Deseret News | Letter asks for baby Harvey back

Reader comments
Letter asks for baby Harvey back

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Anonymous | 11:52 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I have a daughter otu of wedlock, my girlfriend at the time was deciding between adoption or abortion... I had NO SAY. I begged her to keep it. She did, we didnt stay together but now have a good friendship with a gorgeous little girl. I have never once signed ANYTHING claiming paternity. I received papers saying I could get a free paternity test, but I knew she was mine so I threw them away. He probably felt the same, didnt object to the kid being his so why sign anything? I feel bad for the adopting parents, but this guy never had a chance. Its the womans decision. Family services were more concerned about doing their job than caring about a mans son. They will have to live with this!

Are you crazy? | 11:54 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

To all of you who think the birth father should be able to claim his child three weeks after adoption: What should be the cutoff? Six weeks? Six months? Six years?

According to Idaho law, the cuttoff is at birth or prior to placement for adoption. Doesn't that make sense? The dad had plenty of warning. What security does an adoptive family have if a birth parent can show up any time they want and ask for their baby back?

Do you really think that after raising this baby for six months the adoptive parents can just walk away from a child they have waited for for years?

Do you really think that they can just take the next baby that comes along and everything will be fine?

Adoption is costly even without lawsuits. Prior stories indicated that this family is financially devestated by this situation.

If the birth father really wants to be a dad, he can get a good job, find a girl he loves, marry her, and the two of them can make a family.

Re:are you crazy | 11:58 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

If the birth father really wants to be a dad, he can get a good job, find a girl he loves, marry her, and the two of them can make a family.

nice way to put it. I was much more rude and got edited.

Comments continue below

crazynotinsane | 12:07 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

When I was 19 I gave a child up for adoption. The LDS church tried to get involved and wanted to place the baby themselves. I fought them and went through a private agency. I never regretted giving my child a better life. But I also did not like the church pressuring me the way they did. Do not underestimate the role the church played in this adoption.

Re:Are you crazy | 12:30 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I like the way you put it too. If the birth father is smart, he'll tell his parents (if they're behind this) to keep out of it and try to work out an arrangement with the adoptive parents where he can have some supervised visitation.

Visitation!!!!!! | 1:21 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Heck no. That should never happen. Talk about a way to screw up a child.

He is out...... find a new baby.

I'm for Dad | 1:22 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

People are forever bemoaning the dead-beat dad's in this country. Here is a Dad who wants to raise his child and now we are trashing him and his rights because he didn't meet some arbitrary deadline. Thank goodness we have judges who can make exceptions in individual cases. The mother is no hero for helping to bring an out of wedlock child into the world and adopting it out against it's father's wishes. If she can't raise the child herself the father should. Adoption agencies are not supposed to be tearing biological families apart in order to create adoptive families.
The best interest of a child is to be with one or both biological parents (as long as they are capable). If that does not happen, then adoptive parents are the next best choice.

Give him back! | 1:32 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

They should pack up all his toys, cloths, cribs, diapers, food, blankets, stroller, binki's, and pictures. I'm talking all the stuff and give it to the judge along with the baby. Then a bill for the purchase of all the stuff including attorney fees, food, hospital ect. Then pain and suffering for the boy not coming forward promptly. Then the judge can release the child when they come up with payment. That's justice! He could also go to our great system of foster care until this is resolved.

It will only hurt for a moment. The child, well he'll get over it. He is just a possession that can easily be moved around with out damage.

Andrew | 1:49 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

The real crime in this case is being perpetrated by selfish judges who can not even agree on how to interpret thier own laws. Greedy lawyers who in this case need to upset the life of a child and a couple who have done nothing but open thier home via adoption. Selfish and greedy parents who have no ones intersts but thier own in mind. A biological fatrher who decided that signing any paperwork would be a bad move. The law must stand for something and individuals must be held accountable for thier choices. In the mean time a child will be severely damaged due to the inability of alleged adults to do the right thing. It is sad that adoptions more and more cause problems like these. I would encourage potential parents to look at out of country adoptions rather than play russian roulette with thier hearts by seeking in country adoptions. At least the rights of adoptive parents are protected better with foreign adoption. The attornies and judges should be ashamed of them selves for perpetrating this damage on a child. No wonder lawyers and judges are thought of a slime, it is because of rulings like this.

