Jake is all in. We will APPEAL! Fasten your seat belt, it's gonna get bumpy. We can't wait to get before the Utah Supreme Court and have Jake's constitutional rights and due process motions ruled on. There is no doubt, that Jake and Jackson will be reunited. If only the process was quicker. It will probably take about 2 years for a ruling.
Jake not only chose to continue to be with his son, but to get the laws changed in Utah and protect others from this happening.
We will never stop until justice prevails.
Thank you again for all of the positive words of encouragement. We sincerely appreciate all of the support we have received.
“Destiny is not a matter of chance; it is a matter of choice.
It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.”
― William Jennings Bryan
― William Jennings Bryan
"Even if things don't unfold the way you expected, don't be disheartened or give up.
One who continues to advance will win in the end.”
― Daisaku Ikeda
― Daisaku Ikeda
Go get em!
ReplyDeleteGo get'em Jake! You know that me and your "Aunt" Kim will always have your back!
ReplyDeleteHave legal charges been pressed on Whitney? What about a civil lawsuit?
ReplyDeleteSo what is the best possible outcome here? Obviously there is no legal way for Jake to ever have full custody, so is he trying to get visitation, like an every other weekend situation? Other than changing the current laws what is the end goal?
ReplyDeleteIf the adoption were overturned at the state supreme court level because they decide his constitutional rights were violated he would be legally allowed to seek full custody. But that would depend on what the Utah Supreme Court rules.
DeleteWhy do you say it's "obvious" there is no legal way for him to ever get full custody? Is the father unfit? Does the fact the mother possesses a vagina give her superior child-rearing skills? Between a parent who has given her child away versus a parent who is fighting hard to accept parental responsibility and get his baby back, I think the father should have an edge.
DeleteSo let me get this straight...you're going to proceed with trying to take a 4 year old away from who he knows as his mommy and daddy?? At some point you need to be less selfish and think about that little boy. If you were successful when this boy was a baby, that's one thing, but taking a 4 year old away from the only people he knows as his mommy and daddy is just cruel and selfish. Just picture the scene when he is taken away and how he would act...it's heartwrenching. And you keep referring to him as Jackson...did the adoptive couple name him that? If not, are you just going to change his name? Go ahead and try to get the laws changed for the future, that's fine...but trying to get custody of this boy when he's 4 is just crazy. It's time to show how much you love this boy and let him be. Unfortunately it's too late now.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking the same thing. I'm all about changing the laws that allowed this to happen but bottom line is it sounds like the kid is with a family who obviously love him a great deal. This sounds more like "he's MY son so I should have him," than "I'm able to provide a stable family environment, and provide opportunities for him better than the family he was given to. I want what is best for the child." Why not let him grow up with the family he knows, show the adoptive parents that you aren't a malicious threat, make a sincere effort to build a relationship with them and eventually you'll be able to have a relationship with him. Trying to rip a four year old from the family he knows does sound cruel and self serving. Saying cruel things about the parents who raise him will not encourage his love. A father who really has his son's best interest in mind would realize continuing past this point is doing more harm than good to that little boy.
DeleteQuestion? I have been reading this blog for a long time now and am confused by the comment above. Where does it say anything bad about the adoptive couple? All that I have seen are the letters that Jakes mom wrote to them and their parents, it sounds to me that he has tried to make contact with them. So forgive me if I offend anyone but honestly no matter how old a child is they should be the first priorty. Which to me seems to be Jakes. So good luck Jake, I hope all goes good for your son, you and the sweet adoptive couple.
DeleteIf a 4 year old's parents died or divorced, would the child be so harmed that they would be traumatized for life? If a 4 year old had been kidnapped at birth, would you say to leave the child with the kidnappers because they would be irreparably harmed?
DeleteChildren form bonds with people all the time. Not just to their parents. We Americans have a conflated sense of self-importance when it comes to who is the mom and dad. If the adoptive parents had just given the child back, Jake wouldn't be in this situation. Yet they are the ones delaying in court and dragging their feet to keep a child that was stolen. How is that moral?
Also, do you seriously think that the child won't be harmed when he finds out what his adoptive parents did to keep him from his father???
