Deseret News | Birth dad in custody fight faces allegations

Reader comments
Birth dad in custody fight faces allegations

113 comments | Read story

Lauri | 11:45 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

All the righteousness in these comments leaves me either scared or gaging. Within 2 weeks this young man came forward saying he wanted his son, this should of been over and done with then. He is the father .. End of story. This child would of already bonded with his natural family as it should be. Any threat to this child's mental heath, due to removing him from a home he is use to, is being placed there by the Nielsens. How selfish they are and over time if they do not return him, as the courts have decreed, this should be delt with as an abuse case.

JGR | 11:51 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Sometimes the law is just plain wrong. Should all of those people helping slaves escape have waited until the law was changed? How about someone who blocks traffic (in violation of the law) to keep a child from being hit by a car when she wanders into the street?

When the law is wrong, it's the judge's responsibility to make exceptions to it. Go study the US Constitution. There are three branches of government. The Legislative writes the laws, the Executive signs them, and the Judicial deals with them. Each is supposed to be a check against the other two, which is what this judge has done.

that judi | 11:51 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Meanwhile, while the adults argue and throw barbs at one another, a child's life and future security hangs in the balance...an innocent child. Who really knows the WHOLE story anyway? Sad....

Comments continue below

JGR | 11:54 a.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Dune, how do you know what's best for the baby? Tell you what, let's take away your father and give you another one. Everything that you remember from your childhood, we'll take that away, because your dad wasn't perfect.

My childhood was far from perfect, but I wouldn't trade it for yours, even if you're a Marriott or a Huntsman.

Our birth parents | 12:09 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I did foster care, then adopted the kids that could not go home. Our birth parents
bought toys for the kids. And still did drugs.
Bought clothes for the kdis. And still did drugs.
Took Parenting classes. And still did drugs.
Set up nursey's. And still did drugs.
Bought blankets and bottles. And still did drugs.
Put car seats in the back of their cars. And drove stoned and drunk and got arrested.
Read parenting books, and still committed armed robbery to buy more drugs.
I guess you can be a creep in Society, and still be a good parent, if you jump through the right hoops.

An adoptee | 12:27 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

The birth father had contact with the birth mother until her 7th month of pregnancy. She gave him paternity papers - he never signed them. He had ample opportunity to step up to the plate and failed to do so.

I was adopted at birth. Adoption is the mature, responsible thing for a birth mom who isn't ready to be a parent. This kind of thing is hard on every adopted child who sees this in the news - I know because it was my worst nightmare - that my birth parents might show up and try to take me away from my REAL parents.

The baby needs to stay with his parents - who were there with his birth mom when he was born, who've been up all night with him, who he reaches for when he cries.

no angels | 12:38 p.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."

Duh...This is the 4th Desnews article by Amy Stewart on this subject. But I'm glad you got to enjoy your hysteria. Maybe you'll get approval to rejoin society by year's end.

who is paying for the lawyer | 12:40 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

If this dude works at Hollywood video, who is paying for his lawyer, let alone a nursery?

This is obviously a case of grandparents who don't want to give up the child!

No angels | 12:53 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

So, baby Tyler is born 2 weeks early and teen good-time-girl Cammie has stopped communicating with immature biofather Matt as he is struggling with a HUGE decision about what to do--per her own admission in the Coeur d'Alene newspaper--and she end runs him with a quicky adoption and likely some cock 'n bull story to LDS Family Services--who should have known better--and Tyler becomes Harvey--unbeknownst to Matt, who then petitions the court for paternal rights, gets them, gets temporary custody, and now has to fight the nice LDS family--the Nielsons--to get them to obey court orders and return HIS son. There's a whole lot of selfishness going round!

CougarKeith | 12:58 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

If the Judge isn't a "Buddy", then he should have no problem stepping down from the case, he wouldn't have an interest because another judge would judge the case just as fairly. Also if this kid was worthy of being a "Good Father" and has changed so much, why does he still live with his Mommy & Daddy? He can't even support himself, and he is going to support a son? If he is going to be such a great "Father" and has changed so much, move on, get Married and have another baby if you are so ready to be a "Good Father" and leave these people alone!

lawman | 1:05 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

No Angels, I think you are the one that should do your "research". Try "researching" the law. LDSFS is NOT REQUIRED to have the birthfather sign any document. He is required to register, and yes, he knew about the baby and the birth. If you are so into research, how about looking up the "Right to Privacy" act.

alice | 1:08 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Sounds more like job security for judges, cops and the rest of the judicial system who will be dealing with another drug-using, law-breaking, fornicating teenager in 15 years if the baby is returned to the birth father.

re:lawman | 1:30 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Hey, knucklehead...where did I say or imply that LDS Family Services was REQUIRED to have the biofather sign anything? Adoption agencies that follow industry BEST PRACTICES make an attempt to get the biofather to voluntarily sign away any parental rights he might have just so such circumstances as these can be avoided. Thank goodness our judges have the leeway to interpret the law so that we are not held to the cutting edge of the written legislation and that reason and wisdom can rule the day.

