Dear Readers.

Dear readers,

This is Jackson’s grandma. I would like to personally thank each and every one of you for your support and love that you have continued to show us over the last two years.  We have had so many emotions, blessings and heartaches that we would not have been able to get through without the continued support of family and friends. 

I would like to write today in response to one comment recently posted on the blog under the post “Stealing from the married ones too” regarding an article in the Salt Lake Tribune written by Brooke Adams.  First I, we would like to say we do not normally respond to negative comments because everyone has the right to their own opinion and we have learned a great deal about all sides of adoption.  Emotions are high from each angle. We respect that.

Though this comment made a statement at the end which is totally untrue. Jake has not acted in any way “creepy” towards the birth mother or adoptive parents.  In fact Jake has from the beginning taken the high road, and tried to ensure that the names of the adoptive couple are not revealed.  He has not spoken with Whitney since the night that she told him that she had given Jackson up.  We have seen Whitney in court twice, while supporting Kyle(Whitney's ex husband) in a court hearing which involved two counts of child neglect that had been reported to DCFS.  But, none of our family spoke to Whitney. 

As far as reaching out to the adoptive couple, I placed two calls in April 2011, to the paternal grandparents requesting that the couple and Jake meet to share their sides of the story.  I did this because I know them, and had babysat for them as a teenager; one of the children I tended was the adoptive father.   We had a very respectful conversation for over an hour, I requested that they please discuss it with the adoptive couple and call me back in a week.  When we spoke the second time they had been instructed by their attorney, Larry Jenkins, to only go through their counsel and the courts when dealing with Jake.   I left all of our contact information and we hung up on very cordial terms.  

In fact my father, Jake’s grandfather, is still very good friends with adoptive grandparents and they see each other often.

In November 2011, I again was the one who wrote letters to the adoptive couple, grandparents, adoption agencies and attorneys.   This was not because Jake was not will or was not wanting to reach out.  I did it because I felt that as a mother, grandmother and concerned citizen it was my duty to do so.  Each of these letters are posted on the blog, in December 2011.  When we posted these letters Jake made sure that the names were redacted of all the adoptive family. 

This blog is set up for Jackson to be used as a journal and space to express emotions and spread Jack's story.  We hand out fliers everywhere we go, and have logos on our cars to get the word out about Jake and Jack’s story.  Again this is to help inform others of the abuse that is and has been happening in Utah adoptions as well as to help us deal with missing Jackson.

To imply that Jake has acted inappropriate towards the birth mother or the adoptive couple is just simply not true.  Jake has continued to fight in court for his right to parent his only child, he will continue to do so through the Utah Supreme Court.   We will also continue to work to change the laws in Utah to protect all parties in adoption, not just birth fathers.

Jake was with Whitney throughout her pregnancy, he did more than just financially support her.  They were together at family gatherings, Jack’s baby shower, Christmas events, and even at the lights the night before Jack was born.  Relationships are to be built on trust. Jake believed Whitney and even asked her around the middle of December if she was thinking of adoption – to which she responded “of course not, I can’t believe you would even ask me”.  Whitney’s only threat that Jake saw that was real at this time was that she would hold true to her word that if he did file on the paternity registry, if he did Whitney would receive notice, he would never see his son.  That is what Jake was told over and over by Whitney. That threat of not seeing his son was real if he filed. Jake watched how Whitney acted with Emery and her ex- husband.  Jake did not find out she was still married until the end of January 2011. Several others that know Whitney also believed that she was divorced.   Call it what you would like, fraud, deceit, manipulation but to ensure that Whitney was able to get what she wanted that is what she did. 

For a child who is in need of a loving home because their birth parent(s) cannot provide one for them for different reasons,then adoption is a blessing.  Most adoptive couples are trying to adopt because they cannot have their own biological children.  One way or another there has to be some type of loss for an adoptive child, sometimes it is for the adoptive parents as well.  Adoption has a lot of pain behind the veil of bliss that all would like to believe it is. 

To place a child into an adoptive situation when they have a loving father and family who has ALWAYS wanted, and can care for them is wrong.  Many adoptive children long for those who look like them, have their same genetic traits and talents.  It is not right to make the adoptive couple in fraudulent adoptions justify why they got to take the child home when their parents wanted them and did not place them for adoption.

