If only this man had married the mother before getting her pregnant, none of
this would have occurred. What a mess.
Oh, Clarissa. If it were only that simple. Last time I checked, it not only
takes two to conceive a child, but it take two in order to consent to a
marriage. How do you know Rob did not want to marry the mother? What about
those situations where the man is totally in love with the woman, and would
marry her, but she is not interested, but wants to have sexual relations with
him nonetheless--he may be more committed to the relationship than she is. And
if she didn't want the child, why not just give his daughter to him? Oh
yeah, it was because she wanted to give her daughter to her brother and
sister-in-law to adopt, so she could see her daughter whenever she liked, but
deprive Rob of that very same right. That is seriously messed up! The problem
here is that it takes a case like this 6 years for this to work its way through
the court systems of two states and it is not even over yet! Dear Judiciary:
Fast track these cases!!! Justice delayed truly is justice denied.
@ Clarissa: If only the mother hadn't lied to the father none of this
would have happened.
"If you like it you then you should put a ring on it."
If only she hasn't lied to and deceived the father and the adoptive
parents, this never would have happened. Regardless of what either of the
parents did or didn't do the adoption agency should be punished so as to
discourage other agencies from committing fraud and condoning kidnapping.
If we are “putting the child first,” why is this even an issue?
While it may be unfortunate that the so-called “biological father”
has been cut out of the child’s life (except for what the courts have
mandated), the child has grown for the first 6 years of her life knowing, loving
and bonding to the adoptive family. Just because Mr. Manzanares has a blood
relation to the child, that does NOT make him family. This whole
fiasco is NOT about putting the child first. It is about the selfish
machinations of the biological father and his relatives demanding to tear the
child away from the life she’s come to know and understand and force her
to live another that she “is too young to understand.” She may not
understand it but she will be confused by it. And this will not be traumatic?
Guess again. (MORE) . . . .
This situation is a mess. If parenthood was the goal one would think some
degree of commitment, yes marriage, would be in order. It appears that living
together is what it is, consensual sex with no long term commitment. Why then
the angst by the father over the mother giving up the child to caring,
responsible adults? All he was in the relationship for was a good time.I think the whole situation is tragic. IMO he wants a human
puppy. Someone to meet his ego needs. Our legal system is
laughable. If the mother decided to end the pregnancy via abortion, the father
would have no rights in the matter. Why is it that the unmarried and thereby
uncommitted, father all of a sudden has a boatload of rights for the baby? Rights, rights, rights, and no responsibility. That seems to be the
mantra of a spoiled and feckless generation.
The biological father was not willing to take responsibility in the first place
for his sexual escapades nor was he later when both he and the mother learned of
the consequences of their relationship. He only jumped in at the last minute
when goaded on by his family members because THEY wanted the child but had no
legal rights to her. Sometimes people have to learn to live with their decisions
even if they are unwise. One cannot jump off a cliff and decide half way down
they don’t really want to deal with the consequences after all. If this really is about the child – and the biological father truly does
love his biological daughter, he should let her go to grow in the stable family
life she already knows and comprehends. By forcing the issue through the courts,
the suing family has shown it has no regards for the daughter but only for
themselves. And the child will pay with her mental stability for the rest of her
@ Clarissa"If only this man had married the mother before getting her
pregnant, none of this would have occurred. What a mess."Or
another way of looking at what you are saying: If only the mother would have
married this man before she slept with him..."I am pretty sure
both of them were there.
Cleetorn, get your facts straight. Rob filed for his paternity action WEEKS
before his daughter was born. He didn't come forward at the last minute.
He even paid financial support to the birth mother during the pregnancy. It is
NOT just his family and only Rob that want his daughter. What is so wrong about
extended family wanting the child too? What is so wrong with grandmothers,
aunts, uncles, cousins wanting to be involved in a child's life? Isn't
a child better off having more loving adults in his or her life, rather than
fewer? The ONLY way the bio mom and adoptive parents were able to successfully
obtain custody over this child was through FRAUD and DECEIT. They admitted as
much in the Colorado custody proceeding. Are we now saying, steal a child,
commit fraud to do it, and if you tie that child up in litigation long enough,
you are able to keep the child you committed an illegal act to obtain in the
first place? No way. And what message is this sending to adoption agencies,
adoptive parents out there? Okay to do this? No way. It has to stop. Go Rob!
Maybe Utah should only do adoptions strictly for its own residents and refer out
state people to their respective states. Also a legal document should be
required from the biological fathers should be issued and signed relinquishing
his rights before an adoption can be done, with an except in cases of rape that
has been documented via police and medical professionals. It is sad if people
would not have sex out of marriage most of these problems would never happen.
@FYIThe biological parents both behaved irresponsibly; they should
have gotten married before sexual intimacy. But, it is the mother that carried
the child through the pregnancy and and gave birth to her. The mother's
sacrifice and interests should outweigh the irresponsible behavior biological
father unless he can show that the adopted parents are unsuitable. But it looks
like selfishness will trump compassion and the person who will suffer the most
will be the innocent little girl.
I am appalled. People on here are attacking him. Is the father of the child
perfect....not even close. But he is standing up for his responsibilities as a
parent. In this day and age where many children have no clue who there father
is, much less supported by them, and people want to attack him for doing the
right thing. Of course the mother is a vestal virgin and the presence of all
that is good in world, at least until this ogre of a male spoiled her virtue.
What is with all the "if only" moralizing? The child has been born and
all your hand wringing is not going to change that. I admit to not following
this case closely, but how is allowing this child to have more people in her
life that love her a bad thing? It doesn't appear that he wants to take
her away from her adoptive family; he wants to be part of her life. It's
the same arrangement many children of divorce navigate.And are you
the same people who keep harping that it is always best for children to be with
their "biological" parents?
Strider303 has it right. If the mother can abort the child without the
permission of the sperm donor, then why doesn't she have the right to
chose adoptive parents?Is this going to cause more women who find
themselves in this condition just choose abortion to avoid the kind of mess
these men create after the fact?The child should be the most important
person in this whole mess, or maybe Solomon had it right, just divide the
child in two and in this case you know who would be the first to stop that.
Unless any of us have full information on this sad situation, we should not be
making judgment calls. I agree with those who find that the six years of legal
hassle make it far worse. I hope the adoptive parents and bio-dad can make it
work to all be a part of the girl's life, without causing problems for her.
At least he is willing to acknowledge that he isn't blaming the adoptive
parents. Are they actually the girl's uncle and aunt, as one poster has
I love how people who claim same-sex adoption harms children who should be with
biological parents... are now arguing this kid is better off with adopted
I really am having a hard time with some of these comments. Last time I looked
it took 2 to create a baby and it should have taken 2 to decide to terminate
parental rights. While not married this father supported the mother and took
steps after the birth to claim this child when the mother did not want to raise
the child. I really do not understand why his daughter remained with her Aunt
and Uncle for the six years it took to wind through the legal system. It seems
to me that the rule of possession has trumped a fathers right to raise his own
child. I would like to praise this young father for staying on task since pre
birth to raise his child.
I am astounded by all the self-righteous moralizing in some of these comments.
Are you really saying that in this country, a child does not have the right to
be raised by his or her family if the parents weren't married when they had
sex? And are you really saying that people who are married and wish to adopt are
always morally superior to an unmarried parent? That is just ridiculous.
The father is not to blame in this case. UT courts have trampled on the rights
of fathers for decades. This decision should have been made within months of
the baby being born, and not tens of thousands of dollars and six years later. I
am sure this has put a terrible financial burden on the father. The courts need
to protect the child’s right to have a relationship with the father.As a father who divorce with a young child I can tell you that I spent
thousands of dollars to maintain any relationship with my daughter. After my
divorce my wife switched religions and baptized my daughter into the Catholic
Church without my knowledge or consent, and the courts would do nothing. When my
ex-wife decided to move out of state with my daughter, the judge told me
"it's none of your business where your ex-wife lives, and if you want
to have any visitation at all with your daughter, you will have to pay half of
the travel costs for her to visit here 3 times per year". It is time that UT
laws and UT courts give fair consideration to fathers.
If the prospective adoptive parents had seeking consent of both the child's
parents they would have saved this child, the child's dad and themselves a
lot of heartache. I don't see how the PAPS should prevail in any sense. A
biological parent should not have to share parenthood or lose parenthood because
they had sex before marriage and the woman delivered in utah. We all are shocked
at the reassigning of children into other families in polygamist communities by
leaders who decide they are not worthy or someone else is more worthy. King Sol
placed with a single parent prostitute before DNA could prove which parent was
the grieving parent and who was the bio parent. He didn't declare the child
go to a two parent family. He chose biology.
It's really sad to see all these commenting on the article laying judgment
on a father who wanted to do the right thing from the start. This court ruling
sets a dangerous precedent for fathers who want to raise their children. At what
point is a child too attached to current caregivers to be returned to her
rightful parent? And who gets to make that determination? Perhaps if the courts
could put an urgency on these cases and didn't allow them to be so drawn
out, we wouldn't end up 6 years down the road with dwindling options for
the child. It MUST be about the child. International Law even recognizes
children's rights to identify with their heritage and biological families.
When will US courts acknowledge the rights of the child to his/her identity as
set forth by God in the form of the parents to whom the baby was born?
There are more facts I can state , however , if you knew the whole situation you
would have to question WHY THIS EVER HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE ! I am no one
special , but it seems to reason , had this of been stopped in the beginning NO
ONE IN THIS SITUATION WOULD BE WHERE THEY ARE TODAY ! JUST THAT SIMPLE ! When
the adoptive parents knew Mr Manzanares wanted his child , why did they not give
her back while she was an infant ??????