To Samantha P. - I'm not the one you're asking but I can answer your last question. I'm an adopted child from a very similar situation (my birth father wanted to raise me and stopped fighting my adoption when I was 6). So I'm in a position where I can say I know for sure that yes, it's very unlikely that the child will turn against his adoptive parents, or be harmed when he learns what they did, even given these circumstances. I'm sure they either are or will explain it to him in an age appropriate way throughout his life and he'll grow up knowing that he has a birth father who wanted to raise him but instead he is being raised by them. I don't know of any fellow adoptees who have resented their adoptive parents for fighting back against a contested adoption.
DeleteI hope that helps with the last question in your comment.
So basically, you have no problem that your a-parents legally kidnapped you? How exactly did your a-parents brainwash you into thinking that might makes right?
Delete"Your father wanted to raise you but since we got you first we wanted to be selfish and raise you ourselves!" Was that how it went?
You even call him a birth-father. A term manufactured by the adoption lobby to get people to think that they are just incubators and sperm donors. Congrats!
I was raised by my aunt and uncle and I resent the hell out of the fact that they didn't give me back to my mom. My life was hell with them.
Samantha P. -
DeleteI'll try to respond to your snarky and disproportionately hostile comment with as much decency as I can muster, especially considering I was giving you a polite and honest answer to one of your questions.
No, I have zero problem with it. I was raised by the family my mom chose and if it was that important for him to raise me he would have taken the right steps earlier on, even he has admitted that. It's ridiculous to assume I was brainwashed just because I don't hate my parents.
And no, it went more like "he helped make you but wasn't committed enough to take the legal steps early on to prevent the adoption that had already been mentioned by your mom and your mom knew we would give you a great, stable life."
I call him my "birth father" because that is the term HE preferred and that he picked. I'm in college now and he told me when I was a teenager that was what I could use to refer to him. I asked him what I should call him and he chose that, so don't try and be bitter and take that away from him by saying that means he's just a "sperm donor."
That sucks for you that you had an awful upbringing but that doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.
He was obviously committed enough to fight for six years and bear the emotional and financial heartaches that came along with that. I feel sorry for him. He lost you and you have zero problem with it. His consent should have been required. Shameful.
DeleteAdoption is about a child in need of a loving home not about taking a child from a loving parent without consent or due process. I agree taking a child from his daddy is wrong, it is selfish and cruel, therefore Jackson should be returned as quickly as posible. Jackson's name has been his name since his father and birth mother gave it to him when they found out they were having a son, no one should ever have changed it - it isn't right. Funny I don't remember anyone ever calling Elizabeth Smart's father selfish when a married couple took his daughter without his consent and held her for over 18 months. The only thing that is unfortunate is that the adoptive couple will be the ones to explain to Jackson why he was not returned home if justice does not prevail. The truth is that no matter what silly laws are on the books, or what ruling is handed down Jake is Jackson's father and no one or anything will ever change that. There is no greater love than that of a father for his child, it is never to late. Don't ever give up Jake your son needs you.
ReplyDeleteHonest question I hope someone connected to Jake can answer for me. Whitney gave her parental rights to the adoptive couple meaning no matter what, her portion of parenting is theirs. That means all Jake can possibly hope for is some sort of partial custody, correct? Even if the Supreme Court says "yeah this situation was no good" they still can't hand over HER parental rights which she gave to that couple. Or am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteNo, I believe he can get full custody if the adoption is overturned. It will be as if the adoption never legally happened. In that case I believe Whitney might be able to file to have her rights back as well, but the adoption would be undone so the adoptive parents would no longer be legal parents.
DeleteHe can seek full custody if he wants. Unless the birth mother is found to be unfit, her rights will be reinstated and it will just be a custody battle between her and dad.
DeleteThere's a 2007 Utah Supreme Court case (Adoption of Connor) dealing with that issue. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2922672457983460934 , specifically paragraphs 19 to 24 In a nutshell, if the birth father persuasive the appellate court that his noncompliance with the adoption statutes is excusable because of the birth mother's fraud then, unless the court finds grounds to terminate his parental rights for cause (e.g. unfitness, abandonment, child neglect, etc.), it will have to conduct a "best interests" hearing to decide temporary custody arrangements between the birth mom and dad. The failed adoptive parents become "legal strangers" at this juncture who only retain "the most transitory custody and guardianship" of the child while s/he is transitioned back to the natural parents "with all due haste."
