130 million seems excessive to me.
People don't rush to judgement. There is certainly more to the story than
what is written in the article. As the saying goes... It is a thin pancake that
doesnt' have two sides. I am sure the rest will come out when the legal
system works through it.
Here is the rub…the mother did not get pregnant out of wedlock. However,
the father of this child and the husband of this mother are not the same person.
Hence, the bizarre law that the husband has the legal right to sign away this
child into adoption.Based on my personal experience with LDS Family
Services and with the LDS church, there is no doubt in my mind this was fast
tracked for religious reasons. It is not for the benefit of the baby but for
the fact that this child cannot be sealed to his biological mother and her
husband nor can the child be sealed to his biological father. Of utmost
importance to LDS Family Services is that this child be placed with a family who
can take the child to the temple to be sealed to the couple. I
sincerely hope this biological father wins his case.
This discussion right here is EXACTLY why I would never live nor raise a child
in UTAH. The LDS faith is built upon forgiveness and support of those who have
gone astray. yet the judgmental and hypocritical comments on this article are
horridly off base and not in keeping with any church principle that I am aware
of. for some of you people to denigrate a father who wants to raise
this child and excoriate him as a "dead beat" or out for money is
shameful at best. ESPECIALLY when you fail to apply your hypocrisy to the mother
as well. sure a mother has to carry the baby for 9 months, but it takes two to
tango, she is as irresponsible as you claim he is. He is not out to
make "piles of money" he is out to bring attention to the situation and
asking for "piles of money" is about the only thing that gets peoples
attention anymore. some of you should really rethink your alleged humanity
I already left a comment - but thought of another. Perhaps the mother thought
the man who fathered the child is unsuitable and giving him the boy would surely
prove to be disastrous. Is he a drunk? Is he violent? As i already submitted,
too many unknowns and the baby boy is the priority.
We hope that the mother gave the child a better life - but there is no certainty
that a married couple will be better parents than a single father or his married
sexual partner. Do we know if she has other children? Did she have multiple
partners and the paternity is questionable? The article does not state the
length of the relationship between the mother and the father, nor does it state
if the father is as qualified (other than marital status) to raise the child as
the adoptive family. Too many things we do not know to make judgements - and
really, all I care about is the baby. The real dilemma here is who has the
right to decide what is in the best interest of the baby. The state, the
lawyers, the counselors, the adoptive family, the mother, the father, the
community? I don't have an answer.
Father's rights have simply been ignored in this country. And how shameful
the comments calling this man a deadbeat.How can he be a deadbeat
when he is fighting to KEEP and take care of his child? Merciless, heartless
comments you should be ashamed of.Adoption is shrouded in secrecy
and haste in Utah, that is true, and it doesn't need to be. single mothers
DO NOT need to give up their children because they are not married. That is the
single most unwise thing I have ever heard when there are so many divorces with
children involved anyway. Shall they all give up their children? Ridiculous
I'm trying to figure out why every state in the country requires a license
for someone to be married, but anyone with a working reproductive organ is free
to produce babies with anyone they want, and then claim they have legal rights.
There are so many things wrong with both sides of this story that I am dazed. I
think I will sue someone.
This law makes adoptions timely, less expensive and more permanent. There seems
to be more indecision now than when the child was created. The law blesses the
child with permanency in a family who wants the child rather than with a person
who cannot or will not follow the law, advice of his attorney and common sense
and who had 9 months to contemplate how the child would be raised. It gives the
right for the birth mother to have the child placed in a good home before she
becomes so emotionally attached she may not be able to choose the same option at
a later date.
RE:AZKID "I'm sorry, but I have very little sympathy for non-married
birth fathers. If you are irresponsible enough to father a child with anyone
other than a woman you are married to prior to conception, then you
automatically relinquish every right pertaining to fatherhood."Fortunately, child custody laws disagrees with you 100%. It would be awful to
live in a world where you got to make up the laws.
I, too, find disturbing the blatant discrimination against men by some posters.
While I recognize that the woman does the hard work of carrying the baby and
delivery, to say that the man has no rights but only financial obligations
should the woman decide to keep the baby seems imbalanced.
Dear Cats, the article makes clear only that a biased senator believes the
plaintiff had ample opportunity to assert his rights. Fortunately for the
plaintiff, Todd Weiler is not the judge.
Right now I am sitting next to the one and only grandchild I am ever likely to
have. His parents aren't married (a wise decision on both sides) but some
posters are trying to tell me that his father, my son, should have no rights or
to have the privilege in co-parenting his own child. You're trying to tell
me that our grandson should be deprived of loving grandparents and we should be
deprived of him? NO! The system is broken, but it can be fixed without resorting
to Draconian measures.
