Deseret News | Reader comments: Birth dad in custody fight faces allegations

Reader comments
Birth dad in custody fight faces allegations

113 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

AnotherReader | 12:23 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

The biological father admits to smoking two bowls of marijuana and drinking wine. First off, isn't marijuana illegal in all states including Iowa? Second, he is a minor if the legal age for alcohol is 21 in Iowa like it is in most states... and third, consensual statutory rape? Doesn't sound like he needs to be raising a baby!!! He needs to raise himself to become a responsible, law abiding young man!!! I pray this beautiful baby gets to stay with his adoptive family!

Lee | 1:11 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

It seems that this case would be a slam dunk for an appellate court to reverse, especially with the relationship between the Judge and the birth fathers' family (not the mention the Father failed to preserve his rights according to the procedures proscribed by law)

Fatherly Reminder | 1:26 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

The procedures "prescribed" by law (not "proscribed" as that means prohibit) rest first and foremost in the 14th ammendment to the US Constitution, which gives the father de facto parental rights (That is a very good thing, as we, like the self-perceived well-intentioned Nazi's, often seem to find such well sounding reasons to violate inalienable rights to sever natural bonds), and then may be supplemented by state law. Anything requiring the biological father to do some sort of dog and pony show during the pregnancy is simply not a principle that constitutional republic as ours can live by in good conscience. People need to stop moralizing with their own skewed personal biases and judge by principles that must govern and rule if we even want to pretend to be just. This article is another smear by the press against fathers. It's interesting that they dug into the his past (remember we elected a president who smoked pot; I don't think it's a valid reason to strip someone's right to his own child) but not into the adoptive parents. I doubt they are perfect either. The point is it's the wrong thing to smear. Shame on LDS Family services for this.

Comments continue below

He should be SHOT! | 1:46 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

How DARE he try to have his son when he can't be perfect like the rest of us are. Two whole bowls of marijuana! WINE! Oh, the humanity!!!

. . .but one must wonder what a look in the adoptive parents' past might reveal . . .

Curtis B. | 1:53 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Previously I wrote in this forum, asking why this keeps happening, why isn't the father notified? I didn't realize then what I have since learned, that LDS social services followed Idaho law to the letter. This being the case, the couple ought to be able to keep the child.

I still feel sorry for the bio father. I put myself in his shoes and I really do feel his pain. Nevertheless the law was followed and any changes at this point would hurt the couple, the baby and peoples confidence in the adoption system. Let this be a lesson to fathers, if you have a girlfriend why may become pregnant, you need to find out what the law is in your state and protect yourself if keeping the baby is something you want to do. Let all sides learn a lesson from this.

Camille | 2:22 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

That boy doesn't deserve to have Harvey. If he can't obey the law himself. I don;t think he's grown enough to handle any responsibilities. And this Judge Burton needs to be expelled from this case if he thinks that a boy can be a "parent" when he's broken the law in so many things. Crazy!! The Nielsens deserve to keep Harvey cause they are responsible and have shown it already. Buying presents for a baby as the so-called natural father has doen is no basis for being ready to be a parent. Hold on tight to Harvey Mr. and Mrs. Nielsen!

Bob G | 4:39 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

The law about the parental rights are what should be changed. Parental rights should exist for eternity unless revoked in writing, not by an implied law. Who knows if the father was left out and not notified on purpose to instigate the adoption and subvert the fathers rights. This law implying the father must show intention is very easy to manipulate by attorneys and is wrong. The father, 2 weeks after the baby was born was trying to gain custody, and before the adoption was approved, that shows his intent. The courts and law have been manipulated in this case. These new accusations have no bearing on his parental rights, if it did, there are many children would be taken from their birth parents. The adoption laws and courts are being manipulated again and public opinions and emotions are also being manipulated. Just give the boy to his real father and stop all the haggling over a law that has subverted his parental rights. The only thing that matters is the natural father wants his child back that was stolen from him.

Irresponsible | 5:17 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

He smoked marijuana, drank wine, and then DROVE her home? What a winner.

selfishness | 5:48 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

It is plain to see that the birth father is all about himself. Do judges look at what is best for the child?

