Showing posts with label Jackson Michael Strickland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jackson Michael Strickland. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Dad files $130M lawsuit after son in Utah is given up for adoption - NBC News

By Erik Ortiz, Staff Writer, NBC News

December 31, 2013, 2:06 pm

Jake Strickland prepared for the birth of his son in December 2010, 
showing off a stroller that was bought for the boy.




The adoption of Jake Strickland’s son just after he was born Dec. 29, 2010, was illegal and done “through gross misdirection and … clandestine conduct,” claims the suit filed Friday in the U.S. District Court of Utah.

Strickland alleges the mother, Whitney Pettersson,conspired with the adoptive parents, the adoption agency and attorneys to give up the boy — named “Baby Jack” in the suit — without allowing him to seek custody.


The complaint also strikes at Utah's parenting laws, accusing them of being “pro-adoption and anti-birth father.”


Attorney Wes Hutchins, speaking on behalf of Strickland, said his client just missed his son’s third birthday on Sunday — and is devastated that he can’t share important milestones in the boy’s life.


“It’s pulling him apart,” Hutchins told NBC News on Tuesday.


On his son's birthday, Strickland and his family gathered around a candle to sing “Happy Birthday” to his absent son, Hutchins said.


“They still think about him even though they don't have contact,” he added.


Strickland and Pettersson first met in 2009 as co-workers at a restaurant, according to court documents.

Strickland said Pettersson was having problems with her marriage, and she later told him she got
divorced. They began dating, and three months later, she texted him that she was pregnant.
Strickland left Utah for a temp job in Texas, but said he assured Pettersson that he wanted to be present in their child’s life, according to the lawsuit. He started a fund for the baby boy. The couple came up with a name: Jack. But Strickland didn’t register.

According to Hutchins, Pettersson warned him that if he did, she “would view it as an act of distrust” and keep his child from him.

“I don’t know if it was done as an act of vindictiveness,” Hutchins said.
Pettersson couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday, and attorneys involved in the adoption weren’t
immediately available. The adoption agency, LDS Family Services, operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also didn’t respond to a request for comment.



 A nursery that was set up in 2010 for Jake
Strickland's baby, whom he named Jack.
According to the lawsuit, Strickland continued to financially support Pettersson, who also had a child from another relationship, until her alleged lies about their son began to unravel.

The most devastating discovery, Strickland said in the lawsuit, was that Pettersson had already given up their child for adoption.


She even got her then-husband to agree to the adoption by telling him that he would be the one saddled with child support payments if she kept the boy, according to Hutchins.


Strickland, who now lives in Arizona, mounted a paternity claim. But his fight was complicated because he had never registered with the state for his paternal rights.


Despite contesting the adoption, Strickland learned in November 2011 that it was completed.


After a 2nd U.S. District judge shot down Strickland’s bid to gain custody, he filed an appeal to the state. His case is still under review.

Concurrently, Strickland’s federal lawsuit is seeking $30 million for the loss of the parent-child relationship caused by the adoption and $100 million as a deterrent to ensure another dad doesn't suffer his fate.

Hutchins said Utah’s laws are onerous on biological fathers who try to gain custody, noting that they must file a paternity petition, get a sworn affidavit, create a detailed child care plan and prove they were financially invested in the pregnancy, among other requirements.

Strickland’s custody case, meanwhile, isn’t the only one gaining attention in Utah. In another high-profile petition, Colorado dad Robert Manzanares is fighting for sole custody of his daughter, whom he claims was unfairly given up by her birth mother when the woman fled to Utah.

Utah State Sen. Todd Weiler told NBC affiliate KSL-TV that despite the increased interest in the issue, he’s not persuaded that Utah laws need to be dramatically overhauled.


“What we’re looking at in this lawsuit and a few other high-profile lawsuits are one or two bad examples out of 10,000,” Weiler said. “I don’t think it’s good policy for the state to look at one or two exceptions and say, ‘Let’s change the laws for everyone.’”


Read Full Article

Still fighting...

Many comments in the recent articles in the Salt Lake Tribune, KSL and Desert News have stated that Jake just wants money and why did he wait 3 years to file this lawsuit? For those that are uneducated about this case, Jake has been fighting for Jackson since he found out on January 5th, 2011, that he had been placed for adoption. He is currently STILL fighting and his case will be heard hopefully in the Utah Supreme Court in early Spring. The fraud lawsuit is a separate matter. There is a 3 year statute of limitations on filing a civil fraud lawsuit against the parties and this time frame was closing in on January 5th, 2014. This is why the fraud suit was filed when it was.