Dear K: The article makes clear that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to
assert his rights and, if he had just followed his attorney's advice, he
could have had a chance to prevail. He chose not to do that and is therefore
out of gas.
How about this? You can't go after unwed fathers or mothers beyond delivery
of the child for support? Isn't that ridiculous? There is no such deadline
to assert parenthood. At any time before a child turns 18 the mom or dad can go
after the other parent for support and custody agreements can be changed.
Divorces can happen and support and custody arrangements are made. Why is
adoption different? The common denominator is getting around asking the father
consent to a specific family adopting his child. It's by lying about plan
to place, where the child is born so the dad signs for the wrong state registry,
moving the child out of the state like baby Emma so the register he signed up
for didn't count, relocating mom before birth without telling dad, lying
about the delivery date, asking hospital to lie about the mom being admitted
should dad call to be there for the birth and wise up to the PAPS in the waiting
room, lying about heritage so the child can leave the state without the tribe
consenting to the placement and adoption plan. Adoptees don't want their
bio families treated this way.
Ethel adoption is not for better. Better is a loose term. This child may not be
better off with the family they ended up in. Adoption is meant to find a home
for a child who has no parents able to parent. This child had a parent willing
and able and wanting to parent. Maybe the woman didn't want the dad to take
custody and she be on the hook for child support payments? Who really knows. 24
hours and involvement during pregnancy to encourage her to place isn't very
supportive of the birth mother. They did not ask the actual father
if they could parent his child. He was obtainable. They instead lied to him. No
one is denying they lied to him. She slept with him and gave away his child to
others while people financially profited behind his back. If she wanted to place
a child with a couple without the dad being involved she should have instead
been a surrogate or gestational carrier using donated or the adoptive fathers
sperm. The court was aware of his intent to parent before the adoption was
final. Utah is something else.
Interesting that so many of you consider the man to be nothing more than a
"sperm donor". Sperm donors don't have any legal obligations, they
are simply donors. In this case apparently the mother lied to lead the father
along so I will grant that he was probably a fool but how does that make what
was done here right?He filed immediately after he knew about the
birth to protect his parental rights, undoubtedly that is when he first realized
he'd been deceived. The unwarranted hate and disrespect for men
in these situations is despicable and all of you engaging in it should be
ashamed. Put yourself into that situation, you want YOUR child but are virtually
powerless because of the actions of others. Yes you may have made a mistake and
not filed some paper but there you are, right after the birth occured stating
your desire to have and raise YOUR child. You are deined and your child is given
to other people against your will. What a horrifying thing to endure. Those of
you supporting of it lack morality and decency.
@procuradorfiscal"Unmarried fathers are deadbeats. Otherwise,
they'd be married fathers."You're right. They should
marry the girl using any means necessary. Forced marriage is the American way!
Does nobody notice, the birth father in none of the statements seeks to overturn
the adoption. Just wants money for the loss of not raising the child. Give him
the child and when he fails or abandons the child sue him for 1.3 million
Parents have rights and that includes both the mother and the father. It has
been said that it is hard to get both parents (single or otherwise) to agree to
put up a child for adoption. Still, both parents should be aware of the
pregnancy and have plenty of time to contest an adoption and/or apply for
custody. It is clear that too much deception is involved in these type of
hidden adoption cases. I dont want either parent to make money
selling a "parental right" so I would suggest that all parties should
need to go to court to seek custody or sign papers knowingly giving up their
rights. If you want men to be accountable they have to have equal
rights and not just responsibilities when it comes to children. Women are at
fault just as much as men and they need to pay just as much toward the childs
welfare as the father (50-50). If pregancy affects a woman more than a man, then
she should make sure that she is the one who is the most responsible to make
sure the pregancy doesnt occur.
This is an example of the mess immoral people commit, followed by the greed of
an attorney and client who sue for $130 million hoping to get a 250k payout by
filing a RiCCO lawsuit, completely without merit.
This dude planted the seed, ignored the follow-up responsibility and now wants
to get paid. He doesn't want to spend all his resources raising this child
by himself. He wants money, plain and simple. He and his attorney see deep
pockets to tap into. If raising the child meant so much to him he would have
been on it all along and look at the size of the compensation he and his
selfless attorney are seeking LOL. Birth fathers do have rights, to
be sure. But when birth fathers don't follow the rules and the baby has
already been placed with a family, the rights of all four other parties trump
those rights. I have adopted children. If some knucklehead had come back and
tried to take one of our kids after not following proper procedure preceding the
placement there would likely have been court activity of a different sort.
