Too bad for the innocent child. Best wishes to all involved and resolution. Temporary is not forever and the judge may just be testing the waters. Who cares, what is right for this child appears to have been ignored. Maybe the judge thought a short time with the birth father is better than none and couldn't rule it another way. The wisdom of Solomon is much needed.
What is to be, is to be. I would not give up on the outside chance that little one will end up where he really belongs. Let's hope.

Comments continue below

:) | 4:25 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Congrats, dad. This is a good day.

KH | 4:33 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I hope the biological-father is ready to take care of this boy and raise him better than he was. From his record so far I doubt his maturity. I feel sorry for the kid.

Jake | 4:38 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Annonymous,don't be so quick to judge, you don;t know the whole story. You have no clue as to circumstances leading up to the Judge's decision. CHILL OUT.

Adoptive mom of 7 | 4:46 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

A single teenage father who could care less about the kid until a little while ago is the best place for this child? No job, a criminal record. I see, that's a good place? Not a stable 2 parent family? I'll kiss my 7 tonight, and thank my Heavely Father for not allowing our family to go through that trauma.

What a Jerk! | 4:49 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I am very upset with the decision the judge and the birth father has made in this case. You don't give up a child or even a baby for adoption and then 5 1/2 months later say that you want the baby back when the birth father has had no contact the last part of the birth mother's pregnancy. I hope who ever reads this can tell the judge that he has made the wrong decision and that that baby should remain with his adopted parents who love him. I hope that the appeal that the church is going to do passes. I guess when you get the big bucks, you can do what ever you want to and get away with it.

Anonymous | 4:55 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

So now the father can get welfare thanks a lot to that judge and Idaho. One more dime why didn't he think of father hood before he did what he did to bring that child into the world. Another lost soul. Let me know how much it is going to cost me as the tax payer to cloth and feed this child over the next 18 years.

Jo Anne Swanson | 5:06 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

You'd think adoption agencies would catch on after all the fiascos that have resulted from failure to notify birthfathers in a timely manner. And agencies which make a practice of crossing state lines should certainly know better. The idea of "putative father registries" may seem like a fair concept to some, but in reality it has proven disastrous. Why not notify the father when the mother first expresses her intention to release for adoption so he can have some input? It takes two to tango, after all, unless there was rape or incest involved. You can be sure he'd be notified pronto if the mother opted to parent her child and sought child support! So is he a father or isn't he? If he isn't, he should be totally exempt from ever paying child support. And if he IS a father, then he needs to included in decision-making. It is in cheating fathers out of this role that agencies have created these hell-on-earth situations for adoptive parents. Why should they - and the child - be made to suffer because the adoption agency tried to leave the father out of the loop?

Ron | 5:20 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

What a disappointing decision. The birth father needs to grow up and think about what is best for the child. If he had Harvey's best interests at heart, he would leave him with his adoptive family. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why that would be best for everyone involved. It's too bad that the law sides with someone who walked away from their responsiblities and now, too late in my opinion, decides that they want this baby after all. Once a child has been placed in an adoptive home, that is where they should stay. This guy had plenty of time to decide if he wanted to parent the child. He made his decision when he had no contact with the birth mother. The law needs to be changed to protect the children and adoptive parents in these situations. I'm surprised at LDS Family Services. I thought they crossed all their t's and dotted all their i's before placing a child for adoption. If there was any doubt about the birth father, the child should not have been placed in an adoptive home until he had signed off.

Brenda | 5:21 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I assume we would rather the mother have an abortion huh, that's what alot of young women do when they find themselves is this situation. As far as I know from my experience is there is no longer a welfare system (thanks to welfare reform) so the father will have to work or rely on someone else for support. Also why do you assume a 2 parent family is stable. I've known couples who have adopted and gotten a divorce shortly afterwards. I am a single parent and my children have a stable home.

Wondering | 5:23 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I'm curious. If the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't, then does this reversal of roles place a burden for paying child support upon the mother who doesn't want to be involved with the child?

casey | 5:57 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Does anyone know whether the birth father got notice of the adoption or if he was married to the birth mother when the baby was born?

:( | 5:58 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

who's going to pay for this child's mental therapy?