Yellow journalism | 1:35 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I hope Amy Stewart and or the Desnews editor is getting paid by the Nielsons for their role in this fiasco. The This charming background piece on Matt is designed to sway public opinion to the Nielson's side, especially when one considers that the info came from court records and or court personnel and that the judges (as in more than one) had access to the info about the ALLEGED activities and STILL ruled that Matt had parental rights and STILL ruled that he should have temporary custody. At least the Coeur d'Alene paper is trying to present both sides of the story. The Desnews is milking this for all its worth and doing a poor job of fairly reporting the story.

Lee | 1:38 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

It's pretty easy to tell who the birth-father lawyers are on this forum. They commonly try to use the 14th amendment to prove that sperm donors have rights.

Two unwed parents having a baby is a complicated legal situation. Without the commitment and legal contract of marriage, it is very easy for a birth father to simply walk away from all responsibility. The mother on the other hand doesn't have that ability. She has to deal with the burden of pregnancy.

The states have come up with a paternal registration scheme to allow responsibility birth fathers to step up to the plate and declare their intention of stepping up to the plate. It's a pretty simple procedure and insures the parental rights are protected.

It seems like a lot of birth fathers go along with the idea of adoption, and then wait until after the baby is born to change their mind and seek to obtain the baby.

This happened during our adoption when the birthfather changed his mind, and then lied to the court, claiming he didn't know about the pregnancy, adoption, etc... He even tried to use the 14th amendment argument, which was laughed out of court.

re:alice | 1:40 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Because no 15 year old LDS youth ever uses drugs or fornicates? And no one ever turns their life around and so any child that Matt rears is destined to failure? You are mistaking sentiment (of which you have plenty) for intelligence (of which you seem to be in short supply.)

sue | 1:41 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I am so worried about the way the state gov has been releaving natural parents of their parental rights that it is a refreshing change to see a judge respecting a persons parental rights. Now who is not abiding by the law? These wonderful LDS couple who would be such better parents? Give that little boy back to his dad, it is the law. And all of you who are judging him so harshly, you never broke even 1 law? never drove your car over the speed limit with your kids in it , if you say no you are liars. leave this family alone.

katiejo | 1:42 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Why is everyone whining about this poor teenage boy that got his son torn away from him? He didn't seem to care much about his kid before. If he truly cared about his baby he would have been fighting for custody from the beginning, not way after his deadline for claiming custody. This shouldn't even be an issue because LDS family services and the courts folled the law. The father had the opportunity to take custody of his baby, and didn't. PLUS...this shouldn't be about the father, it should be about the child, and the child's best interest. I very much believe in the traditional family of a mother and a father raising a child. This child has gotten that opportunity to have both parents. Give this child what it deserves. That is a loving family that wants a baby. Not a teenage boy who accidentally became a father. My goodness....

Anonymous | 1:42 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Isn't adoption suppose to be about parents who can not or do not want to raise their children letting them go to a family who can does want to? This is not the case here, the father wants his child. To me this family and some of the comments here from adoptive parents remind me more of baby "vultures" looking for mistakes to be made then swoop in and get their dream baby. It's just ugly and changes my opinion of the whole process and people who adopt out of desire to give an UNWANTED baby a good home. You are all suspect now.

Anonymous | 1:59 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

A video store and a potential job at McDonalds after going to cooking school. Now that's a good daddy.

Grow up Matt. | 2:23 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

This baby is part of the Nielsons family. Harvey has bben with them since the day he was born.

The only memory Matt has of this child are foggy windows in a pick up truck. Wich he forgot quickly the next time he saw a 16 year old. He is a sperm donor, not a father. Why wasn't he there for Camie during her pregnancy if he was concerned about the baby?

Wether you agree with it or not, Idaho law is black and white on this one. sign the papers and you are the father. dodge responsibility to smoke weed and your out.