Reuel Jones | 5:52 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Dear AnotherReader
It is nice you know all about the law of Iowa, but the birth father is from IDAHO, the state just north of UTAH. I do agree with you about his fitness to be a father, maybe the next time he gets a girl pregnant he can make sure he gets the baby he wants so bad. Or maybe he could get married and have a baby with his wife. What a sad case. Adoptive parents make sure that the father is in agreement with the adoption before you take the baby. I also think that there is some blame to LDSSS for not doing their part in the adoption, is this their first adoption?

katie | 6:12 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

maybe he has grown up? give him a chance.

MotherInUtah | 6:16 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

This makes me so sick! When a judge makes a ruling using pure emotion and disregards even the rules and timelines of a legal adoption, his ruling should definitely be overturned, retired or not. I have had similar problems with Idaho judges in a custody case. It seems they favor the father quite unduly, and in our case, it has nearly ruined the children's lives permanently. What is it about some judges who never really consider how a decision will affect the children? Obviously a child will do better in a home where there is a father and mother who are old enough to be responsible, rather than a weenie for a teenager who makes minimum wage and lives with his parents, smokes, does drugs, and sleeps around. How hard could that decision could have been???? Will someone stand up for these adoptive parents? Who will rescue the child?

Parent Advocate | 6:54 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

So, what we're saying here is that a parent's rights should be revoked just because he or she experimented with sex and drugs? Do we really want that kind of governmental intrusion into our parenting? What would be the next "bad act" that would qualify for revocation of this right?

I think it's worth remembering that our rights as parents are fundamental and protected by the Constitution. They should not be revoked so easily. As a parent, I applaud the judge's ruling. It allows a "time out" so that the biological father's rights can be appropriately addressed. He is, after all, the parent here.

I sympathize for the pre-adoptive couple here. This is a very difficult situation. But just because they may well be able to provide a better life for this child does not justify steamrolling over the biological father's rights. I mean, there certainly are many well-meaning people out there who could provide a much better life for my kids that I am able to do. Does that mean that our legal system should allow them to take away my kids?

Lauri | 6:55 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

It's Mr. Tenneson's son, give him back and not tomorrow .. TODAY.

dallas | 6:59 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Upon first hearing this case I sympathized with the birth father. But if these allegations are true the system would be stupid to place the kid back with him. This guy doesn't even seem to be able to take care of himself let alone his own child.

Finehomes | 7:11 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

What does Iowa have to do with anything?

george | 7:25 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

if this is the respect of the Nielsen's to a court order, perhaps it is time for some 'balanced' reporting of their 'past'.
This father (perfect or not) is simply asking the family to honour a legal decision, instead they seem not to to respect the court or only wish to if it goes their way.
If this is their attitude now - I hate to imagine what type of parents they are!

No angels here | 7:31 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

What a shock! A pair of unwed teens fornicate and produce a child and now everyone's up in arms because one of the two isn't perfect? This is the first 19 year old boy who had sex with a 16 year old girl??? What they smoked some pot? I pray that we'll start to get some unbiased reporting on this case. My heart goes out to this troubled young man and his family and I'm sickened by the hand wringing and lack of compassion for him that is shown by well-intentioned LOCAL people who have been prejudiced from the slanted reporting that has been presented here. I want to know what relationship exists between the reporter and Tyler's guardian family! Send Tyler back to his father in accordance with the judges' rulings! Obey the law of the land!

las vegas bowl | 7:37 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Some stories, like this one, unfortuantely, are hard to read. It is terrible to even try and imagine two people that sound as good as the Neilsons do have to go through something like this. I do not think it is right, but obviously, I am not the judge. This birth father not only should have said something waaaay earlier, but also does not sound like the kind of father that deserves to raise a child, especially at 19. Good luck to the family. I hope you get to keep your child for Christmas. Merry Christmas to all.

No angels | 7:59 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

"I still haven't come to grips with the fact my baby is coming home and we have the responsibility of taking him on," the 19-year-old Knight said.

Knight said she and Tenneson discussed the baby's future often...

"He couldn't make up his mind," Knight said. "It was emotionally wearing.

To AnotherReader: | 8:02 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Pay attention. The biological father is from IDAHO, not Iowa. Idaho. Sheesh.