Also, in fraudulent adoptions many things are left out such as medical information.  When both parents consent some agencies provide medical information, LDS family services is one agency that does.  But, because the social worker and Whitney did not want Jake involved, Jack has been denied his medical information.

Since we again know where Jack is, we have continued to reach out, we are willing to provide all information for Jack.  The adoptive couple’s attorney again has been the stumbling block.  But, all the adoptive couple has to do is to ask, even through their parents to Jake’s grandfather.  We have no other way to provide it.

Utah is a breeding ground for corruption because the laws have made fraudulent actions legal in adoption.  The truth is that these laws are only words on paper.  They will never change the fact that Jack is Jake’s son and part of our family.  Whether Jack comes home now, or is not able to connect with Jake until he is an adult we will be here for him.  Jack does not have to choose a family when he is an adult.  There is room for everyone, it is better to have more people in your life that love you.

We have NOT nor will we ever wish any ill will towards the adoptive couple.  We would never want Jack to be hurt or feel torn, but he has the right to the TRUTH and his FAMILY.

Dear adoptive parents of Jack, please love this little one with all of your heart.  Enjoy his every waking moment that he is in your care.  Take time to see the world through his baby blue eyes (I hope he got his daddy’s eyes).  Please don’t restrain his need for adventure, let him be curious and make mistakes to learn from.  If he takes after his daddy, you will love his outgoing funny personality, his true love for people, his wonderfully kind heart and trusting nature.   

Most of all treasure Jack as Jake does and love him enough to let him know his family. 

Sincerely, 

Jack's Grandma

Stealing from the married ones too...

Unfortunately, the married ones are being affected too. The agencies, lawyers, adoptive couples, and fraudulent birth mothers have no shame in exploiting these children. They will grow up, they will know the truth, they will find out the horror! We have to get the laws in Utah changed! There is no ifs, ands, or buts, about it. It will happen, some way or another. We will never give up. LBBJH!

---

Father is ready to turn page on Utah adoption horror story

Utah courts • Judge orders adoptive parents to return child to father, who is ready for new life with daughter.

By Brooke Adams

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: December 3, 2012 07:50AM
Updated: December 3, 2012 12:59PM

Courtesy photo Leah Frei, now 21 months, has lived with her adoptive parents since birth. Her biological father, who calls her Teleah, is waging a legal battle to get her back.

A 4th District Court judge says he is “astonished and deeply troubled” by a Utah adoption agency’s deliberate move to circumvent the rights of a married man whose daughter was adopted at birth without his knowledge.

The Provo judge, while noting the birth mother had deceived her husband, the adoption agency and the prospective parents, has given the adoptive couple 60 days to give the child back.

In a 48-page ruling, Judge Darold McDade said the Adoption Center of Choice’s policy of refusing to disclose any information to Terry Achane once he learned what had happened to his baby is “utterly indefensible.”

Salt Lake City attorneys Mark and Scott Wiser, the father/son team that represented Achane, used even stronger language for what occurred.

“This is a case of human trafficking,” said Mark Wiser. “Children are being bought and sold. It is one thing what [adoption agencies] have been doing with unmarried biological fathers. It is in a new area when they are trying to take a child away from a married father who wants to have his child.”

Jared and Kristi Frei, the adoptive parents, declined to comment, as did Kasey Wright, their former attorney, and Larry Jenkins, newly hired to represent the couple. James Webb, executive director of the Adoption Center of Choice, based in Orem, did not return a call from The Salt Lake Tribune. The Tribune attempted to reach Tira Bland, the birth mother who is now divorced from Achane, but was unsuccessful.

On a blog about the case, where the Freis have raised more than $20,000 to help with legal bills, they vow to appeal McDade’s decision, describing the arrival of Achane’s daughter in their lives “a righteous desire blessed to fruition by God.”

“We have not lost our conviction that we are in the right!!!!!!” Kristi Frei wrote after McDade’s Nov. 20 ruling dismissed their adoption petition. “We have only ever wanted to do right by Leah, and have always felt we have been acting in her best interest to keep her with our family and raise her as our own. Our hearts have demanded it — there has never been any question to us that she is OURS!!!”

Achane, 31, still finds the position he is in hard to believe and just wants the baby girl he has met just twice and calls Teleah, the name he picked out before her birth, back.

“I am not a very religious person,” he said in an interview Friday, “but ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ If they prolong it, that is more time away from my daughter. There are precious moments I can’t get back. ... It has been a year and a half now. There is no court order saying they have the right to my child. I just won the case. I want to get my daughter and raise my daughter.”

Texas marriage • Achane and Bland, both then residents of Texas, married in February 2009 and learned around late June 2010 that Bland was expecting their first child. Achane, who is in the U.S. Army, accompanied his wife to prenatal visits and was there when an ultrasound revealed they were having a girl. They shared a joint bank account and Achane carried Bland and her daughter from a previous relationship on his military health insurance, which he also expected would cover the new baby.

In the fall 2010, Achane accepted a job as a drill instructor at Fort Jackson in South Carolina and was ordered to report for duty no later than Feb. 1, 2011.

But the couple began having marital problems that December and, according to the ruling, Bland was concerned she would end up a single mom with two children. Bland suggested she either have an abortion or pursue an adoption. Achane objected to both options.

The couple continued making plans to move to South Carolina, but their marital troubles continued. At one point they separated to have a “cooling-off period.” They also sought counseling.

In January, Bland told her husband she wanted to remain in Texas, where she has family, for their daughter’s birth. Achane was to return for the birth, after which Bland and their daughter would join him in South Carolina. He left Texas on Jan. 17, 2011, anticipating what he thought would be a short separation.

“I had already gotten clearance to come back when the baby was on the way,” he said.

But about 10 days after Achane left to set up a new home for his family, Bland decided to proceed with an adoption. She contacted the Adoption Center of Choice, which in mid-February brought Bland to Utah to give birth.

Although Achane continued to give Bland money and make mortgage and utility payments on their Texas home, by that point he was unable to reach his wife by telephone. He had no idea what was transpiring.

Utah birth • Teleah was born March 1, 2011, more than two weeks premature, at Mountain View Hospital in Payson.

Two days later, Bland relinquished her parental rights and the infant was placed with the Freis. At the time, Bland claimed her husband had abandoned her and was not interested in raising the child, according to the ruling.

Bland told the Adoption Center of Choice it could reach her husband in Texas, though she knew he was in South Carolina and thus would not receive any legal notices sent to his former address. Bland also apparently withheld Achane’s telephone number from the agency and later claimed she did not contact him about the birth because her phone wasn’t working.

The adoption agency informed the Freis that the father did not know his daughter had been placed for adoption in Utah and it was likely he would contest the placement if he found out. The Freis, the judge noted in his ruling, “acknowledged this risk but decided they wanted to proceed forward with the adoptive placement anyway.”

In mid-March, unable to reach his wife, Achane asked a friend to drive by their Texas home; he was told it appeared vacant. Achane then contacted Bland’s relatives. He learned that Bland was no longer pregnant, but their baby “was nowhere in sight.” The relatives did not know what had become of the child.

Achane feared Bland had, as she threatened, proceeded with an abortion, or had given the baby to relatives. Achane next reached out to his wife’s doctors in Texas, hoping to learn whether Bland had given birth or had an abortion, but they informed him doctor-patient confidentiality precluded sharing any information with him.

In June 2011, Bland for the first time informed her husband she had given birth in Utah and placed the child through the Adoption Center of Choice.

“I was like, ‘Utah? Where is Utah?’ I’d never been to Utah, she’s never been to Utah,” he said. “Adoption? Who does that? ... I believe she felt guilty at that point because she just made a call out of the blue,” said Achane.

That same day, Achane contacted the adoption agency and requested information about his child, which the agency refused to give him.

An attorney later contacted Achane, confirmed an adoption was in process and asked for his consent. Achane refused and told the attorney he wanted his daughter returned to him.

Instead, the Freis proceeded with the adoption. In their adoption petition, filed in July 2011, the couple acknowledged Achane was married to Bland when the child was conceived and born and that he had never consented to the adoption. They asked that his parental rights be terminated because he “abandoned the natural mother during her pregnancy” and “had not developed a substantial relationship” or otherwise taken responsibility for his daughter.

Achane intervened in the case and in October, more than a year later, a two-day hearing finally took place.

During that hearing, a representative for the Adoption Center of Choice testified that it was “standard practice” to not provide any information when a father — married or not — of a prospective adoptive child called the agency. Kristi Freis told the court that although they knew Achane wanted his child, she and her husband felt they had no obligation to return the baby.

A fit parent? • In his subsequent order, McDade said it is “undisputed” that Utah law requires consent of a married father before an adoption can take place.

“The right of a fit, competent parent to raise the parent’s child without undue government interference is a fundamental liberty interest that has long been protected by the laws and constitution of this state of the United States, and is a fundamental public policy of this state,” he said.

There was no need under law for Achane to “prove himself” fit to be a parent to his child. Nor did he have any obligation to comply with statutes directed at unmarried putative fathers, the judge said.

“Just by marrying the woman who may one day become the mother of his child, a man is deemed to have demonstrated his commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood,” McDade said.

While the birth mother initially misled the agency and adoptive parents by claiming Achane had abandoned the baby and had no interest in raising her, “once Mr. Achane contacted the Adoption Center of Choice ... to let them know he opposed the adoption and wanted his daughter back, that should have been the end of this case,” McDade said.

“Likewise, when the attorney for the Adoption Center of Choice contacted Mr. Achane and confirmed that Mr. Achane would not consent to the adoptive placement, the very next conversation they should have had was what arrangements the adoption agency would be making to return Teleah to him with all due haste,” he said. “That did not happen.”

The Freis also should have cooperated once they knew there was a legal father who, contrary to the birth mother’s assertions, had been involved and wanted the child, the judge said. Instead, they refused.

“At that juncture, the right thing for the Freis and the Adoption Center of Choice to have done would have been to make arrangements to return Teleah to Mr. Achane with all due haste,” the judge said.

McDade found that Achane could not be said to have consciously abandoned or failed to provide for or develop a relationship with his child since her whereabouts were unknown to him until months after her birth and his wife, the Freis and the adoption agency “deliberately thwarted” any opportunity for him to have a relationship.

The judge set a hearing for Jan. 16 on how to transition Teleah to her father, though the Freis want any change in custody stayed while they appeal.

“Much of the pain and anguish in this case could have been avoided or at least substantially mitigated if the adoption agency had responded to Mr. Achane’s initial requests for information concerning his daughter, and [his] request to have her returned to him back in July or August 2011,” McDade said, adding that he hoped the case would “serve as a cautionary tale and prompt the Adoption Center to change its policies so situations like this never happen again.”

brooke@sltrib.com

Twitter: Brooke4Trib

A married father’s rights

While unmarried biological fathers must act to preserve their parental rights and have a limited time to do so, married fathers are presumed to have a constitutional, fundamental liberty interest in their children.

A married father “has the exact same parental rights as the mother from the get-go,” said Salt Lake attorney Scott Wiser, who with his father represents Terry Achane. “It is the same reason why any other married parent would not have to worry about filing a paternity petition or jumping through a series of legal hoops to get their kids back if a third-party like a neighbor or day-care provider decided not to return their kids.”

Unless his parental rights have been terminated for cause, the father’s consent to an adoption is required.

In his ruling in the Achane case, 4th District Judge Darold McDade called the situation painful and heartbreaking while noting previous Utah Supreme Court rulings that found that prospective adoptive parents are “legal strangers” who have no rights other than to temporarily care for the child until custody can be returned to a natural parent and that any bonding that may have occurred while they had custody is “legally irrelevant.”

— Brooke Adams

---

© 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune

Father is ready to turn page on Utah adoption horror story

By Brooke Adams

The Salt Lake Tribune

Little Cowboy.

Jack:

Every holiday our hearts break a little more and more. We yurn to know what you are doing, how you are developing and what you are embracing in your little heart and world. Halloween has come and gone and it's another holiday not spent with your real daddy and family. We feel so robbed not to get the opportunity to be with you. Your cousin Boston was a cowboy this Halloween and we know you would have loved to be his little sidekick. We know you are probably talking up a storm, and getting a sassy little attitude. We hope one day soon, we can reunite. As always praying for you and your safety.

 

Say Howdy to your cousin Boston!

 

 

We love you so much Jack!

The news...

Sorry to keep you all waiting in anticipation of the news from Judge Hamilton. On Saturday, we received the devastating news that our motion to intervene in the adoption was DENIED. Judge Hamilton solely could not rule in Jake's favor due to not filing timely according to Utah Law, even though he stated that the birth mother, Whitney Pettersson Rathjen Demke, defrauded Jake intentionally out of his child. The judge did not even address the constitutionality issues or due process. Our attorney feels that he didn't even want to address this and let the Supreme Court rule on this.

Jake is needing time to think through the next step in this emotional journey. Prayers, thoughts, and positive vibes sent his way would be greatly appreciated.

Hopefully, we will have more news on the what is to come next in the coming week. We will never give up on Jackson and will never stop fighting to get the laws changed here in Utah. More and more we keep seeing father's being denied the rights to parent their children. WHY??? Why would we deny a willing, and capable father the right to parent, when so many children grow up without a father figure or role model in their life and strive to have one.

We will never back down until the law is fair for ALL parties involved in adoption. All meaning, birth mother, birth father, adoptive parents and most importantly the CHILD. We need to seriously consider as society what message we are sending to our future generation of children who are placed for adoption illegally, unethical and based on fraudulently practices.

What will the adoptive couple say to Jackson when he asks why he has dark hair and not light hair like his parents? Will they lie to him and not tell him he is adoptive? Or will they only tell him bits and pieces about his adoption? Surely, they can't answer the truth, that he is with them due to them winning in court based on fraud, lies and dishonesty.

We will have Jackson in our lives one way or another. It's only a matter of time. We hope and pray everyday that Jackson is loved, cared for and is a healthy vibrant child. If only we knew for certain.....

JACKSON MICHAEL STRICKLAND

we love you and will never give up!!!

Proposed bill would penalize adoption agencies for fraudulent representations

*** Please note some of the facts are slightly off, such as the year of birth of Jackson

By Marjorie Cortez , Deseret News

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 15 2012 7:58 p.m. MDT

SALT LAKE CITY — As state lawmakers consider possible amendments to the state adoption laws, one Utah man could learn as early as Thursday whether he can intervene in the adoption of his now 2-year-old son.
The adoption occurred without his knowledge or consent, despite his repeated representations to the birth mother of his intentions to co-parent the child, said attorney Wes Hutchins.
On Wednesday, the Utah Legislature's Health and Human Services Committee, saw photographs of the man and an obviously pregnant woman who was carrying the man's child, Hutchins said.
The woman is depicted in photographs touring Temple Square with the biological father and his family on Dec. 29, 2009. The following day, the baby was born, unbeknownst to the biological father, Jake Strickland. Just over 24 hours later, the birth mother signed documents relinquishing her parental rights.
Strickland had been told by the birth mother that the baby would be delivered by C-section on Jan. 12, 2010, Hutchins said.
On Jan. 5, 2010, however, the woman told Strickland in a cell phone conversation that she had placed the baby with an adoptive couple, he said.
Strickland initiated a paternity claim the following day. He had not, however, registered with Utah's putative father registry during the pregnancy.
Strickland later learned that the woman was not legally divorced from her husband, according to press reports. Under the state Judicial Code, a married woman's husband is presumed to be the father of her child.
Strickland and his family have been engaged in a legal fight over the adoption for more than two years. Second District Court Judge David Hamilton could rule on the case as early as Thursday, said Strickland's mother, Jenny Graham.
Hutchins, a family law attorney now representing Strickland, told the legislative committee that many pregnant young women from other states come to Utah to place their babies for adoption because Utah law has weak protections for biological fathers.
Hutchins told lawmakers that some agencies even "coach" birth mothers what to tell biological fathers who inquire about the child's birth or their rights.
Among western states, few have as many paternal rights cases that go up to appellate courts, which suggest problems with Utah's laws, he said.
Rep. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, who is also an attorney, said it could also be construed that Utah's higher courts are more amenable to hearing such cases.
To that end, Rep. Christine Watkins, D-Price, has developed a legislative proposal to further regulate the activities of adoption agencies.
A draft discussed by state lawmakers Wednesday contemplates sanctions for adoption agencies or employees of such agencies who make fraudulent representations in connection with adoptions.
Agency licenses could be suspended, even revoked, according to the proposal. The proposal also includes a provision in which a party that challenges a fraudulent representation in connection with an adoption and prevails, can be awarded attorney fees and costs.
Under the proposed legislation, notice of an adoption must be provided to an unmarried biological father of a child six months old or younger.
McCay said that portion of the draft legislation raised concerns because adoptive parents need to know that an adoption, when finalized, is final.
"I think there is some value to the finality and getting the kid out of the middle of a fight," McCay said.
Hutchins, who told lawmakers that he has worked in family law for two decades, agreed that parents need that assurance.
He said he believes the attorney fees provision of the draft legislation would persuade any party against making false representations that could disrupt a placement.
Watkins asked the committee to take time to study the proposal and allow her to make further refinements before the interim committee takes any action.

Rescheduled Once Again...

Court has been rescheduled once again. Judge Hamilton realized the extent of our case and has requested longer than 30 minutes for our case to be heard. Court will now be on

Monday August 6th at 2:00 PM

at the Layton Courthouse.

The address is 435 North Wasatch Drive
Layton, UT 84041.

 Sorry again for the change it date, but this really gives us hope

that this Judge will see through the all the lies, fraud and corruption.

Thinking about you

Jackson:

Our family can not stop thinking about you. We wonder about you every day and hope and pray you are being well taken care of. Every where we go there is something that reminds us of you. There are street signs with Jackson, trucks with the name Jackson on it, new little babies named Jack, little boys that are within 4 months like you and Boston everywhere. Everywhere we turn we think of you.

Jackson, you will know one day how much we love you and think about you. Jack, we wonder every day what you look like. Do you have baby blues like your daddy,? Are you a little Blondie or do you have dark brown hair? Are you a shy little boy or outgoing like your cousin? Do you like to play cars and trucks, and play outside? Hopefully, one day soon we will get answers to our questions.

August 1st is right around the corner and we can not be happier to finally be back in front of a judge to share with him OUR side of the story, and not be voiceless.

Jackson, there is so much positive change that has been happening with birth father rights everywhere. We can only hope this can help with bringing you home.

We love you Jack! See you soon.

XoXo,

Your family

Rift in Utah Adoption Council leads president to resign

---

Rift in Utah Adoption Council leads president to resign

Adoption • Other members found fault with president’s tactics.

By brooke adams

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: May 9, 2012 05:37PM
Updated: May 9, 2012 07:58PM

The president of the Utah Adoption Council resigned his post Tuesday — and launched his own competing organization — amid claims the group ignores unethical practices of some adoption agencies and has failed to treat birth fathers fairly.

Salt Lake attorney Wes Hutchins, whose one-year term was set to end in July, said he could no longer support what he described as a “systematically dysfunctional organization.”

“Too many members, but admittedly not all, do not wish to truly comply with UAC’s professed mission [of promoting] ‘a positive adoption experience for all involved, through education related to quality adoption,’ ” Hutchins said in his resignation letter.

“Whether you like it or not, birth fathers are part of that equation,” he said in his letter. “Whether you admit it or not, many agencies continue to engage in unethical and unlawful practices including post-placement cash bonuses paid directly to birth moms, and coaching birth moms to lie and even defraud birth fathers regarding the birth mother’s true intentions.”

Kevin Broderick, president-elect, will step in early to replace Hutchins, said attorney David Hardy, past president of the organization. The council was founded in 1981 and its 50 or so members include adoption agency representatives, attorneys, state officials, birth and adoptive parents, and adoptees.

“Wes has pushed for some things that he hasn’t been able to persuade others to go along with and gotten frustrated,” Hardy said.

Hardy said some members were upset about surreptitious recordings Hutchins made of adoption agency workers, as well as the public stance he took during the last legislative session on a bill — opposed by the council — that would have required that birth fathers receive notice of pending adoptions.

“Wes was out on an island on that one,” Hardy said.

While the council is concerned about any allegations of baby selling, “his methods got in the way of the message he would like to share,” Hardy said.

Hardy acknowledged one UAC member has proposed an amendment to the group’s bylaws, that was in “some ways” directed at Hutchins, that would allow it to terminate a member for “failure to act in a civil fashion” at its meetings and public criticism of UAC, among other things.

“UAC is designed to be an adoption education and advocacy group and there was some feeling we could not function if we had to spend all our time dealing with infighting,” Hardy said.

Hutchins said what the group failed to do, however, was apply best practices and ethical standards to its members.

“Agencies should be 100 percent truthful and ethical all the time, and it should not matter if it is a ‘secret shopper’ calling or a birth mother,” he said. “The secret shopper is a well-known standard among business industries to check on customer service practices and whether employees are following procedures.”

Last summer, Hutchins had his wife pose as the sister of an expectant woman who was considering placing her baby for adoption. She taped interviews with several Utah adoption agencies that revealed some workers were coaching birth moms on how to keep birth fathers out of the process, discussing post-placement cash payment, and how laws favored them in Utah.

Hutchins repeated the exercise this spring, in some cases using actual expectant mothers, and said he found little had changed, with workers at some agencies promising cash and urging birth mothers to “tell the birth father anything after you give birth ... it might be easier to tell birth father that you were in an accident, and the baby died.”

Hardy said UAC has had some discussion on the allegations brought forth by Hutchins, but said “most of what he came forward with initially” involved entry-level personnel and their responses to hypothetical situations versus “anything actually going on.”

But in at least one case, a birth father received some types of misinformation Hutchins claims to have recorded recently.

Christopher Carlton’s girlfriend was expecting their child when the couple broke up at the end of 2009. According to court documents and interviews, he continued to support her and her two children despite the collapse of their relationship, expecting to be involved with the baby due in June 2010. But the woman disappeared when she was seven months pregnant, and despite his best efforts, Carlton, a Pennsylvania resident, was unable to locate her.

In late June 2010, Carlton, an Iraq war veteran, learned from a mutual friend that his girlfriend had given birth. He was told the baby was a boy. Carlton frantically tried to reach the mother on her cell phone and finally heard from her a day later. She said the baby had respiratory problems. When he asked where she was, the woman said she was “too far away” and hung up. He then received three photos of the baby in text messages sent to his telephone.

Three days later, the woman showed up at Carlton’s door, raging that he’d killed her baby. According to court documents, when he asked where the baby was, the woman said the infant had died — though it is unknown whether she was coached to do so. Carlton, who was devastated by the news, continued to press for information about the baby and where it had been buried, which led his former girlfriend to file a protective order against him.

But in court, a judge sided with Carlton and told the woman he had a right to know what had happened to his child and where it was buried. To avoid being questioned about the infant, the woman dropped her allegations against Carlton. And four months later, she asked him to meet her at a grief counselor’s office.

There, she dropped an even bigger bombshell. The baby wasn’t dead. The woman had placed the infant, still identified as a boy, for adoption. It took another court hearing and a judge’s directive before the woman let Carlton know the baby had been placed through the Adoption Center of Utah. At that point, just before being deployed to Iraq, Carlton hired Hutchins. And there was another revelation months later: the baby wasn’t a boy, it was girl.

Carlton has waged a so-far unsuccessful fight in Utah to get his child back.

“I want my child more than anything,” he said. “I’ve walked places in this world where angels fear to tread, seen things no human should have to see. Who are they to take my freedoms away?”

brooke@sltrib.com

—

New advocacy group forms

Salt Lake attorney Wes Hutchins, himself an adoptive father, argues the Utah Adoption Council has tilted too far against birth fathers and their rights and has allowed unethical practices to go unchecked.

With that in mind, he has launched a new organization — the Utah Council for Ethical Adoption Practices — to promote higher standards and better practices in Utah’s adoption industry. The group now has its own Facebook page and is working on a website.

---

© 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune

Rift in Utah Adoption Council leads president to resign

By brooke adams

The Salt Lake Tribune