Unwed father alleges racketeering in adoption lawsuit

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • tigger AMERICAN FORK, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    130 million seems excessive to me.

  • Virginians for BYU Lebanon, MO
    Jan. 2, 2014 10:46 p.m.

    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.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    Jan. 2, 2014 5:07 p.m.

    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.

  • RDJntx Austin, TX
    Jan. 2, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    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

  • B ob Richmond, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 5:35 p.m.

    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.

  • B ob Richmond, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 5:30 p.m.

    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.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    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 logic.

  • Old Scarecrow Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    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.

  • grip Meridian, ID
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Paul Scholes Provo, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:28 p.m.

    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.

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:23 p.m.

    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.

  • badgergirl Up North, WI
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    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.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:51 p.m.

    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.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Dec. 31, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Duckhunter SLC, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    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.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:43 p.m.


    "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!

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    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 dollars.

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    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.

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    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.

  • Dawgeedawg The Place, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Daniel L. Murray, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    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!

  • KinCO Fort Collins, CO
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Duckhunter SLC, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    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.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Ethel Home Town USA, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    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 lawsuit.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    "Family friendly". Utah certainly isn't.

  • AllBlack San Diego, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:39 a.m.


    "... 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?

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:53 a.m.

    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?

  • LAL South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:48 a.m.

    "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.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:16 a.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:10 a.m.

    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 violation.

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 2:13 a.m.

    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?

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 1:56 a.m.

    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?

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    Dec. 31, 2013 12:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    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 this matter.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:12 p.m.

    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 child.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 30, 2013 10:13 p.m.

    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.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Dec. 30, 2013 9:05 p.m.

    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 isn't honorable.