No angels | 8:06 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Thank goodness for google and the ability to find the cdapress website and get some info on the story that the biased reporting from the Deseret News is leaving out! As I had posited in early posts, baby Tyler was born two weeks early and LDS Family Services FAILED to get Tenneson to sign away his parental rights and that is why the Idaho judges are ruling on Matt's behalf. The folks in Idaho are riled up about this and just might file CRIMINAL charges against the Nielsons for failing to comply with the court order to turn baby Tyler over to his father. Cammie Knight is bothered that she is going to have to be a mother and care for her child and that is what is driving her to oppose the return of her son to Idaho. Look at her myspace page! She just wants to have fun and LDS Family Services was her way of avoiding being a parent so she could continue to have fun. And it might have worked...had LDS Family Services bothered to get Matt to sign on the dotted line.

Idaho Born | 8:23 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I think "Another reader" has been smoking something suspicious too. What does Iowa have to do with this story? Leave the baby where he is now and send the judge to Iowa.

evensteven | 8:37 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Classic example of judicial over-reach. Sounds to me like Tenneson Sr. is trying to use fatherhood as a way to get his kid to straighten out. This would be an easy one for Solomon - tell the kid to zip it and leave the baby with the adoptive parents.

SMH | 8:38 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

He's a thief
He's a rapist
He's a druggy/stoner
He drove under the influence
.....all illegal
He smokes cigarettes (although not illegal, creates a very unhealthy harmful environment)
DO NOT GIVE THE BABY TO THIS MAN!!!!
Harvey has 2 stable, loving, emotionally well grounded and healthy people, the only parents he has ever known. Please, enough with the jots and tittles of the laws...lets use our common sense. What is in the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD???

TX adoptive mom | 8:46 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

It seems to me the sperm donor is a day late and a dollor short. The judge should remove himself as he knows the sperm donors father. Adoptive parents keep fighting for your child. He is worth it

maybelle | 8:48 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

The State of Idaho should give Judge Burton an early retirement. Baby Harvey will be placed in a disfunctional environment if he is given to this irresponsible kid. This situation should never have come up.

I can see why the Judge doesn't answer his phone calls.

Jenn | 9:00 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

With him admitting all that he had done...drugs, having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old, and driving her home after the two of them were under the influence...sure, he sounds like a responsible parent. I cannot believe that a judge would even consider him having rights to a child. The poor child would grow up in a home with all of these things going on. You know he is no where CLOSE to being mature enough to even babysit a child, much less raising one. He has to be raised first! I hope he loses all rights to the baby, and the baby is able to stay with his adoptive parents in a loving home fit for a child.

Rob | 9:04 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

The incidents of smoking two bowls of Marijuana and rape occured the end of February. You cannot say someone has turned his life around in that short of time. He cannot provide a home for this baby if he is going to jail for rape. I for one am so glad this beautiful baby is in a good home. Follow the law. He did not apply in time so that is that. Then he should have to pay the legal costs that have incurred on the Adoptive Parents side.

To AnotherReader | 9:06 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I agree with you 100% but you forgot one thing...he drove her home after smoking those two bowls of pot and drinking wine. Hmmm, what about the safety of the child?!?!

PeevedParent | 9:22 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Tenneson would make a good father? If so, let him go get some other young girl pregnant. It looks like it won't be a problem for him - he can't keep it in his pants. Our society already has enough "good" parents like him. They set a lousy example for their children, don't spend time with their kids, and behave as selfish as possible.

You know who is a good parent in this whole situation? The birth mom! She has the best interest of her child in her mind and heart. She is giving this child the best chance to succeed in life. She is the one that has changed... not Tenneson. Tenneson can't take care of himself... let alone a small child that totally relies on a responsible adult for survival. Just because a person can make babies doesn't qualify them as a good parent. I don't know what other criteria the judge could be using to "qualify" tenneson (i can't continue to capitalize his name) as a good parent for this child. The kid has no chance with this dud as his dad.

zorro | 9:25 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

this is an absolute tragedy if the decision is upheld! The adoptive parents should have all the rights. They followed the rules on adoption and the father did nothing about it! the judge should be ashamed of himself and the legal system!

true blue | 9:41 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

To another reader--- It's idaho not iowa. However, you are right the laws are laid down. But this judge wants to be a hero. He's trying to set precedent because he doesn't agree with the Idaho adoption laws.

EMQ | 9:47 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Actions and inaction have consequences. Do not hand this infant over to this family. If the Tenneson's are so distraught over losing this child, why were they not in the court room when the adoption was finalized?

It sounds as if the entire Tenneson family has other issues to address before taking on the responsibility of a new child. Toys at Christmas and a new nursery do not qualify you to be parents. Actions speak louder than words. Is it too much to ask that Matt demonstrate mature and responsible behavior for more than 5-6 months? For the sake if this child I don't think so.

As A Father.... | 9:48 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I hope this childish father does the right thing for his son and lets the adoptive family keep him.
He blew his chance by not claiming his right by the date prescribed. I hope common sense and the rule of law come through for the adoptive family and the future of this little baby.

Stupid Is Alive | 9:59 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

This whole situation is ridiculous. How in the world can this young punk think that he would be a better option for this baby than the adoptive parents? Lets take an inventory of what we know.

He has little regard for the law, he smokes and drinks illegally, he is a drug user, he has a lucrative career as a video store clerk, he lives with his parents, he has no loving wife to nurture and care for the baby while he is out working. He is promiscuous. He steals the virtue of under aged girls, breaking the hearts of parents and disrupting the happiness of families. And he thinks that he can bring a child happiness and security?

And then there is his juvenile worker father saying, "my son has really changed and would make a wonderful father"....are you kidding me. The Dad should lose his job for being so stupid and using such poor judgment. His father works with low-life kids, but has a huge blind spot in the case of his own son. May the courts use a judge with a brain!

Lindsay | 10:44 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

If the mother placed the baby up for adoption so the baby could have a better life, she should not be forced into raising the child. She made her decision. What I don't understand is what the birth father is thinking? My brother has a lot of friends who have fathered children out of wedlock, and they don't pay child support, they are not involved in the childrens lives. As soon as the kid starts teething and crying all the time, Matt is going to bail. And for that matter, what are his parents thinking? They should be pushing Matt to sign the adoptive papers, so he has a chance to grow up before taking on the responsibility of parenting a child.

This child is going to grow up alone and messed up. I hope that the adoptive parents can retain custody--it's the babys only shot at a normal, productive life.

Clare | 10:56 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

It was the father's responsiblity to follow the law and to keep in touch with his girlfriend during her pregnancy. If we follow the logic of some of these arguments, then all adoptions would be invalid. If the law was followed according to the law of the state of Idaho then the adoptive parents have the right to keep the child. If the law was not carried out correctly, then there is some validity to the birth father's wishes. I am adopted by my step-father. Best thing that ever happened to me. I have a mother and a father who love me and support me. I got into contact with my birth dad when I was 29 years old. I actually went to see him after 36 years. It was very hard. He is not my dad, but I honor him and treat him as if he were. I'm eternally grateful that he gave me up. If the child wants to see his birth father when he's older that should be his decision. The baby is in a wonderful home with caring parents. Leave him be for the baby's sake. The birth father is just being selfish.

Confused... | 11:02 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I was just reading the Constitution and wondering where it talked about our rights as parents. I specifically went to the 14th Amendment to search, but I couldn't find anything in there about "de facto parental rights". It talked about not allowing States to make or enforce laws that "abridge the privileges...of citizens on the United States;...without due process of law" It seems the law was followed and the judge overruled it. I believe that since he didn't sign by the required date, regardless of why, he has forfeited any "rights" as a "father". I do believe that people can change, and that he quite possibly could be more responsible now and be a good father. But he wasn't a responsible father at the time that it could've made a difference. A lot of people are saying that LDS Services didn't get him to sign or that the mother didn't inform him or he didn't know. But the bottom line is that he should've known...because that's what being a responsible father is all about.

No angels | 11:03 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Oh the outrage! The horror! Give me a buck for every one of you losers who hasn't bothered to research this issue and is just venting your good Christian righteous anger against the young man in this story! Hypocrites. Have you read the reports from the local paper in Idaho? Do you realize that Amy Stewart has slanted her articles to present a picture that favors the LOCAL couple? Are you that incapable of independent judgment? Gee...now I need to repent for reproving with sharpness. But then...I'm not an angel either...and I can admit it! Can you???

a mom | 11:05 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Last I checked pregnancy lasts 9 months (or in this case 8 1/2)... seems like plenty of time to register to me. And as for Fathers having to go through a "dog and pony show" to claim their rights as parents being ridiculous, the next time a man pukes their guts out, gains 30 pounds and then pushes a pot roast out through their nostril they can claim hardship... but having to simply take a drive and fill out a form before the baby is born, pretty flimsy! I believe this story about the young man's past is a non-issue, told to stir up the pot, but it sounds as though the boy didn't follow the law so the adoption should stand.

re: No angels | 11:06 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I think it is hysterical that you think the Deseret News is slanting this story in favor of the adoptive parents. They did not even speak in this whole article. The Tennesons are the only ones who spoke. They just can't manage to say much that comes out in their favor.