Ultimately Jake wants his son back. He wants nothing more to be in his life and be able to raise him as he should rightfully so. This is not about money. This is about deception, fraud, manipulation, conspiracy, and about the unethical laws and practices that are occurring in Utah. This is for every father out there that has suffered from Utah Laws or from having their children taken from them unrightfully. This is for the pain and suffering that our family has dealt with for 3 long years. This is not a publicity stunt and Jake would take his son over money any day.

Here is the verified complaint filed for court of appeals...
 

Monday, December 30, 2013

Unwed father alleges racketeering in adoption lawsuit



Unwed father alleges racketeering in adoption lawsuit
SALT LAKE CITY — A West Jordan attorney and his Arizona-based client are suing for $130 million over an adoption that they say was unlawful, citing a federal act typically used to prosecute gang members and others involved in organized crime.
In the complaint filed Friday, attorney Wesley Hutchins and his client, Jake Strickland, accuse a Utah woman who had Strickland's child, LDS Family Services, an LDS Family Services employee, the child's adoptive parents and attorneys from the law firm Kirton McKonkie, who aided in the adoption, of "racketeering" and "kidnapping." They also allege that the parties are guilty of wire fraud, human trafficking and selling a child.
Hutchins admits the allegations are attention-grabbing and the suit is intended, in part, to bring attention to the rights of birth fathers. But a lawmaker familiar with the case says the lawsuit is unnecessary.
The lawsuit hinges on the story of Strickland, who claims the woman with whom he fathered a child lied to him about her plans for the child until the day before the boy was born. But Hutchins said he pointed to other cases of alleged fraud in the lawsuit as well to demonstrate that the birth mother's fraud was part of what he claims is a larger pattern found among adoption agencies and attorneys in the state.
"It's really an issue of accountability," Hutchins said. "With these fraudulent adoption schemes you find that they are fraudulent, there are co-conspirators involved — most notably adoption attorneys, adoption agencies and adoptive mothers that are engaged in an enterprise," he said. "We've cited those other cases as a necessary element to RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) to show a pattern of unlawful conduct."
Strickland fathered a child with a woman who was married but estranged from her husband. The woman said she was considering an adoption, but Strickland stated numerous times that he wanted the child and would care for it by himself if necessary, the lawsuit states.
The baby was born, unknown to Strickland, on Dec. 29, 2010. Just more than 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. But on Jan. 5, 2010, the birth mother told Strickland in a cellphone conversation that she had placed the baby with an adoptive couple, according to the lawsuit.
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.
According to the lawsuit, a social worker pressured the woman's husband to relinquish his parental rights and allow the adoption to proceed. Hutchins said she even threatened the man after he mentioned Strickland, telling him that if he didn't keep quiet he would be stuck with child support payments.
He also alleges that attorneys David Hardy and Larry Jenkins failed to inform the adoption court about a stipulation in a paternity case recognizing Strickland as the biological father and left the man in the dark about proceedings as they "rushed" the adoption. He said he and Strickland are seeking $30 million for what Strickland lost in being able to raise and enjoy his child.
Under the Utah Adoption Act, you can commit fraud, and it is not a basis to overturn an otherwise illegal adoption, you can sue for damages. … So you can't get your child back if there's a fraudulent adoption, but you can get money.
–Wesley Hutchins, attorney
The $100 million is "an amount specifically designed to serve as a deterrent to this kind of conduct," Hutchins said. "Under the Utah Adoption Act, you can commit fraud, and it is not a basis to overturn an otherwise illegal adoption, you can sue for damages. … So you can't get your child back if there's a fraudulent adoption, but you can get money."
The attorneys in the suit with Kirton McKonkie declined to comment, as did LDS Family Services. But Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said Strickland had an attorney who told him to follow Utah law and register as the father.
Weiler said he knows of the Strickland family and is sympathetic. He has heard Strickland's mother testify at the Utah Legislature and has met with her.
"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. "The lawsuit takes a shotgun approach against a lot of good people and a lot of good entities that are doing lot of good. … It appears to me that they're trying to blame everyone except for the responsible party."
He said he is aware of pending lawsuits alleging injustices for unwed fathers in Utah but said they don't justify a serious change in the law. He noted that he is an attorney who has personally handled more than 100 adoptions.
"I'm not convinced that a dramatic change needs to take place, because when we make a change, it affects tens of thousands of adoptions, and what we're looking at in this lawsuit and a few other high-profile lawsuits are one or two bad examples out of 10,000," he said. "I don't think it's good policy for the state to look at one or two exceptions and say, 'Let's change the laws for everyone.'"

Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=28191411#WkoV4udYlfhKFlWu.99

Utah father takes fight for son to federal court




Adoption • Lawsuit alleges conspiracy to defraud, kidnap infant at birth.
image
Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune Jake Strickland of South Jordan is fighting a legal battle to gain custody of his son, born Dec. 29, 2010.
An unmarried Utah father whose son was placed for adoption at birth without his knowledge or consent has filed a $130 million federal lawsuit against the biological mother, adoption agency, adoptive parents and attorneys alleging they conspired in an “illegal deceit-ridden infant adoption” that deprived him of his son.
In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Jake Strickland alleges the defendants acted in a “clandestine” manner and “essentially kidnapped” his son. It alleges the defendants engaged in racketeering, human trafficking and various kinds of fraud as part of a conspiracy to deprive Strickland of his child.
Defendants named in the lawsuit include biological mother Whitney Vivian Pettersson Demke; the adoptive parents (identified only by initials); LDS Family Services; Kirton & McConkie, and attorneys Larry Jenkins and David J. Hardy, both of whom are now associated with Kirton & McConkie. Demke could not be reached for comment.
Hardy declined to comment on the lawsuit on behalf of himself, Jenkins and their law firm. Hardy also declined comment on behalf of LDS Family Services, which handled the adoption and is represented by Kirton & McConkie.
Attorney Wes Hutchins is representing Strickland in the federal lawsuit, as well as an action pending in the Utah Court of Appeals.
The lawsuit, Hutchins said, is “basically an effort to hold everyone accountable for the conspiracy to defraud Jake.”
Strickland and Demke met in 2009 and months later she announced she was pregnant. The baby was due in mid-January 2010.
Their relationship soon turned rocky, though they continued to see each other occasionally. When Strickland told Demke he planned to sign up with Utah’s putative father registry, he says she became furious and threatened to not let him see the baby.
During the course of the pregnancy, Strickland bought groceries and gave cash to cover medical bills and help support Demke and her child from another relationship. He also accompanied her to doctor’s visits and was present when an ultrasound revealed she was carrying a boy.
The two discussed baby names ­— they planned to name their son Jack — shared parenting plans, including Strickland’s desire to raise the boy on his own if necessary. He was eventually led to believe Demke, who had brought up adoption as an option, supported a shared parenting plan.
That winter, the two had a joint baby shower and attended a Christmas party, both hosted by Strickland’s family.
On Dec. 28, 2010, they toured the holiday lights at the LDS Church’s Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City. The next day, Strickland exchanged text messages with Demke, but nothing seemed amiss.
In fact, she gave birth on Dec. 29 and a day later placed the baby for adoption. Strickland did not learn until Jan. 5 that Demke had already given birth and relinquished her rights to the child. There was another surprise, too: It turned out Demke was still legally married to her husband — not divorced, as she had led Strickland to believe — and under Utah law, as the child’s presumed father, he had had to sign off on the adoption despite knowing the infant was not his offspring.
On Jan. 6, Strickland launched a paternity claim and a legal battle that has met with both wins and losses. A 3rd District judge declined to dismiss Strickland’s paternity claim and asked that it be joined with the adoption proceeding underway in Utah’s 2nd District Court.
While the adoptive parents and birth mother later stipulated to Strickland’s paternity, the case was never consolidated with the adoption proceeding. Strickland learned in November 2011 that his son’s adoption had been completed. A 2nd District Judge denied Strickland’s efforts to challenge the adoption, and last January he filed a notice of appeal with the Utah Court of Appeals.
In the lawsuit, Strickland alleges Demke never intended to co-parent “Baby Jack” with him and “intentionally defrauded” him. The other parties, he alleges, assisted her in carrying out that “fraudulent scheme,” including coercing her then-estranged husband to sign a paternity relinquishment.
“Utah’s pro-adoption and anti-birth father laws, facilitated through fraud immunity, have given rise to a greater number of out-of-state birth mothers forum shopping Utah, and through their own efforts, aided by legal counsel, and in some cases by the prospective adoptive parents, they have been able to successfully place their babies for adoption through misrepresentation and fraud — keeping biological fathers in the dark throughout the process,” the complaint says.
Utah’s adoption statute, which provides immunity to birth mothers who engage in fraudulent acts, “has become an ugly sword slicing through father/child relationships … resulting in fathers being lied to, deceived, and defrauded out of their paternity rights, all in an effort to manufacture the perception of a new, and perceived ‘improved’ family relationship,” according to the complaint.
It alleges the two attorneys, agency and adoptive parents facilitated that sort of deception in the Strickland case; the attorneys also engaged in such practices in other cases involving unwed, biological fathers, the complaint alleges.
brooke@sltrib.com
Twitter: @Brooke4Trib




Happy Birthday Jack!