You are missing something. When Whitney terminated her parental rights the only thing she did was take herself out of the picture as the baby's parent. She didn't actively give her rights to someone. The adoptive couple's rights were created as a matter of law when the court followed a ridiculous rule. Jake is arguing he didn't get a choice in terminating his rights and the adoptive couple's rights should never have been created. Can you imagine the mess if you were allowed to hand over your parental rights? If I suddenly decided to give my stepmom the rights to my kids, leaving my husband's rights in tact, I would have been allowed to create a situation where my husband and stepmom each had half the right to my kids. It just doesn't work like that.
ReplyDeleteGood luck Jake.
Thanks! The situation makes a little more sense now.
DeleteI hope you get your son back. don't be discouraged by some of these comments. With a child centered transition your son can come home where he belongs. I hope justice is served. This boy has a right to be with his Dad,
ReplyDeleteDO NOT BE DISCOURAGED! This needs to get out there so people THINK... DEEPLY. If my infant was taken from me at the hospital and I found him/her- You better BELIEVE I WOULD WANT THEM AND FIGHT MY WHOLE LIFE TO GET THEM BACK!
ReplyDeletePRAYING FOR YOU ALL.
God, I'm beyond horrified by some of these comments, especially indicating that a parent is selfish just for wanting to raise his own child. If that were true there would be no Center for Missing and Exploited Children... no right to raise your own child and no laws against kidnapping. Ironically, most of the people writing them would probably be enraged if anyone tried to claim the right to raise one of their children and just lack the imagination to recognise that your right to raise your son and your son's right to be raised by you is no less important than their rights to raise their own children. Every child who has a competent, willing living parent should be raised by him or her if possible. And playing keep away with a baby until he's old enough for you to claim that a return to his family of origin will harm him is a revolting perversion of "best interests of the child". No child owe's his or her childhood to another family simply because they want him. Sorry haters, that's the price you pay for living in a civilized society. Clare
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is Jake KNEW about the paternity registry and he CHOSE not to register. Details beyond that won't matter to the SC. In an earlier post on this blog it said essentially that "Jake said he was going to register and Whitney got upset so he didn't follow through." Tough beans kiddo, you chose not to protect your rights. This isn't like the Colorado father getting his daughter back, he actually DID register with his state BEFORE his child was adopted.
ReplyDeleteThose registries should be declared unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you consider it unconstitutional to provide an opportunity for a father to guarantee he gets to parent his child? That's what the registry is for so I'm not sure if you think that's a bad way of ensuring that or if you have some other issue with the registries...
DeleteMy problem with the registries is that they are used to strip rights rather than to protect them. Why don't mothers have to use such registries? Sorry, Miss, we're taking your baby, you didn't sign the registry and the father gave the baby to us. Nope, can't sign now or protest because you're now past the deadline to do anything about it. Sucks to be you!! See how ridiculous that sounds when you switch the gender of the parents? Fathers need to be contacted directly and consent given directly, the same as mothers. Even men who have signed such registries in their home states have lost their kids to Utah. Signing is no "guarantee" a father will not lose his child.
DeleteMen who do not realize they may lose their kids in this way are not likely to sign the registry as in this case. Many men don't know about registries. Lack of a signature prebirth is then used as a loophole to take a child without consent and without recourse. I would be happy with registries only if they gave ample time after the child's birth for the father to sign and stop the adoption.
DeleteWhat if it was this easy to take, say...somebody's house? Ohhhh, you didn't know you had to fill out a special form to keep what was already yours? Too bad, you didn't sign so now your house belongs to somebody else....
And yes, I know a child can't really be compared to a house. That's what makes it even more horrifying. People's children deserve so much more protection than a house. Do you think the constitutionality of taking homes in this way would be called into question? You bet, but we're all supposed to be on board with it when it comes to kids. After all, it sure helps out people who can't have their own.
Info is out of this world, I would love to read more.
ReplyDeleteCar Accident Lawyer
Utah Car Accident Lawyer
Car Accident
car accident injury
Lawyers in Utah