Dad lost his chance | 2:13 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

"The best interest of a child is to be with one or both biological parents (as long as they are capable). If that does not happen, then adoptive parents are the next best choice."

Says who? I cannot believe anyone would honestly believe that keeping a child in a single parent household with the primary caretaker a mere 20 years old would better serve the interests of the child than giving the child a stable home environment with two parents that obviously want the child and can provide for all of his emotional and financial needs.

Anonymous | 2:27 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

If the father really cared about & wanted the baby, he would have been involved right from the beginning. He wouldn't have missed the deadline, or the birth. He should have been involved from the start. All he is going to accomplish is to disrupt the life of the innocent baby.

what the ? | 2:38 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

to the i'm for dad what are you talking about? the bio-father is 20 years old. how old are you? if you are older think back to when you were that age? were you ready to be a father? or did you want more from life, such as having a good time, education, etc.? as for the judge who made this stupid decision, the one to give the bio-father his kid back, the judge needs his head examined. the bio-father it looks like he had all the time in the world to make the decision to say I WANT MY SON! but he has chosen not to, now all of a sudden he says hey i want my son? or could it be that grandma wants a grandchild and she will stop at nothing to get it!?! adoption is wonderful, and yes it can be risky. but for all of you out there that have not had to adopt because you have been able to have kids naturally, leave us that adopt alone! when you have walked a mile in our shoes, then you can talk about how adoption is! ENOUGH SAID!!!!

The Law is the Law | 4:02 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Judges need to follow the law; not make it. Fortunately, an Idaho judge doesn't have direct jurisdiction over a Utah couple. I suppose they could compel LDS Family Services to get Harvey back, but my wife and I adopted a boy in a similar situation and our attorney told the LDS attorney we might just refuse to give him back without a Utah judge stepping in and compelling us. Our birth father backed out in the last minute so it didn't go quite as far as this case, but I feel for the couple. You do everything you can to follow the law as does the agency; the father who knows of the pregnancy does nothing to find out what the law may be so he can comply and then as a Johnny come lately, he steps in to screw it all up. The law has to have a cutoff at some point or adoptive parents would forever live in fear of something like this happening. If the law establishes a cutoff date, that should be the law and short of fraud on behalf of the agency or the adoptive parents, there should never be a cause for reversal.

Jimmy | 4:09 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

This stuff sounds like a Lifetime Made for TV movie or an afterschool special gone terribly wrong. I've known people on both sides of the argument in the past and can honestly say that:

1. Usually it is better for a child to be raised in a 2 parent household.

2. Some people, even those young or inexperienced, do well raising a child against the odds. Heck there are some couples I've known who adopted via LDS Family Services who never should have been given the chance to be parents. (I'm not saying all, because most adoptive parents I've known have been solid couples who will never err).

3. LDS Family Services involvement in this case is a joke. They are worse than the Mafia and the only good I can see is that they provide employment opportunities for inexperienced Social Work grads from BYU that cannot otherwise find suitable employment. I've seen too much bad come out of LDSFS for both adoptive and birth parents.

4. Nearly all adoptive parents I've known are better parents than some who had children naturally. (This may be the most important point of my rant).

Shim Hill | 4:18 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Solomon would cut the birth father in two and give have to the baby and half to the adoptive family.

Anonymous | 4:22 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

just because your sperm impregnates an equally immature young woman doesn't mean you get to be daddy after all the indifference that you showed. at least the birth mother did the right thing by giving the baby up for adoption after realizing she wouldn't be able to provide a good life for the baby. this baby Harvey should be with the adoptive parents, who can provide that good life for him.

Sad | 4:40 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

What a hard thing to deal with.

My heart goes out to Callie.

Doug | 4:59 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Blood is blood. End of story.

We need Solomon | 5:39 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I agree with everyone who is concerned about the baby. Pity should be for the baby. Harvey is still young, but all this change and turmoil will affect him. I hope the paternal grandmother has enough money for therapy for him when he is older. (If the biological father wins custody)

Re:Doug | 5:45 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

Blood is blood, and sperm is sperm. Those two things have nothing to do with real parenting.

john | 6:55 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

proof - adoption is not for the best interests of anyone.
These parents obviously do not wish to obey the law.
They are turning a simple case ( decided by due process) into a media circus for their interests - not the child's!