Been there | 6:00 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

To Jo Anne Swanson... (and others)
You are making a huge assumption in accusing LDS Family Services of not notifying the birth father or getting his signed consent. Having worked with LDSFS in the past, I can tell you that they make every attempt to get the father's signed consent, even in states where not required by law. Signatures notwithstanding, many judges allow the birth parents to change their mind until the adoption is finalized (6 months in Utah). Until finalization, all adoptive parents are on pins and needles, since it is not at all unusual for birth parents to change their minds. It is often one or more of the birth grandparents who step in and say "Oh, he's so cute--you can handle this! We'll all help make it work. Get the baby back!"
The resulting scenario handicaps the birth mother and baby, and dramatically increases the ongoing challenges for both. Grandma and Grandpa can support mother and baby for a couple of years, but then what? No education, no father, low income, baby goes to subsidized daycare.... Makes a tough row to hoe. As has been noted, this judge isn't thinking about the child.

maybelle | 6:12 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I hope the judge rethinks this adoption and allows the adoptive parents to keep this child. The natural
father is not thinking of what is best for this little boy. Maybe the judge wants this young man to realize that he isn't prepared to be a dad. A few weeks of caring for a baby, could change his thinking.

I sincerely hope this little boy can remain with the only parents he has known.

Gretzky | 6:14 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

dirty deeds done dirt cheap...just ask AC/DC or any lawyer...what is this 20 year old irresponsible father going to do for this child??? nothing. his parents will end up taking care of the child only to see the child never amount to anything statistically speaking. very sad abuse of our Heavenly Father's procreative power by this young man. and now he want to compound the problem.

Legal Confussion | 6:19 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

LDS Social Services deals with thousands of adoptions daily! I have personally seen where they had to have TWO fathers sign release forms to make the adoption so that this very thing would NEVER be an issue in the future, one in Hawaii and one in New Mexico so state lines were NOT an issue. I cannot even understand how this happened? (it was a situation where the mother got pregnant while the father was serving in the military...talk about red tape!!) I suppose there is a lawyer and a judge who can be bought at any price! I pray for the couple who are having a baby torn from their arms especially at this time of the year. My thoughts are that there is a mother behind the biological father who wants the baby...there usually is more to the story than meets the eye (or the press)

... | 6:24 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

oh my goodness... abortion is a terrible thing. its basicly killing a person so basicly its murder... i mean i understand that someone may not want or cant support the child but me personally i would try and give my child to a foster home if i couldnt take care of him/her. the mom is defentally in her right mind. i hope the father realizes whathe is doing. The childs perents are Teenagers they most likely dont have a very sapporting job. this judge isnt looking at the facts.

Burn the Boxers | 6:31 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

This decision should have happened five months ago when the father requested custody (baby was two weeks old). While the mother gave up custody, the father did not and that is where the problem started. While I do feel for this couple (as my own family has adopted children), I do see this as a positive step towards establishing equal parenting rights for both genders. Right now men don't get custody because they are...well men.

I am for burning the boxers right now as a symbol of breaking the gender oppression when it comes to children and who should have custody.

Ramirez | 7:00 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Kudos to the judge!

Janet Dickson | 7:20 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

What is the judge thinking? How can a 20 year old boy care for a child? All children deserve to be in a home with a mother and a father. Where was he at the time the adoption was arranged. Obviously not interested or caring.

Sick | 7:51 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

This story makes me sick to my stomach. I can't imagine what this poor couple must be going through right now. This "sperm donor" cannot adequately care for a young child. I can't think of many things more selfish than tearing a small baby away from the only parents he has ever known just for some personal gratification. Good job Mr. Tenneson, with any luck you will successfully manage to completely screw up your kid and destroy an adoptive couple's lives at the same time. We'll look for Harvey in about 16-18 years in the state corrections system or on welfare. What a legacy you will leave him with.

Jim | 8:16 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I have been involved in Child Protection for over 13 years. If you want you case to go south really quick, give it to a judge. This sort of decision should not be placed into the hands of one person. You have to take into consideration the bonding of the child, the best interests of the child. It appears here that the judge has only taken into consideration the best interests of the father. When the father gets tired of his new toy...what then?

momofsons | 8:19 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

If you've ever been involved with a custody case, you realize just how the courts can be suckered in by manipulating people. This father is one. The biggest sorrow is for the child. He is NOT a toy but a innocent child who is going to be torn if this keeps up. The adoptive parents are older and tougher but it still hurts like crazy. I feel for them. We've through a situation sort of similar and involved our own child and grandchild...whom we've now adopted. It was a long and wrenching time for all involved but especially for the child who couldn't understand why the court did this to him. Lots of therapy, money and TONS of love. Hang in there, know that the child has a Heavenly Father who will know what's best for all in the long run, but it does get rough in the mean time.

What... | 8:20 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

a screwy court system we have...

Adoptee | 8:33 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Wow... there are a lot of opinionated people here who care a lot more about the adoptive parents than the child. Children belong with their birth families whenever possible. If the adoptive parents wanted to avoid a nightmare, they should have given the child back as soon as the father stepped forward, when the child was two weeks old (by their own admission). The adoptive parents are really messing with this child's head for their own selfish wants. That's a shame.

Adult Adoptee | 8:56 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I for one am THRILLED!!!! Thank God this judge had the good sense to return the child to his FATHER, where he belongs.
The apotive 'parents' can always get another baby--for this father and son there is no replacement.

Craig | 9:17 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

We all know it is not the birth father behind this...it must be his parents. I have known many like they must be. "Oh, he is so cute, we cannot let one of our own be given up for adoption. Son, you must fight this and we will take care of him" I am truly sorry that the "sperm donor" and his parents can't really see that this child will be able to have a far better life and better chances of living up to his potential in the adoptive parents home. This just boils down to selfishness on the part of the "sperm donor" and his parents. What a shame. Can't the court just for once make a decision in the best interests of the child?

Lee | 9:44 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Sign of our times.

The generation that is all about me, me, me.

Who cares what's best for a baby.

Did this irresponsible boy pay for the birth mothers medical bills? Or his son's? Does he have a job? An education? Has he ever supported himself financially? A piece of advice for this child: Grow up, get a decent job, pay for something for once in your life then think about having kids that you can financially support. Otherwise, you are just a burden on the tax paying public - I dont want to pay for your mistakes. Be a man and take this one on the chin.

mw | 9:52 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Each state has different laws and I don't know what they are in ID, but in UT (unlike a previous poster said) birth parents CANNOT reclaim a child during the 6 months waiting until finalization. They (the birth parents) have relinquished rights.

jmdspk | 9:53 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

To all the people that are saying that the baby should be with the birth father. So this baby should be raised by it's father who is living with his parents, is immature, and has not show that he really cares about the baby because some judge in Kooky County says that's the way it should be?

someone who knows | 10:14 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Idaho law is quite clear. The birth father could have taken many actions to preserve his paternal rights prior to the birth: paid expenses, signed the registry, helped the mother, etc. He did none of those things.

AZ | 10:16 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

OK young people JUST LEARN to keep it in your pants and then none of this would be happening???? Oh may that's a thought! Grow up people!!!!!

CR | 10:55 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

We had our adopted son taken back because of a loophole in the wording of our contract. He wasn't "just an adopted son that we could replace with another adopted kid". He was our child. If you think of them in any other way than as your own, you shouldn't be adopting. We almost felt like we'd had a child die because you can't see them anymore, and they're ripped out of your life. Noone can replace him. The pain is incredible.

Anonymous | 11:09 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The father didn't take responsibility when the baby was born. Why is he all of a sudden wanting the baby? Fact. The birth father was dating the birth mother for the first little bit of the pregnancy. He knew she was pregnant, and he should know how long a pregnancy lasts. The baby is at least 5 months old by now. Why did he wait so long? If he wanted the child, he should have been claiming parental rights from the beginning.

puzzled | 11:32 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Heartbreaking story. But one thing that has always puzzled me about our laws is that a biological father cannot prevent the birth mother from having an abortion and killing his child! If he can't stop her from killing the child, why can he stop her from giving it up for adoption. Something is a bit illogical here.

Anonymous | 11:36 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I think AZ has a problem. who are you talking to? all young people? who needs to grow up? What???

