One might argue that birthfather challenges are more common in states in which birthfather rights are more prominent (unlike in Utah, known for being an "easy" state in which to sidestep dads who might have an interest in parenting had they been aware of a pregnancy or adoption plan in advance). However, across the nation, domestic adoptions (properly done) are generally are much safer and legally-secure than the American public realizes. The case of Baby Harvey not withstanding, open adoption in the U.S. continues to provide both parents and children in need with a stable, compassionate alternative to foster care, abortion and a lifetime of welfare dependency.

I think you should check the parking lot because when you affirmatively assert your paternity in Utah then you got rights. Rights that can't be denied, wavered, or infringed. Sometimes that sort of jargon, legalese, or jive talk is taken too seriously but not seriously enough in cases such as Kalaniraerafko vs. Missouri where the rights of fathers were negatively impacted by the neglect of agencies such as Rudy's Kids to find if there was a parent willing to take custody. The legal right for fathers exists and fathers seeking custody should be aware that it isn't solely at a woman's disgression. Such laws are commonly refered to as "fancy boy" rights.

Many commenting assumes the father knew of the mother's pregnancy & when & where the child was born. A father can't notify the court of his intent to parent his child if he doesn't know about the pregnancy. Even so, he may not know about the Putative Father Registry. In many states it must be signed within 30 days of the child's birth. Sadly, laws regarding father's rights vary greatly from state to state. Unmarried father's have no constitutional rights (to their children).
An expectant mother is given counseling. Yet the law does NOT require that a father be notified. Only that he sign a registry he likely doesn't not know about.
My husband & his ex-wife had twins at 20.There was no life of "welfare dependence". People assume far too much.
I hope those willing to claim this father has no rights are willing to give up their legal rights to their own property based on some unknown law. People get upset about losing their property rights under eminent domain laws. Yet you expect a father to give up his child without consent.

You are so right. Most of these people that write in doesn't understand that LDSFS has been going around father's rights for years. It wouldn't have mattered if this matt T would have filed like shawn mcdonald in texas. Mr McDonald(shawn) did file with the Texas putative father registry in time and LDSfS still took his child in fact hid where the child was for 16 months. He still fighting in court. They hid the child to use best interest in court and it worked. Mr McDonald has visitaion for now. I wonder what these people would do if he went against the judge and kept his child instead of taking him back to a couple who knew he wanted his son from the begining.