For those of you using the abortion card to justify defrauding father AND child
of their rights, just know that your argument is ridiculous.(1) A
married father's consent is NOT needed for an abortion but IS needed for
adoption.(2) A woman has a unilateral right to an abortion - but only up
to the point of viability. I think we can all agree that a living breathing
child has proven viability.Adoption is NOT a reproductive choice.
Never has been.
For those of you who continue to portray unmarried fathers as mere "sperm
donors" and their unmarried status as reason enough to deny the child the
chance to know her father... For those of you who claim "if only he had
married her..." there wouldn't be such a mess... For all those who
think the problem is the lack of marriage between father and mother...Let me present Exhibit A - the case of Terry Achane, a married father whose
wife pulled a disappearing act and ran off to Utah to give birth, then placed
their child for adoption.So when Mr. Achane found out where his
child was, do you think that the Utah court immediately gave him custody?
You'd be wrong. The would be adopters fought him for TWO YEARS before a
Utah court ripped both mother and agency a new one, and continued their media
campaign against him with all the usual handwringing about "the only family
she's ever known".
Having sex outside of marriage comes with massive, hateful and life long
repercussions to the lives of every person in a family.Staying morally
clean before marriage and faithful after marriage is the most important value we
can possible teach our children and the most important thing we must do.Do not tell me I am being old fashioned, unrealistic and foolish.The hell people put themselves and their children through by not keeping
the moral laws of God are obvious in every aspect of family life.
County mom, then if your husband were to be found unfaithful in marriage would
you place your children for adoption? Course not. That's not staying
morally clean either which the standard you decided was the only correct one.
People can be happy and unhappy if every type of family group. I adopted. I
don't know how I could be happy as an adoptive family if I had to tell my
child his father wanted to raise him but his mom, aunt Jane fled the state and
gave birth to him and gave him to us instead, so that he wouldn't be able
to. I don't know how that child could be happy. The mom should have
indicated she wanted to place and his consent given or they raise the baby
together. The APs should have his signature. If they let the dad's raise
alone they would be on the hook for child support. I also wonder how much
pressure these pregnant women are under? In the fifties when women were
frequently sent to other locations to have their babies there was pressured to
place and the practice disbanded.
Utah's adoption laws seem to be a mess... they need to amend the laws so
that so that biological, adoptive, & children's lives aren't torn
apart in the process. It would be far. far better for some adoptions to not take
place than for adoptions to be undone years later after a child has bonded with
her adoptive family and a biological parent has missed out on years he did not
want to miss. Rather than give biological fathers a time table to register for
custody, the state should automatically assume that the father wants that child
until they consent to the adoption as well. In other words, they shouldn't
have to sign up to be father's, they should have to actively consent for an
adoption to go through.
All this happened because the birth mother hid the baby's birth from the
father and came to Utah to have the baby when she was supposed to be in Colorado
at a custody hearing. It was illegal to start with and continued so. Everyone
has been hurt by this. Frankly a Colorado Judge should have found this mother
in contempt and thrown her in jail. If the mother didn't want the kid, it
appears the father wanted the kid. The father shouldn't have been
deprived of his rights.
This clearly seems to me an issue in which one can't attribute any obvious
hero, villain, or legal procedure (besides, of course, hurrying up.) The
collection of possibilities, dangers, and uncertainties that lead to a situation
like this just don't have one clear-cut solution to fix once this kind of
mess occurs.The only sure-fire preventative formula is to meet
someone, court them responsibly and honestly, exercize abstinance before
marriage and fidelity afterward, and understand marriage in terms of sacrificing
yourself entirely. A failure of either or both people in any one of these steps
risks so much.
I wish the father would wait until the child grew up and was more emotionally
mature. I know children sometimes like to know who their real parents are when
they are around 18 or so, but age six is way too young. Will this involve the
little girl going to another state without who she feels is her parents? I know
how hard it must be for the adoptive parents to turn their child over to a
stranger and how frightening it could be for the child. If I were the extended
member of this family like a grandparent, I would just want to keep up with
pictures, not actual visitations to confuse a child. It seems like the
child's best interests weren't honestly considered.
It actually was not undone. It was never done. The prospective parents should
have handed the baby over the day they took possession. It was clear from the
start that they did not have the father's consent and he actually did
assert his desire to oppose the adoption and parent. You can't keep a child
and claim it will be determental to change things when you yourself cause the 6
year delay. Also forgetting children of all ages get adopted and fostered. You
wouldn't say an adoptive parent shouldn't adopt that child from abroad
who is 6 or whose parents died at 6 or whose parent in the prison system allowed
their child to be adopted to extended family? These people should have been the
child's aunt and uncle, not the child's parents.