These comments about fathers rights are so silly. What rights? No obligation,
covenant, contract, or legal obligation was ever agreed to, or entered into in
this type of relationship between consenting adults. They thought they were
capable of engaging procreative powers without affecting the life of any one
else. And when that turned out to not be the fact! The mother had nine months of
carrying the baby, every single second of every single day, to consider then,
what she should do. The father, also had every second of nine months to register
as a putative father. Life is all about opportunity. If you don't take
advantage of them when they come around, then it is what is called a missed
opportunity. You want equality? Sorry, biologically it doesn't happen. Guys
just don't have babies, it's a biological thing. Something you should
have learned about in health class. Equality under the law, try engaging in a
legal obligation under the law first, then have the child. PERIOD!
A child is not a commodity. The mother has an intense 9-month-long experience
producing this child and will have at least a several month recovery time (and
that's only the physical effects). The father spent a few minutes donating
sperm, has not bothered to follow his attorney's advise (he sought out an
attorney before the birth and then ignored the advise he received? Interesting),
and now says he wants to raise the child. He has contributed DNA, nothing more.
He has made no investment, physical or otherwise, in the child's
well-being, and he is trying to make piles of money from the situation. Hard to
find much sympathy for the guy.
Why does the father hve to "register" or sign anything? if he wants the
child, and the mother does not, then he should have the child and she should be
liable for support just as he would have been if she'd kept the child. I
hope this guy wins this suit, and I'm generally opposed to such things, but
it is time men are given equal standing under the law. Period.
FATHERS have rights, because the are married to the mother, and help raise the
child, and most certainly provide financial support for the child.Sperm donors should have NO rights. Only the responsibility to pay for the
upbringing of the child they helped conceive, but are not raising.To
turn an out of wedlock conception into a money making deal for a sperm donor is
hutzpah at its most despicable level.
Many are missing the point. What about the child? This mother chose to give
her child a better life. The lack of interest on the birth father's part
was a little too late and ignored the advice of his attorney. Had he done that
in a timely manner before the birth knowing the mother's intent was to
place the child he would not be filing this lawsuit. Not much will
come of it, since he didn't follow protocol as designed by the law on the
books. That is why it is there, to protect the rights of the birth mother and
give her the choice to relinquish the baby. The agency ALWAYS checks with the
court before anything is sign away. When there is NO filing by the putative
father, it is a GO. Ignorance is no excuse for him to make a legal
attempt to reclaim something he did not do on time or after the fact. No amount of money is going to change the law.
I personally don't think any father who is not married to the mother should
have any rights whatsoever. If he wants rights he needs to be married to the
mother. Has an unmarried mother been irresponsible? Absolutely! But, her life
is much more affected by it and, if she is placing the child for adoption, she
is doing the responsible thing and what is best for the child. It is much
better for ANY child to be raised in a two-parent, intact home. The
sexually permissive society we live in has created these sad situations. I hope
this guy learns a lesson to be more responsible in the future. You get to
choose your behavior, but you don't get to choose your consequences. When
we do things that are wrong, there are always consequences.
This lesson is getting more expensive all the time. But I doubt any other young
men will learn from it. When you think with your zipper things like this
happen.This young man has a long way to go to prove that he would be the
best parent for this child, even if he were filthy rich as a result of this
"Family friendly". Utah certainly isn't.
AZKID "... I have very little sympathy for non-married birth
fathers. If you are irresponsible enough to father a child with anyone other
than a woman you are married to prior to conception, then you automatically
relinquish every right pertaining to fatherhood" Why is it any
different for the mother? If she was irresponsible and fell pregnant out of
wedlock then either she also should relinquish all rights of motherhood too or
both need to sign away that parenthood. Both were involved in the creating of
that new child. But if either are willing and able to care for the
child then surely the natural parents should be the first option even if single.
If they can't then sure, adoption would be the next option for the babies
well being. Or, if possible, they could be talked to and shown the benefits of
adoption for the baby then both should voluntarily hand the baby over to
adoption services, sure not?
It is interrsting that the father is a deadbeat, bit the woman who committed
adultry and lied to him are not? This is really disgraceful. You have a bio
parent who wants to raise their child, but it excluded from doing so for not
filling out some form he probably did not know existed. If the mother decides
to keep the child, he can (and should) be liable for 18 yrars of support, but he
has absolutely no say if the child is aborted and can be tricked into losing
custody. Utah should be proud at a system which robs men of due process.
Does anyone with a legal background understand the similarities and differences
between paternal rights in the case of abortion versus adoption nationwide? It
seems to me that the mother has extensive rights regarding the choice to keep or
abort the child/fetus but I am less clear as to whether those same rights adhere
when speaking of adoption issues both here in Utah and in other states. Any
legal experts out there?