Harvey is family to the Nielsons. He was a good time in a back seat to Matt.

J.P. | 2:23 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Curtis B. hit the nail on the head! This should also be about the baby, what's best for him.

Karl | 2:29 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

The supposed father is still an over grown kid! Don't tell me everyone that he's mature and ready to raise a child. Yeah his rights are important, but so are the childs!! And how can any of you proove he's going to be responsible at this point. He broke the freaking LAW, and even in Idaho that should matter. So take off your anti-LDS goggles for a second and stop making it some type of religious issue.

Fredd... | 2:39 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Strong accusations. Although it is the case that there are irresponsible parents that happen to be LDS the same is true no matter what religion you belong to.

I am very confident in offering the thought that within the LDS community you will find stronger examples of positive parenting and responsibility than in general. This in no way implies that there are not strong examples within other religions or even in athiest homes.

To imply that just because a family has a large number of children that it is going to have irresponsibile parenting is narrow minded of you.

Frankly, typically within a large family there is an unique benefit due to having teenage or adult aged siblings that can contribute in the rearing of the younger children.

I would propose that you look back into your ancestry a generation or two to discover how prevelant it was for families to have many children when peoples priorities were family centered instead of selfishly motivated.

Grown up | 2:56 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I look back to when my wife and I had our first child at the age of 22. I thought I was so grown up! 20 years later I realize just how immature and inexperienced we were. I truly feel we were still growing up ourselves as we tried to parent. We miraculously made it.

Keep in mind, all while sober and free of rape allegations and it was humbling enough to learn how to parent.

Had this young man made 1 or 2 "out of character" bad decisions and recognized his error then fine. But, to be guilty at 19 of impregnating one teenager, raping another, smoking pot, drinking, smoking cigarettes (not illegal but lends to either lack of intelligence or self-control), driving under the influence, etc. Wow.

His resume doesn't sound like one of a great parent and positive role model. It sounds more like that of a future inmate. Don't get me wrong, I truly hope he does learn from mistakes and avoids that path...but.

Adoptive parents; dreamed of and ached for a child of their own. Planned and paid dearly to parent.

Donor; Selfish pursuit of pleasure again and again; months later grown up? Not likely.

Grow up Matt. | 3:01 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

For those of you that suffer when it comes to reading comprehension. This is about the Idaho Law not mormons.

The law states clearly that this boy named matt was supposed to go sign a paper saying he wanted his child. He did not do that.

To whoever said the Nielsons took this baby knowing this would happen. ARE YOU KIDDING? They have spent thier life savings and gone through an emotional hell because of this boy named matts irresponsibility. They have suffered unspeakably. This boy (matt) has ruined the birth mothers life, the adoptive parents lives and is likeley to ruin Harvey's. While everyone else is suffering from his mistakes and short comings, he is seducing teeenage girls and smoking pot.

Change | 4:17 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

The laws need to be changed. Birthfathers should have rights without responsiblities, marijuana should be legal, sleeping with minors should be acceptable, there should be no such thing as underage drinking, and driving under the influence shouldn't be a problem.

Psychologically speaking... | 4:18 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

As a caseworker with a psych degree I just had to add my two cents. I really do not think this "father" understands the emotional damage he will be inflicting by taking a child away from the parents he has bonded to. This child will most definitely be emotionally scarred if this happens. One of the criteria for counseling a child is having had any disruptions in their parental bonds in the first year of life. Thats it--it doesn't matter if he were the greatest dad on earth--to disrupt him this early is selfish. If he trully cared about the child and just must see him he should seek out a solution which would be in the childs interest. I would say, let the adoptive parents keep him, and maybe let bio dad come and visit some times. I am also an adoptive parent in an open adoption. We have some contact with the bio family, but everyones first concern is the well being of the CHILD!

Close to the action | 4:22 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I you believe all this I have some swampland in Flordia to sell you (make that Atlantis). What is this, about the sixth or seventh article Amy "Hitman" Stewart has written on this case? Do something to earn your keep!