Why all the hatred? | 8:23 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

The kid got his girlfriend pregnant, he didn't shoot her grandmother.

20 yrs old... | 8:44 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I was 20 when I had my son out of wedlock... I never married his mother. I now have an 11 yr old son who was raised fine. Age has nothing to do with it. Its all about responsibility. Sure I had other plans for my life, but God had different ones for me and I have never once regretted it. This guy never said it wasnt his kid, therefore he had no reason to sign anything claiming paternity. I never did. I also have a 4 year old daughter out of wedlock that I never signed anything for. So does this mean the kids arent mine? I get along great with both mothers and my kids are as normal as any other kids. This guy deserves to have his child. Just cuz some paper wasnt signed shouldnt determine it. ITS HIS SON. Its not a car that was sold out from under him. Put yourself in his shoes.

Meg | 9:11 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

I have a 6-month old baby, and he is mine biologically. He is at the point that he knows his father and me, and gets stressed when he's not with one or the other of us. The Nielson family is the only family that baby Harvey has ever known, and he is probably terribly distraught without them. My heart really goes out to him and to the Nielsen family who had their sweet six month old torn from them. I can't even imagine how hard it must be for them, especially during the holidays, to have their baby absent. THAT BABY BELONGS WITH THEM!!!

Re/ Meg | 9:38 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

what if your 6 month old had been taken from you cuz your husband gave him away without you having a choice? Would you still feel the same way? That little boy will grow up and find out the story and resent the adopted parents from keeping him from his real parent WHO WANTS HIM!!!!! He is 1, he might have a little bit of problems at first, but who really remembers anything at 1.

re 20 year old... | 10:19 p.m. Dec. 19, 2007

The fact that you did not sign anything does not change current law in Idaho. If the father does not register in a timely manner in Idaho, then legally it is not his. Once the baby is placed, it is not in the best interest of the child to remove it from the home. Any social service agency sponsored by any organization would act in a way that is in the best interests of the child and in accordance with local law. Tha tis all the adoption agency is doing here.

LDS Soc. Services | 12:51 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

LDS Soc Services which is run by the LDS church feels that any child that is born to a single mother is and should be made availible for adoption. Some moms just do not marry the fathers. So to LDS SS the mom should give her child up for adoption to a family that has been married in the temple so that this child can be a part of a forever family. The church feels the same way.

I also had a child out of wedlock. Soon after joining the church LDS-SS was telling me that no man would want to marry me because I had a child. I married 4 months later. Right now I know a 15 year old who is doing a great job raising her 1y/o son with a little help from her mom. She is an honor student too. I know a lot of single moms who have had LDS-SS right there before the baby is born waiting to snatch it away telling her that she is being selfish for wanting to keep it. Most did end up marrying the child's father. How wonderful for the child to have its parents.

Rob | 7:47 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

She did give him the papers to sign. He didn't sign them. Babies should not be in limbo until people "get around" to filing paperwork. Follow the law. It was put there to make sure the babies had parents to bond to immediately. That is very important. He already has bonded to these parents. He was placed with them legally and he has every right now to stay where he has bonded. This is where he feels safe now. LDS Family services made sure they followed every law. Why doesn't the Judge follow those laws when everything was done legally.

law.... | 6:08 p.m. Dec. 20, 2007

Its a stupid law and all of you know it. Papers dont determine fatherhood. I cant wait for this young man to find out the truth when he's older. He will resent these people for not giving his dad a chance. And to anyone who believes a child out of wedlock should be given up has issues and will face God one day. I was one of those kids, and my parents have been married for 30 years. Try telling them I shouldnt be theirs

Anonymous | 8:24 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

As an adoptive parent myself, I am so grateful to the birth parents out there who know when they are not able to take care of their child to put it up for adoption. I did not go through LDS Services, even though I have heard all good about them. They sounded like they followed the laws just like my agency did. Anyone who has ever dealt with adoption knows that theirs is a lot of legal stuff they follow. Good agencies follow the laws and it sounds like this agency did the same thing.

