Comments about ‘Idaho senator slams LDS adoption agency’

As an attorney who handled adoptions years ago, I know the birth mother in many cases does not want anyone to contact her. She may have cleaned up her act and does not want anyone, including her present inlaws, to know of an out of wedlock child. Having been assured of lifetime confidentiality she may have given birth and allowed the child to be adopted out. Under present circumstances, a prospective mother may choose abortion rather than adoption to keep the matter private.

I've heard a lot of nightmare stories about ldsfs. Most people I know here in N Utah will not even consider ldsfs.

Seems to me Sen. Jorgenson (who would appear to be the birth father's senator, judging from the geography) is doing a bit of grandstanding here. He knows full well his constituent is completely at fault, having failed to establish his parental rights prior to the deadline via the putative father registry. Funny the birth father is all-of-a-sudden interested in his offspring, AFTER the OB/GYN and hospital bills were paid. Having failed his early responsibilities as a father, he's now "stepping up"--how noble!
As far as Sen. Jorgenson's rant--he admits the birth mother and LDSFS followed Idaho and Utah law. If you don't like the law, Senator, by all means fix it, but don't blame the Idaho Senate's inadequate legislation on others.
And last of all, where does young Harvey fit into all this political and legal wrangling? At some point the "adults" in this affair need to stop the tug-of-war, take a step back, and determine what's best for the child. Research is startlingly clear that children in traditional mother-father homes fare dramatically better in key areas of their development. As a society let's promote that where we can--for the children's sake....

I was adopted through LDSFS in the late 1940's, as was my sister. We have the same birth mother, so we're happy to have been raised together. At that time, records were sealed so, except for her name, we have no information about our birth mother. Our parents have now passed on, and we would like to find our birth mother to let her know that we have had a good life, to thank her for giving us life and making sure we were put into a good home, and to let her know she has grandchildren, if she wants to know. Also, there is at least one other sibling, as my sister was listed as the 3rd child on her birth certificate. I would like to see legislation that would provide a means whereby birth children can find birth parents, if the parent wants to be found. We would like to know medical history, as the importance of that was not known 60 years ago. Our mother would be about 82 now, if she is alive. I will follow this closely to see what happens.

Don't these adoption agencies make a profit on "helping" distressed young mothers by taking their babies away from them?

A tad irresponsible, passing on innuendo as though it were established fact, don't you think? Have you any direct or personal experience with LDSFS? We have, both in our immediate and extended family and with friends, and have not seen anything to suggest any impropriety. My observation is that LDSFS goes overboard to avoid even the appearance of anything inappropriate. They have very strict guidelines their case-workers must follow, which in some circumstances have been somewhat frustrating to us, but when seen from both sides make a lot of sense.
In fact, one of our case-workers was let go over a violation that wasn't, but could have appeared to be, favoritism. Not saying there couldn't be isolated problems, but they seem to be dealt with decisively and swiftly.
Bottom line: LDSFS provides a much-needed, much-appreciated service that has blessed the lives of thousands of birth mothers, children and adoptive parents. Be cautious about carelessly bad-mouthing them!

Sen. Jorgenson comment does not make sense. The adoption agency followed the law but more is required. If more is required of the agency why isn't more required of the "father"? He failed to follow the law but now the good ole boys of Northern Idaho have decided even though the "father" did not follow the law he has rights! From all the accounts in the DNews, the "father" does not seem fit to have sole custody of the baby when he barely is able to provide for himself.

@ Filthy Lucre--
Where on earth are you coming from? I'm certain there are those who profit from adoptions (attorneys come to mind, but many of them offer their services at very reasonable rates), but there are a slew of non-profit agencies, many affiliated with different faiths.
And what's up with the "taking their babies away from them" theme? Who gored your ox?

Mike Jorgensen is talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he slams LDS Adoptions and on the other he admits that they followed the law.

Typical politician!

Don't try to suppress other's opinions because you don't like them. A builder needs 2x4s. A baker needs flour, and an adoption agency needs babies or they are out of business. The ads I hear on the radio soliciting babies are unseemly in my opinion. Sure, you can provide a service to those who really desire it, but stop marketing just to keep your business going.

To Filthy Lucre, LDSFS perhaps more than any other adoption agency, does not profit. In fact it runs at a "loss" because it is substantially subsidized by the LDS church. Private adoption agencies usually charge 3-5 times what LDSFS charges.

I think that when you have a good family that clearly offers a better future to a child than the one it currently has, there can be some pressure to get the adoption done quickly before time expires and the birth parents decide to exercise their rights. This is not the first time I have seen an adoption go forward without an attempt to contact the birth father in hopes that the statutory period for the father to exercise rights expires. The Idaho law appears to say there is no obligation for the agency to contact the father. But for adopting parents (I am one also), it raises a risk that the birth father may find out and decide to exercise rights. I know it's hard for adopting parents who have waited so long for a baby, but I can't say it's unreasonable to expect an agency to contact the father and ensure consent in advance.

I agree with Adoption Advocate and Steve J. Personally I feel that the birth father's parents are the driving force behind this mess not the LDSFS. I really don't think the birth father really cares about the baby or he would have started to care during the pregnancy. Think about the child. Leave him where he's at. It would be a more stable environment for him.

To Filthy lucre: There is absolutely no profit involved in LDSFS. Check things out before making accusations.

To Gizmo: I suspect that the reason some in northern Utah will not consider LDSFS (other than wild fictional rumors told in order to provide justification for selfish decisions) is that these same people will not consider ANY adoption agency. For a number of years, it has become trendy--even chic--to proudly wave the I-can-do-it-on-my-own-single-parenthood banner. I have had many, many college students doing this. They proclaim that they don't need a father involved in the baby's life. In the meantime, taxpayers are supplying food stamps, rent subsidies, welfare checks, medical cards, tuition waivers, etc. so that the single parent proves he/she can do it alone. And during this time the single parent banner is also supposed to be accepted as an excuse for not studying or not doing the assigned homework.

In addition, it is often the grandmother who is behind the anti-adoption movement, unable to bear the thought that a different grandmother will usurp "her rights."

Those who make unselfish decisions are to be praised for recognizing what is best for the child.

For the good of the child, how mundane the phrase has become. Both states laws are very vague and an easy target to strip fathers of any parental rights. The mothers are always present and can make their wishes known, but failing to contact fathers is an outright injustice to the children and the biological father. Both states present laws are speaking for the father and the child. As long as the biological father has not been contacted no child should be allowed to be adopted. Actual contact should be required whether the parents are married, commiting adultry, or having out of wedlock affairs. The child deserves and has the right to be with it's natural parent if the parent wants the child. Laws on adoption are interpeted many ways by different laws in every state. In some states, like Utah, the birth or genetic father of an adopted child can be charged with child support payments by state agencys, retroactive and accumulative. Child support laws and adoption laws also need to co-exist. Don't see anything in the law either that says a father should be notified of any secret pregnancies. An adoption coverup are what the laws allow.

Senator Jorgenson wants to turn the baby over to a 20-year-old kid who isn't responsible enough to be around when the baby was born? Now THAT'S responsible! It seems to me that the law is about right as it is. The primary goal should be what's best for the child -- not what's convenient for some pimply "parent" who drifts in and out the child's life at will. No, "Filthy Lucre", LDS Family Services does not make a profit on arranging adoptions. Other services might. One of our greatest blessings is a granddaugher adopted through LDSFS. In her case, they did find the father early in the process -- on another continent!

I'd say that Sen. Jorgensen is using this situation mostly to expose his religious bigotry.

Headlines, like the one on this story, are misleading. They tend to give credence to an assertion. I know this is often common journalistic practice. But anyone can make a claim. And headlining it makes the claim much more often than not have an air of credibility, when in fact, as in this case, the assertion has zero credence in fact.

This baby should be left with the adoptive parents. The biological father now wants to be involved AFTER the fact. Had the BF had any contact with the birth mom BEFORE the baby was born he would have known she was giving the baby up for adoption. Only after it has happened did he decide to seek custody. The BF could have taken whatever measures necessary to get the baby then. The adoption agency is not at fault they followed protocol. Let these adoptive parents raise this baby they love so much.

Jorgensen needs to get his brain right. It's the father's fault. He had his opportunity, he was too late, it was his responsibility. Blaming an agency when they followed the law, and the law actually makes sense... he's an idiot. At what point are people going to take responsibility for their own actions, instead of blaming everyone else and suing?

The Idaho judge didn't follow Idaho law. There were 3 requirements for the birth father to satisfy, according to law in order to establish his interest in his child. He did none of these, yet the judge gives him custody? Where are the rights of the adoptive parents? Where are the rights of the child? Just because your DNA caused life doesn't mean you have rights!