PLEASE!! I need a break from the poor Nielson's financial woes. They chose to take on this expense. They are not a party to either of the cases here and have never been required to appear. When they tried to include themselves both judges ruled they had no legal connection to the case(this baby has not been adopted by them and the Utah Interstate Compact has ruled he is unadoptable and closed the file.) They hired an attorney from Boise who was paid to travel to CDA and never did anything. Matt has had no choice in the thousands he has spent. He had to spend the money or lose his son. LDS Family Services has delayed this case a total of four months with legal tricks like this trumped up "friendship" with Judge Burton. The custody hearing could have taken place in August otherwise. Matt's attorney has been asking for the baby to be returned since July 5th.

man up matt | 4:34 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

If you are concerened about the baby Matt why don't you go fall down a steep flight of stairs? That would be best.

matt teneson is a loser | 4:37 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Why do you think you re fit to be a father?

Off topic. | 4:43 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Most of these comments are so far off topic.

Who should be the parents of Harvey? The 20 year old kid who neglected the baby when he should have claimed it. Or the Nielsons who planned saved and prepared for this baby for years. They legally adopted Harvey at the mothers request and have been loving and caring for Harvey since he was born.

Matt, go make another baby with somone who is of age and who loves you. Raise the baby together and quit ruining other peoples lives. You missed your chance with Harvey my freind.

Anonymous | 5:21 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

But remember...the baby is better off with his "real dad". Sarcasm intended! Anyone who would argue that Harvey should be with this man simply because he donated some sperm and then suddenly has interest in the child is smoking a couple of bowls themselves!

What a bunch of lowlife! | 5:27 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

"Go make another baby"?

Did you say that when Destiny Norton was killed, or when Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped?

Oh, the Christian love here is overwhelming!

Maybe the Nielsens should be told to go find another baby to adopt, one who doesn't have family.

No one right way to raise a baby | 5:55 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Parents divorce. A parent dies. "Good" people are occasionally "bad" parents and "bad" people are occasionally good parents. Little Tyler has every chance to turn out to be "good" or "bad" regardless of which group of loving people he is raised by.

How many of you holier than thous have ever had to fight for custody of your own flesh and blood? One of the problems with our holier than thou Utah County mentality is that they are lacking in charity for those who don't always act in the favored manner. Yes, the Nielsons should be pitied and LDS Family Services is the bad guy here. Do I think that both Matt and Cammie both screwed up, literally and figuratively? YES! Do we have all the facts? NO! Does Reporter Extraordinaire Amy Stewart seem to be interested in telling an unbiased story? NO! Do I believe that two separate Idaho magistrates must have seen something in Matt to believe that it was a wise step to uphold his parental rights and grant him temporary custody? YES!

It's time for the Nielsons to do the honorable thing and let Harvey/Tyler go!

Going to the trailer | 6:53 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Yea, take the kid out of a nice warm house! With parents who will love & see to the needs.

I'm sure there is always room for another in the Trailer Park.

Don't Forget... | 7:54 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

This case really has little to do with the fact of whether Tenneson will or will not be a suitable father. Sex comes with responsibility. The responsibility falls to Tennesson. The government needn't protect his rights as a father...Rather, Tennesson needs to step up and accept the consequences for his actions. He had plenty of time(9 months)to do that. He gave up his rights to parenthood when he shirked his responsibilities.
We can't get clouded by the assumptions of who will be the best father. It really has nothing to do with that.

Student of Logic | 8:05 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Trying to set up a logical model for this. On one hand there is Matthew who has had a couple bumps with the law, has admitted to them and been held accountable and accepted his consequences. On the other hand you have the Nielson's who came across state lines and took a baby that didn't belong to them and are holding him hostage in Utah against the wishes of his parent(any similarity to kidnapping?, are in contempt of Idaho's court system and are in violation of Interstate Compact law (a child cannot be in a state other than his state of birth without a valid compact - this file has been closed because the baby is unadoptable as his father has legal custody)and will not own up to any of it. Your choice.

lol | 8:58 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

I like how some of you are saying that the Nielson's have done something illegal. Let me get this straight: they went through an adoption agency, who did all they could do with this birth father. The birth father however, did not say anything about wanting the child when he knew the birth mom was putting him up for adoption. He did not sign the papers saying he was the father. And yet, the Nielson's supposedly are not doing what is right with THEIR child?????? I laugh at that. I say Merry Christmas to the Nielson's and I wish it could have been a better one with this being YOUR son's first Christmas. Im sure though you all will have many more.

Lauri | 10:17 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Legally wrong? Maybe .. Morally wrong? Definitely. These people knew the father had not signed away his rights and two weeks after the child was born (born early and from what I am picking up as soon as he knew his child was born) his lawyers went to court saying he wanted his child. The adoption "baby vultures" on these comments keep bringing up the law that he didn't sign up to say his baby was his. He shouldn't have to, no mother is expected to sign a form saying the child is hers to keep the baby.. although after reading some of the comments here .. I believe the "adoption vultures" would be rubbing their hands with glee if there was such a law.. hanging around hosptials like accident lawyers waiting for some young dumb mother to not know this and grab her baby for their own because "It's the law" .. it's a bad law.

Puzzled still | 11:13 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Can't figure out why a pregnant woman can get an abortion and the father of her child can't stop her, but he can stop an adoption--seems odd to me. If the woman has the right to kill the baby, it seem contradictory that she doesn't have the right to give it up for adoption. Our laws are screwy!

Mine | 11:50 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Give the father his son back, nothing that he has done is serious enough to terminate his parental rights regardless. He has rights as a father, first and foremost. For all of you goodies that have never in your own eyes broken a law, how would you like to lose one of your children through a loophole? Fathers have rights too, and it is time that more fathers stand up for their rights!!!!! I have been a single father, with blemishes in my past also that has raised my children since 1995, by myself. I love, protect, and place my children first. As the father, if he wants the child, case closed! Give him back!

Hmm... | 11:50 p.m. Dec. 22, 2007

Wow, good point on the abortion-adoption question. I have never thought of that before.

Anonymous | 5:30 p.m. Dec. 23, 2007

"Baby vultures." What an amazingly insensitve and mean thing to say. Wow.

Anonymous | 12:08 a.m. Dec. 24, 2007

I do apologize if Iï¿½ve sounded insensitive towards the Nielsons. Iï¿½m just more outraged for this young man, Mr. Tennesen. Iï¿½m sad and outraged for the Neilsons as well, They have given this beautiful baby boy something very special, unconditional love, the reason we are celebrating this season ...He will be blessed by that for the rest of his life. Were they not told this could happen by the adoption agency? This is not the first time this issue has come up in a court did they not warn them? Did the agency do enough to get a signature or know this was going to happen? Did their council advise them about this issue? If not .. Why not? Itï¿½s bad law. More protections need to be put into place for both sides of the isle. But this is Mr Tennesonï¿½s son .. He wants to raise his son, he wants to be his Father, it should always be his right. It canï¿½t be taken away because he did not sign a paper saying he was the father. How just is that? Itï¿½s BAD law.

Don, the 14%er | 9:36 a.m. Dec. 24, 2007

LDS Family Services could learn a valuable lesson about adoptions from other states.
In Texas, adoptions must have at least two signatures on the release form. When my brother and his wife adopted a child, there were three; the birth father, the birth mother, and the birth mother's husband.
Such a requirement would totally eliminate the sad 'tug of love' involving the birth father of Tyler Tenneson and the wanna-be adoptive couple.

MDL | 7:51 p.m. Dec. 25, 2007

I would first of all wish to state that It's sad that this is even happening to the Nielson family. Who WANTED this baby from the start. Just because some of you people want to say the LAW is wrong. It's the law and Tennison not only didn't claim his paternal rights with the LARGE amount of time that he had by LAW.He originally wanted the birth mother to abort little Harvey.End of Story.The little pot smoking, statutory raping,Misdemeanor theft,under-aged drinking boy needs to go to bootcamp.before even visiting Harvey. Let alone be his guardian.C'mon people. Seriously.

Jane Edwards | 8:43 p.m. Dec. 25, 2007

The baby's father should have custody. The father is doing everything he can to be a good parent and he has the support of his family. Children do much better raised by biological relatives who look like them, think like them, and share rheir talents and interests. The prospective adoptive parents should find a child to adopt who does not have a loving family wanting to raise him. And they should stop trying to smear the baby's father. What will he think of them, when he learns what they have done?

LDS Social Services needs to reform its practices.

Bernadette | 10:03 p.m. Dec. 25, 2007

This story is a good example of why we need better regulation of the adoption industry in the U.S. It's scary to think that a parent's rights can be permanently terminated without the parent's consent, and that a child could be adopted by strangers, when the child has a parent available who wants to raise his own child!

Termination of parental rights should be a last resort, only when all efforts to keep children and their parents together have failed.

April | 11:46 p.m. Dec. 25, 2007

The LAW is the LAW! If you don't like the law then you need to attack the Idaho State Legislators, senators etc. But for little baby Harvey, the Law was followed and the biological father did NOT claim his rights. Therefore, baby Harvey WILL stay with his loving adoptive parents.

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.