Attn: CR | 11:39 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Now you know how most divorced fathers feel, when the court gives mom custody and the dad only gets a child support "obligation." If we get a month or two behind on support, we are "deadbeat dads." When mom alienates the kids (so that her new shack-up becomes "Daddy") and interferes with visitation for months and years . . .the courts do NOTHING. We live through it.

Sarah | 1:00 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

Once a child is born, it has TWO parents, not one. If the mother had kept the child, that father would have had to pay child support for the next 18 years as he was the "father", so why should she be able to give the baby away without the "father's" consent? The mother didn't want the baby so the father has the right to raise and care for the baby himself. He filed for custody as soon as he found out the baby was given up. The baby was only two weeks old and the adoption was not final. The adoptive family knew the baby was not theirs but they refused to give him back. This was wrong. Babies are not commodities to be given to "more worthy" families who can't have children of their own. They have a right to their own biological parents. Adoptive families should only step in when the biological parents are unable or unwilling to keep them. This is not the case here. The baby belongs with his father and shame on the adoptive parents for keeping his child from him.

Sue Harms | 1:45 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I have been following this case and the father wanted his son right away, he would have helped the mother but she wouldn't let him, and she did come to utah to have the baby I believe. She was being hidden from him by that wonderful organization Lds addoption. The adoptive parents knew when they got him that the father wanted him. So they can play the hurt and wounded ones only so far. I believe in this case the only honest ones are the birth father annd the judge. Everone else had ulterior motives and not once did they take into consideration the best interest of this little boy. Only their own selfish reasons . Now that is the sad part. truely sad.

So SAD | 3:40 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

I hope this judge was looking into the future of this baby. But, I don't think so. With this couple he had 2 parents who can afford to take care of him and provide for him all the necessities he needs physically and emotionally. I hope the boy who's now crying to have this baby back is prepared to provide for this baby until he's 18 yrs. old. Or will the grandparents be raising the baby and providing for him while the father cries for welfare. Stupid call on the part of the Idaho judge.

Anonymous | 7:58 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007

The baby was born in Idaho in the town they both lived in. The adoptive parents reported that they got a call about midnight left right away and didn't arrive in Idaho until the about noon. He didn't need permission to pay for half of the medical costs (try it at a local hospital pay $10 on someone elses account they won't give you an account balance but they will take your money). The "wrong" that the judge has done is ignoring the state statue that says the father must register during the pregnancy and pay half the costs in order to keep his rights. With the mother it is obvious she is the parent. The father must register if he wants it obvious to the courts. To those conspirators who claim the mother was hidden and taken to another state... the court case is in Idaho not Utah because all but the adoptive parents were in Idaho for the birth and adoption.

Adoption means $$$$ | 8:00 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007

You can't convince me that the tens of thousands of dollars that change hands in adoptions do not bias the system heavily in favor of completing the adoption despite the wishes and rights of the birth fathers.
Adoption is a lucrative business and those involved want to get paid.

Texas Dad | 8:59 a.m. Dec. 13, 2007

It appears clear from the majority of these comments that the father's rights movement has a long and steep hill to climb, at least as far as public opinion goes. Judicial decisions like this do give one hope, however. I am optimistic that my son will grow up in a world where his children cannot be taken from him by a court system that today is, as a rule, gender-biased to the point of being dysfunctional.

Lacey | 2:39 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007

As a mother myself I could not imagine taking that baby away from the family he knows and putting him in a home were he will be scared. The biological father in my eyes is no longer the father he is just a sperm donor I beleive he should have no rights at all he didnt want the baby then and you know that its not him that wants the baby now If he truly loved this baby and wants it to be happy he should let him be with his adoptive parents in his loving home. I know the mother personally and I know that they would never make a decision like adoption unless they knew that it was the best for the baby. The father should have no say he abandoned the mother and the baby so there for he sould loose all rights.

Riss | 3:10 p.m. Jan. 10, 2008

To Adoption means $$$$:

LDS Family Services is a non-profit agency and the Church actually loses money on adoptions. No one is profiting at the agency. And LDSFS only charges 10% of your income for the adoption fee unlike some other private agencies. So shut your pie hole unless you know what you're talking about.

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.