Jack:

3 years have come and gone. Not a day goes by that we don't think of you and your sweet little soul. We ponder everyday wondering what you look like, what hobbies you like, what you are doing developmentally, and cringe at all of the memories we are missing out on with you. We love you to the moon and back and will continue to fight to be reunited! 

Happy 3rd Birthday! 
12.29.10!

We Love You, Jackson Michael Strickland!



Thursday, May 9, 2013

Spring days.



                                                                                                                        May 8, 2013


Dear Jack,

Just thinking about you and wondering how you are doing. I hope you are having a great day.  You are getting so big 2 and ½ wow, time is going by so quickly.  The days are getting warmer and summer is just around the corner, your cousin Boston loves to be outside. I am sure that you do too. 

There are so many great things for you to discover, and I am sure that you are a curious little guy.  Bugs and dirt are endless fun for little boys. Boston can spot and ant from quite a long ways away and loves to play trucks in piles of dirt.  Your daddy and Uncle Josh would practically live outside in the summer, climbing trees, riding bikes and playing with friends. 

Do you like to draw? Do you love music? Do you like dirt bikes and monster trucks like your cousin?  Are you outgoing and funny, or do you have a more mellow personality with a quick but sly since of humor?  Are you talking up a storm, and do you know your colors?  Do you know how much you are loved and missed, because you are so very much?

Jack, we want to know that we are all doing fine though we miss you daily life has continued on.  We have grown and changed because of what has happened over the last 2 ½ years, but it has not all been negative. There has been positive changes as well.  There are new cousins and weddings on the way, there have been fun family gatherings and vacations that are being planned.  Don’t worry about us, we won’t ever give up, but we will also continue to live life to the fullest as we wait for your return. 

Your daddy is doing well. He has big plans and his life is changing fast.  I know that you will be as proud of him as we all are. He is such a fun and loving man. We are so grateful to have him in our family.  He thinks of you and misses you all the time and only wants the best for you. Please always remember that.

If I could say anything to your adoptive parents it would be, we love you and only want the very best for you.  We are grateful to know where you are and that you are being loved and well cared. There is true comfort for your daddy and family in knowing those small yet very important things. So many fathers and families don't have that knowledge.   I understand it is difficult for them to put themselves in your daddy or our shoes; we have tried over and over to put ourselves in theirs.  Over time perhaps they will come to understand why we could never or will never give up on you.  Perhaps they are only listening to their attorney at this time and that is why they have not responded to our multiple requests to share information with them, including but not limited to all medical information.  We truly hope that one day soon they will open their hearts to the fact that you have a daddy and family that loves you and miss you so much. 

Remember Jack as you are reading this one day, this blog was our only way to reach out at the time to you.  It is where we could express our feelings, upcoming events, notices of court actions, as well as show support for others who have experienced the same loss.  This blog was never to cause pain, but instead a way to deal with ours as we wait for you to come home.  We do hope and pray that your adoptive parents will read this and understand that.  We will continue to pray for you and them daily, we truly only want the best for you.


Love

Grandma Jenny

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Jackson's 2nd Birthday




Jackson, we want to wish you a happy birthday. We wish we could be with you on your special day! We yearn for the moment we get to be with you and get to have you in our lives. We hope that this next year is filled with special milestones and moments and we hope we get to be apart of them.

Happy Birthday Jackson Michael Strickland! We Love You!

Love,

Your Family!

Monday, December 24, 2012

Under Advisement.

Court went well on Wednesday, the 19th. We weren't quite sure what to expect of the hearing since it was an uncommon procedure our attorney felt for judge to call a hearing on a discrepancy on an order. The judge allowed our attorney Wes Hutchins to argue for over an hour on the Unconstitutionality of the Adoption Act, which blatantly cut Jake of his rights to parent Jackson, due to the fraud and misguided direction of Whitney Pettersson Demke. The Judge told us he would be making a ruling that day because he did not want us to have to wait over the holidays. After he went to his chamber to collect his thoughts, he came out and felt like he was still uncertain about a few things and would taking it under advisement. Judge Hamilton did not give us a timeline of when he would have a ruling, but it is our feeling it will be in the next 20-30 days. 

This gives us hope that the Judge is seriously pondering and questioning about the constitutionally. We feel like since he did not make a ruling that day, he is trying to figure out how he can rule in our favor. Judge Hamilton knows that either way this goes both parties are likely going to appeal his decision and really needs to make sure he gets things right so the Utah Supreme Court doesn't over turn his ruling. Jake is fortunate enough that Wes thought about bringing up his constitutional rights were violated, because many of the other fathers out there didn't bring that up at the district level and so it wasn't an argument that was able to be heard in the Utah Supreme Court.

