What You May Have Missed
Most Popular
Across Site
In Utah
- Bottom 30 elementary schools in Utah by test...
- Top 30 elementary schools in Utah by test scores
- New president to lead Mormon Tabernacle Choir
- Gail Miller gets engaged to Salt Lake attorney
- Growing pains: Rate of young men struggling...
- Charges: Runaway teen caused accident that...
- Glenn Beck unleashes his dogs of war
- BYU student killed after falling 70 feet in...
Most Commented
Across Site
In Utah
- Make it a small: N.Y.'s ban on large...
37 - Glenn Beck unleashes his dogs of war
33 - Cottonwood High School football coach...
25 - Idaho awaits No Child Left Behind waiver
14 - Rep. Jim Matheson favors getting rid of...
14 - Poll shows Utahns think Legislature's...
14 - Man shot brother while showing him...
13 - Jon Huntsman Jr. is done pulling punches
12






This makes little to no sense. Try again.
I don't understand why the Surrogate mother has any rights to the baby she put up for adoption. I don't know the total details of this story, but if a baby is legally adopted, the former parents shouldn't have any rights to visitation or anything else. The parents that adopt the child should be in full control of the child at that point in my opinion.
So let me recap? A guy pays a woman to surrigate as a mother. He gets arrested for fraud and is deported to Canada. The Mother has a criminal history too? She puts the kid up for adoption and the Worthingtons get the kid, then the Father wants the kid, but he is denied? Then the real mother ends up with visitation, but Anthony, the kid, gets to stay with the adoption parents in the US after a two day trial in which they win custody and have had custody because that was "The Best Temporary Place" for him? Is this what it all boiled down too? Because honestly the reporting on this story sounded like a Chinese Fire Drill! It was like a Soap Opera without making one bit of sense unless you read it 5 times, and I did, and I still am not sure I got it straight??? If the kid isn't confused I sure am!!!
Well, the mother has rights because her rights can not be terminated (and no she is not a criminal), and because her relinquishments were legally flawed. FYI, she also pays child support for her son. I don't think the word "surrogate" applies at all at this point in time.
So if the mother has to pay child support then why doesn't the father? Or does he? And child services has once again found a way to garner child support for their personal greed. I think the court was wrong in this decision and set this poor kid up for a life of confusion and disbelief, so child services could garner some funds from one or both parents. The judge has walked the line on who is responsible for the child, the parents, or the ones wanting to adopt the child, or child services. With so many custodial adults for this child who will it call mom and dad? It is a Chinese fire drill.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments