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
Sorry Charlie!

@ Bethanymom: "At this point the adoptive parents have emotionally/financially/physically invested 18 months in this child."

You're right - but it never should have gotten to this point. When this case started, they should have done the right thing and acted in the best interests of the child and returned her to her father.

IMHO, it is rather disingenuous to wait all this time and now claim that they should get to keep the child by default because it would cause her distress to remove her from the only home she has ever known.

If they were truly concerned with what is best for the child, they should have acted accordingly several months ago.


Bethanymom, when you adopt and you don't have both parent signatures you don't get invested until you do have those signatures. They don't win cause they keep possession as long as possible.

I believe there needs to be finality but until there is finality, and that is when the adoption is final way after parental rights waivers or terminated or terminated by default.

No you don't swap children. They begin again. Finding birth parent's who choose them as the family who will be the parent's of the child. Or go international where the government decides a ward of theirs will be parented by them.

Have you adopted from foster care. I mean you are suggesting they just go and adopt a child from foster care. Many kids fostered are still attached to parents when young. Not all. But believe me there is fighting over the kids. Only it's extended relative relatives, moms and dads, sometimes foster parents. There was a foster mom fighting for the foster kids new sibling, born in Utah instead of AZ months ago.

Amherst, MA

This whole thing makes me so mad. The judges should have never allowed the adoption to go through, knowing that Baby Emma's Father had been granted custody in Virgina. Plenty of single parents raise their children with the help of grand parents and family. If a single mother can do it, so can a single dad. The biological family clearly wants this baby in their lives and the longer Utah keeps her, the harder it will be on the baby. They had no right to take that baby away from her biological father in the first place! Utah law is not above Federal law. I hope this will bring national attention to what is going on there. No one is asking Utah to do anything special, only that Utah abides by the law. You must stop stripping a parent of their legally awarded parental rights. Just because Emmas's Dad doesn't fit a certain mold and lives in another state, does not give you that right. This is after all America, isn't it?

Amherst, MA

Very easy for people to say that if he loves his baby, he'll let her go. I'd like to see how many of you would let your baby go, if you didn't want to let it go to begin with. That baby deserves to grow up with her Father. He did everything he was supposed to do in his home state. It was Utah that decided not to give his baby back way before she could even become attached to strangers.

to comment

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