Anonymous | 8:27 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

This child will not resent his parents when he is older. He will be grateful to them for raising him and loving him. He will be resentful that his birth father did not do what he was supposed to do when his birth mom explained to him that she was pregnant. If he wanted to keep his son he should have decided that then. If he would have contacted an attorney then when his girlfriend was pregnant and said I want my baby then this would not be happening. This baby is in the home it needs to be in.

Re: Lds Soc. Services | 9:04 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Oh Please! That is just crazy. You make it sound as if the LDS Social Services has a monitor out there that dings and tells them when young women become pregnant out of wedlock! CRAZY! The truth is that the pregnant female seeks out advice in all avenues. For some adoption is the best option, for others it is not. But you shouldn't judge the system if you have never been a part of it.

I adopted a little girl almost 10 months ago and I have been re-reading the correspondence I had with the birth mom before she had chosen to place the baby with us. It is amazing how strong these young women are. And there were so many reasons why she chose the path she chose and while she may have felt that her reasons were selfish, we felt that she was being totally UNselfish! It is completely different for both parties I have a sister who also placed a baby for adoption and it too was amazing and a totally different experience.

My point is, don't judge where you have no REAL first hand knowledge.

re/ anonymous | 10:52 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

he wont resent them? His father IS DOING what he is suppose to. He has faught this the whole time. man you people are ignorant

Lauri | 7:31 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

A man/or women to that fact, shouldn't have to go sign a paper in court to say "this is my child". The fact of DNA says that. This father wasn't anonoymous, he signed nothing to give his child away. Give this man back his child.

Sue | 9:07 a.m. Dec. 25, 2007

Yes, Harvey, your biological father did try to get you back after you were born. But he waited a little too long and you were already a few months old so we loved you so much we couldn't give you to him. And your biograndmother also wanted and said she loved you but you know she was just selfish nothing like your adoptive grandparents. Yes you do have biological family but we know what is best for you and it is us. So it would be better if you would just forget about them and their struggle to get you back, we won and you are our very precious prize.

Hey Sue | 11:19 a.m. Dec. 30, 2007

Didn't the Nielson family sign a high risk placement with LDSFS. Do they know what that means? If not I will tell you it means the father either doesn't know about the baby or they are just waiting intil it's to late.
How are you going to feel if little Harvey grows up and has a child stole by adopted parents with the help of a adoption agency are you going to stand there and tell me that he is worthless and not good enough to have his child. By the way Harvey is going to grow up not trusting women.

Disheartened | 7:15 p.m. Jan. 14, 2008

It's scary and a shame that we have judges in place who either do not fully understand the laws or simply choose not to uphold them as written. In my opinion, politics played a part, as the first judge was wrong and the subsequent judges backed him to cover their collegue and "perserve" the "integrity" of their team. I hope that from this point forward, these judges have the integrity and backbone to enforce the laws exactly as they are written and they hold the public accountable to do the same. That is their duty isn't it? Isn't that what we've entrusted them to do?

Anonymous | 8:32 a.m. Sept. 6, 2008

re: Hey Sue

Ummmmm Sue IS the Nielsons! Apparently you didnt read it right.....but thats neither here nor there.....the fact is this poor child is being ripped here and there, not knowing which way is up, and I think its the greed of the adopted family that this father not have a chance to raise HIS OWN CHILD!! Children dont have nor should parents have a time limit on them!!
My fiance was adopted out of an orphanage and was "picked out" by his sister (who is also adopted) and the Biological parents does not know anything about his adoptive parents who he calls MOM AND DAD! That's a choice the adoptive parents made. His adoptive parents say they "don't know" who his real parents are, but talking to his adopted sister, they do! They just won't tell him, which is pretty selfish. Hes 38years old now, and should know everything he can about his bio mom and dad, but they've done nothing but bash his bio mom and dad. Reguardless of how they are, they should let him make that decision. Ok im just babbling now.....enough said!! Good luck to Harvey's BIO DAD I hope everything works out!

Angry | 1:47 a.m. Nov. 16, 2008

As an adoptee myslef these comments are infuriating. This child has the right to have that which was taken from me and should NOT be taken from him - his real true family and real true lineage - which the adoptive parents are not!!!

Angry | 1:48 a.m. Nov. 16, 2008

As an adoptee, "myself" I meant...

Page:
< Previous
1
2

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.