"It's a tragic story and she feels that she lost her grandchild and my
heart goes out to her, but the protections there in the law were there and they
weren't followed," Weiler said, emphasizing the ease of registering for
paternity in the state."His rights would have been protected if
he would have just followed the advice of his own attorney," Weiler said.
"… It appears to me that they're trying to blame everyone except
for the responsible party."Enough said.
AZKID - What would happen if we applied your logic to the mother?I'm sorry, but I have very little sympathy for non-married birth mothers.
If you are irresponsible enough to mother a child with anyone other than the man
you are married to prior to conception, then you automatically relinquish every
right pertaining to motherhood. Ok, now who makes the decision
regarding the baby? My guess is that the mother knew just as well as the father
that she was not sleeping with her husband.
Re: "Unmarried father's [sic] aren't deadbeats."Unmarried fathers are deadbeats. Otherwise, they'd be married fathers.This lawsuit has a single object, for both attorney and client. And it
has nothing to do with the welfare of children or unmarried, putative
fathers.Rather, it has to do with unjustly enriching attorney and
client, regardless of who is hurt along the way.Talk about a RICO
Thank goodness AZKID is not in the legislature! While you must be
perfect, most others are not and rules of fairness must be established that take
into account current social norms, regardless of how repugnant you find those
norms. (As if the number of absent birth fathers comes anywhere close to the
number of single moms raising kids as a result of divorce.) The
lawsuit and article shed light on a weakness in the current system that favors
mothers' rights over fathers' rights. Registering as a putative father
still has its risks, assuming one even knows the woman got pregnant in the first
place. Particularly disheartening are the cases where the mother LIES about her
real intent and the father trusts her to his own disadvantage. And, said LIARS
are abetted by adoption agencies and attorneys who all get paid for their
participation in the "scam." Let's make it really
interesting and require DNA tests on ALL births so true parentage can be
determined. Pity the fool who got cuckolded and doesn't know it. Or how about requiring a DNA test on all potential abortions so the father can
be notified and give his approval, too?
A father should have the same rights as the mother, and the laws need to be
changed to reflect that. Utah is horribile protecting men in adoption. Until
this story, how many knew that fathers had to register? That is nothing more
than a back door used to increase the supply of children up for adoption. AZKID, only the father is irresponsible, and the mother who had a child
outside her marriage isn't?
You shouldn't have to lose your child forever due to a technicality.It doesn't take much Googling to find a number of horror stories
about unwed fathers who, notwithstanding their good-faith efforts, were deprived
of their paternal rights in Utah as their babies were given away for adoption
without their consent. Utah is widely considered the worst state in the nation
when it comes to the rights of unmarried fathers.Fathers who care
enough to ask to raise the children they father should at least be given a
chance to demonstrate that they are capable of doing so. Utah law should be
changed to make this a realistic possibility. The law should also be changed so
that in cases where birth mothers deceive biological fathers, the fathers have a
fighting chance to gain custody.
AZKID, I think you hit the nail right on the head. This man knew about the
pregnancy and didn't follow procedure. I also believe that this child is
better off in this adoption. I'm adopted, so I do have some perspective on
A man files a paternity claim a day after he is told the baby has been placed
with a couple and the courts don't stop the adoption and give the father
custody immediately after the test confirm he is the dad? Why 24
hours? Why does it have to be so immediate? In my opinion a father and mother
need appear in court with medical proof they are the bio parents saying clearly
with council for them present they consent to the adoptive couple adopting the
I'm sorry, but I have very little sympathy for non-married birth fathers.
If you are irresponsible enough to father a child with anyone other than a woman
you are married to prior to conception, then you automatically relinquish every
right pertaining to fatherhood. Furthermore, if it can be proved
that you are the father, then we should establish a new form of civil punishment
that requires you to work in servitude to pay for that child's health and
well being as well as that of the mother, unless the child is placed for
adoption. Draconian, yes, but the social cost of absentee fathers
is the key element in the downward spiral of our culture and our civilization.
There are reasons that marriage has historically preceded childbearing. If I were in the legislature, I would put forth legislation to codify
all of the above.
I am an adoptive parent. When you want to raise someone else's
child you need to ask them. Both of them. All of them. Unmarried father's
aren't deadbeats. They are lied to and deceived because couples want to
grow their families and there is a shortage of infants. Because agencies want to
make money. Wouldn't these adoptive parents and agencies want their sons
treated in such a way? Utah has a terrible track record. The
adoptive couple ought to have not only written proof but DNA that they are
getting consent from the proper party. They go through great lengths to meet and
be matched with mom. They want to pretend dad doesn't exist because
it's harder to convince two people to let you raise their child. This