Comments about ‘Utah Supreme Court hears fight over 'Baby Emma'’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Sept. 10 2010 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
SB Fan

Regardless of "Utah's Laws" these people didn't break the law and this young man didn't do his part to stop the adoption. Funny there is no mention from the birth mom about being locked in the hotel room! Simply because she can tell him anything she wants when the truth just may be that she didn't want to be a mother yet and consequently if he didn't do his part then he wouldn't me a father yet either. If you take the child now, how Messed up will it be! the 2 families won't get along, it just spells bad news for baby. Young man shouldve been responsible from the start... Next time protect yourself and then if that fails, follow the steps of the law.


I'm adopted. My worst nightmare as a child was that my birth parents would change their mind and try to take me away from my real parents - the ones who raised me. Work to change the law if you want - but Emma doesn't want to go home with a stranger. It's too late now.


The father deserves a say in what happens to the baby in cases like this.


Demisana: Shouldn't the father at least get to visit. The child has the right to know her biological parents.

John S. Harvey

How did birth mother who was a resident of Virginia end up being subject to Utah law? Since the Virginia courts have already ruled the young man did take all of the required steps in that state (see the article earlier this week) what is the event or set of events which supposedly gave the Utah Courts jurisdiction?


Fine - make it an open adoption if you must. But I (and every other adopted child/adoptive parent) don't want to see yet another screaming baby torn away from the only home and parents she's ever known.


The father gets screwed again. When it comes to protecting a father's rights to his own children, Utah courts suck.


Poor article. Clearly biased towards the adoptive parents. Father has date stamped court document showing he wanted custody before the adoption. In the last 18 months he has won two court battles in Virginia. The adoptive parents are responsible for any stress this child is under. They should have given the father his child before 18 months went by.


If he truly loves his daughter he'll let it go. The worst thing he could do is to rip her away from her family. She deserves stability, security and love. We adopted a child internationally, and this is one of the reasons why we decided to go international. In most other countries, once the parent looses or declines custody rights, it cannot be reversed. They recognize that this is best for the child and you don't have to worry about someone coming back and trying to take your child away. Sadly, in the U.S., the laws have been warped and twisted and everyone suffers because of it - especially the child. When the biological parents try to rip a child away from it's family, they most often are acting out of selfishness not selflessness. The most loving and selfless thing a parent can do sometimes, is let there child go so the child can have the love and stability they deserve.


Shame the adopting parents weren't loving and selfless and give the baby up 18 months ago.


Matilda | 2:52 p.m- if someone put your child up for adoption against your will, I bet you'd fight tooth and nail to get him or her back and I bet it would hurt like heck when people would tell you that you were being selfish for doing it.


Cases like this make me sick. If the father was so intent of keeping his child, why did he not marry the woman carrying the baby? Why was he intent on being a sperm donor, but not intent on being a father until well after the child was born.

He had plenty of time to invoke paternal privileges, but chose not to do so until past the 11th hour. Sorry, you snooze, you lose.


Is it really so selfish to put the child's needs ahead of the birth father? They could give the child a stable home with both a mother and a father. The story is very light on what he can offer his daughter, maybe the adoptive parents are aware of significant issues that contributed to their "selfishness".

I don't know about your kids, but all three of mine were mama's babies. They loved their daddy too, and needed him just as much - but when they had a boo-boo, they came running to mom, for the most part.


@Cedarite - yes, it would hurt - but as the child of a birth mother who put my needs ahead of her own, I can't help but side with the adoptive family here. And baby Emma. The birth father needs to look at what his daughter needs and wants, and what she will need and want. And right now she wants her mommy and daddy. The time to take care of this is before birth, not after.


As an adopted child, I am so grateful that my birth father allowed me to be adopted by my stepfather, whom I consider to be my real father. I know it was hard for him to let me go, but he did it anyway for my own good. I'm forever grateful that he did it. I know that that child will be much better off in a stable family with two loving parents because that is what happened to me. I still communicate and have even visited my birth father. This man can let little Emma go and start a new family of his own. When she is old enough, she can create a relationship with him as I have with mine. The greatest act of selflessness is to think of someone before yourself. He is being selfish and I think our laws protecting adopting parents aren't tough enough here or definitely in Virginia. If he had wanted that baby, he should have married the mother and created a loving home life for her. He chose poorly. May I suggest that he consider reproducing within the bonds of matrimony so such things don't occur to him again.


And where was the baby born?? If back East, then the father was right. If the mother gave birth in Utah, then Utah laws should prevail. The article doesnt really say.


only in utah can an unmarried female get pregnant without the sperm and yet a married female requires a guy in order to get pregnant


Interesting that a man can't stop a woman from aborting his child (killing it) but he can stop her from placing it with a loving family.

Several of my grandchildren are adopted and not one of their birth fathers were/are in a position to be good fathers or provide a stable home. I'm grateful the children are in loving adoptive homes.

Sorry Charlie!

@ gub-ment-cheeze: " If the father was so intent of keeping his child, why did he not marry the woman carrying the baby?"

Uh, because hitting the woman over the head with a club and dragging her off to be married against her will went out of style several thousand years ago.

Both he and the mother state that they were in contact during the pregnancy. According to him, they had plans to raise the child together and eventually get married. (Apparently, she didn't want to get married until after college.) She changed her mind about raising the child with him and decided to put the baby up for adoption.

The ethical thing to do, would have been to give him custody - she knew he wanted to raise his daughter.

She chose this, she is the one putting her daughter through this. He is a victim of the mother's actions.

Sorry Charlie!

@ Jane: When men can carry a fetus to term, your comments will have some merit worthy of a conversation.

Until then, they are a red-herring.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments