Deputies arrest 3 Wyoming residents in Utah kidnapping case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Kate Hutch Kenmore, WA
    July 9, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    You wrote"Its only fair that biological parents and children retain inalienable biological custody rights. " Some people are not fit to be parents. This woman put her daughter in the company of a sex offender. This child is not old enough to give consent to decisions in her life.

  • Unclefred Ticonderoga, NY
    July 9, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    "Their parental rights are conditioned upon that which is best for the child." While I'm hopeful that courts at least consider what's best for the child, I also hope that that is not the overriding criteria. I'm reasonably sure some court could have found better parents for my 3 children if they looked long enough, I'm glad the question never came up. I'd say that if a parent surrendered their rights in a count, those right would be gone until the child grew up and voluntarily went to live with that parent, or the parent petitioned the court to review that case, and won. I "hate" the idea of a court taking a child away from their parents, but I agree that it is sometimes sadly necessary....

  • Anonymous100 Anywhere, UT
    July 9, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    So, following Mr. Horsely's logic, if I somehow obtain his or the school districts banking information, I should be able to withdraw all of their funds because there isn't a document at the financial institution that doesn't say I DO NOT have access to those funds. They should make sure the financial institution has a list of every person NOT authorized access to the funds. It's a moronic statement and methinks he's trying to cover the district's liability. Uh, too late.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    July 9, 2013 10:41 a.m.


    Apparently you have lived a sheltered life. It is common for biological parents to lose their parental rights and custody of their children due to their irresponsible choices and lifestyle. Parents do not have inalienable parental rights. Their parental rights are conditioned upon that which is best for the child. The child's attachment to and preference of a biological parent is irrelevant because young children do not know what is best for them.

    Taking a young girl into the environment described in this article is prima facia evidence that some biological parents are incapable of protecting their biological child's best interests.

    July 9, 2013 9:22 a.m.


    The mother "voluntarily gave up her parental rights in 2009, and her daughter's grandparents were named the girl's legal guardians, court records show."

    This then does make it a legal matter. The article did to say why she gave up her rights, but in order to again get her parental rights she would need to do it through legal means. Showing up "with documents that showed she had a right to take her daughter" can then be construed to mean forged documents. Maybe they will check into that as well.

    In any case taking the daughter into a home with a man who is a registered sex offender is also careless on the part of the mother, who at this point cannot be trusted with the best interests of the child.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    July 9, 2013 3:41 a.m.

    I think its only right that a parent and child can voluntarily undo their surrender of custody under duress, intimidation, and threats that our legal system forces parents to make wrong decisions under stress. Its only fair that biological parents and children retain inalienable biological custody rights.

    If a child does not wish to live with her grandparents and wants to live with their biological parent and willing leaves to be with her mother then that is her right. The law and courts do not have jurisdiction of biological needs of parent and child. the mother and child have every right to their own choices.

    What the schools and education system wants and does is irrelevant, they have no jurisdiction or legal involvement in judicial or criminal actions and they have no right to be invloved at all.

    Nothing has been mentioned about the childs rights and wants here and the law is just out for blood and to harass this woman and daughter who want each other in their lives.

    Live in partners are irrelevant and people not in jail for a crime are absolved of all criminal history, another harassment lie by law enforcement.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2013 9:31 p.m.

    I agree with "shamrock".

    Supposedly requiring a list of all those who are NOT allowed custody seems absurd. So much so that I doubt that is actually the policy.

    My guess is that the Granite School District will be getting some followup attention on this one.

    BTW, very gratified to know that the girl is safe and the offenders are arrested.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2013 8:19 p.m.

    Ben Horsely (the spokesperson for the Granite School District) seemss to be saying that the girl's grandparents should have filed paperwork not only showing that they had custody, that they needed to file paperwork identifying anyone who did NOT have custody. Seriously? That would be both unduly burdensome and ridiculous.

    It sounds like the Granite School District dropped the ball on this one and doesn't want to admit it. Glad to hear the girl was found as quickly as she was.