Get Real | 11:06 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

The law is an implied law for a reason. Far to many young men get girls pregnant, and like Mr. Tenneson disappear and limit or cut off contact with the birth mother. How in the world, if the girl does not feel fit to raise a child and would like to adopt the baby out, would adoption be possible. Adoption would be a complete mess, we would see cases like this all the time. Having the biological father state his paternal rights is the only way for the system to work. Exercising his rights was an easy thing for him to do to show his real intent, but he failed to do this. Matt showed no intent on being a father throughout the pregnancy. Being the sperm donor does not automatically make him a person with parental capability or rights if he does not make it CLEAR that he wants to be a father.

Fredd | 11:11 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

What a bunch of arrogant judgemental comments. The father WAS in court to contest the adoption. The adoptive parents took the child knowing this was going to happen. Obvious conflict of interest as two LDS run enterpreise (DMNews and LDSSS) are in the middle of this. Lets take away children from every Mormon who drives with kids unbelted, not in car seats, bike riding without helmets etc. I can't count all the tragic deaths and injuries reported in Utah papers because young dumb irresponsible Utahns have more kids then they can cope with and don't monior them properly. While on vacation i found a child wandering the complex crying. 3 years old!! I took him to his condo and the 25 year old mother of four didn;t even know he was missing. We should take that child away.

The law | 11:29 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

The custody disupte was between the bio-mother and bio-father, the adoptive parents were not involved. So, the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction necessary to order the adoptive parents to return the child. I suspect the judge knows he does not have jurisdiction in that matter. For the adoptive parents to be legally bound to hand over the child, the bio-father would have to sue the adoptive parents directly. His threat to press criminal charges is an overzealous attempt to, once again, skirt the law instead of following traditional necessary procedures. He may be trying to avoid a trial about the best interest of the baby against the adoptive parents because he belives he would lose.

Josh | 11:29 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

You can disagree with the law all you want but it is the law and should be followed until changed. Possibly it should be changed but it hasn't. We can't have judges legislating. Someone commented about the consitutuon and it's intent- what about checks and balances?

Also, LDSFS has no responsibilty to 'get the father to sign the dotted line' He had the responsibilty to do so before the baby was born and it doesn't matter if the baby came two weeks later-there were several MONTHS to do this.

Smoking pot and statutory rape, although obviously not good signs of a responsible parent, should not be a discussion at this point because the law was followed.

If you don't agree with the law (we have a similar one in Utah), then get involved and try to get it changed but judges shouldn't be disregarding law so blatantly.

JGR | 11:36 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Lindsay, if you think that a mother should never have to be a mom because she farms the child out to adoptive parents, then you must also support the idea that a father who never sees his child shouldn't have to pay child support. However, courts have forced support "obligations" on men who never knew they had children, men who have been forced away from their children, and even SPERM DONORS who never had sex with the mother in the first place!

JGR | 11:36 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Clare, if the girlfriend didn't want to "keep in touch" during the pregnancy, and the father kept trying, the father would go to jail for stalking -- thus, not only was it not his responsibility, he in fact had no legal way to do so. Obviously the mother didn't want him to know, or she would have mentioned the minor little fact that he had a son. The baby came weeks early, and by the time he knew about the birth, the arbitrary window to claim his family rights had closed. How is this in ANY WAY fair? How is it "selfish" for him to fight for rights which were denied him due to connivance by the baby's mother?

dune | 11:39 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

funny no one seem to care about whats best for the baby, only about what the father wants. This is the same attitude that started in the first place. He will probably end up back with his biological father and become just another statistic. As judgmental as that sounds its tough to raise a child when both the mother and father aren't dysfunctional, but this child will have a tough go. And just cause everyone is so worried about themselves.

JGR | 11:43 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

"Confused," let's say that the state goes to your kid's school on a Monday morning and takes him away to foster care WITHOUT INFORMING YOU, giving you a 2-hour period in which to contest the action. You find out about it that afternoon, when he doesn't come home from school.

Since you didn't take action in time, should you lose your parental rights? If you get a judge to order the foster parents to give up your son, but that order isn't given until Friday, should you just forget about your son, because he has "bonded" to the new family?

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

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.