We have strong hope and faith that Jack will be in our lives very shortly. 

In the meantime,  Jack we wish so badly we could have you with us right now during Christmas. We think about you all day long, and would give anything to see you, and know what your personality is like, if you are healthy. Jack more than anything we wish your adoptive parents would allow Jake in your life now rather than when you are 18. 

Merry Christmas Jackson Strickland! We Love YOU to the moon and back! 

Monday, September 3, 2012

Not a coincidence.

Jackson:
 
We took family photos on Saturday and of course we missed you deeply. It's PAINFUL when people ask how many kids will be there. We have to say one, but we want to shout "Well, there should be two!." It's so disheartening you are not with us. We were at an amazing studio called Camera Shy and on one of their amazing walls that had chalkboard paint had Jack already wrote on the wall. It was meant to be there we know it. It was a great reminder of you. You were with us there in spirit.
 
Jackson, everywhere we go we are reminded of you. We will never forget you. We hope this a good indicator we can be reunited soon. Your daddy is missing you.  Your cousin Boston is getting so big, so we can only imagine that you are growing like a weed as well. Eat lots of food so you can grow and be a strong boy.  
 

:::Your Family:::
 
We LOVE you so so much.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

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!!!

Friday, August 17, 2012

Proposed bill would penalize adoption agencies for fraudulent representations

Proposed bill would penalize adoption agencies for fraudulent representations

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.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

10 days or less...

**Update**
Thank you so much for the many thoughts, prayers, comments and concerns. Court went very well. Judge Hamilton really let Wes our attorney share our side of the story and explain how so many things were not dealt with properly. He brought up that Jake's constitutional rights were violated, he touched on the enormous amount of fraud by Whitney, LDS Family Services, and opposing counsel David Hardy and Larry Jenkins, as well as Jake's due process to rightfully be heard was not given. Court lasted 3 hours and we thought the Judge would be ruling on allowing us to intervene that day, but after hearing argument, he said he was in a conundrum and need to take it under advisement. The Judge said he would have a ruling within 10 days of his decision.
He will be ruling on 3 things: 1. Motion to Intervene in the Adoption 2. Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel, due to them being a witness to the finalization of the adoption 3. Motion for limited discovery.

Obviously, we need to intervene for this to be a victory for Jake and Jackson. After that is determined, we have filed a motion for the adoption decree to be set aside, so we can move to an evidentiary hearing to present our case.

We had so much family support there it was wonderful. Thank you again to all of our blog followers, Facebook fans, and all of you who have shown interest in our case. This will be HUGE if we can win in the district court and not have to be the ones appealing to the Supreme Court.


**A big shout out to Wes Hutchins. What a wonderful attorney. He knew every detail inside and out to our case, and was there with a color coded timeline as well as 8 20 x 30 blown up pictures. It was FANTASTIC!

Friday, August 3, 2012

Monday, July 30, 2012

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.

Friday, April 20, 2012

The wheels are turning...

Congratulations to John Wyatt, in his Virgina Supreme Court ruling, to pursue damages against A Act of Love, Larry Jenkins, Laraine Moon, and the adoptive (stolen) parents of Baby Emma.

Every father fighting and winning is just one step forward for Baby Jack. This is great news and we can't wait to hear what happens with Robert Manzanares this upcoming week in his custody battle.

Things keep happening for the good, and they won't stop until justice is served for all father's out there. This wouldn't be possible without all of the media attention, social media, and the viewers and readers like you that keep spreading the word about the atrocity that is occuring in Utah with adoption.

Keep spreading the word about Baby Jack and all the other birthfathers and together we can make a difference.

We are still waiting for a court date. We have submitted a few new motions that need to have a response in the next week, which will probably be followed by an extension, but it's a GREAT step in our case. We can't wait to share.

Virgina father gets green light to seek damages in Utah Adoption




Virginia father gets green light to seek damages in Utah adoption

Virginia • High court says he was misled about Baby Emma’s adoption in Utah.


image
John Wyatt of Dumfries, VA, is trying to get custody of his daughter, Emma, who was given up for adoption to a Utah couple by the girl's mother without his consent. (Photo by Dayna Smith)

The Supreme Court of Virginia on Friday gave new life to the legal battle over a child known as Baby Emma by ruling her father was “purposefully kept in the dark” about her Utah adoption and could argue in federal court that the proceedings interfered with his parental rights.

In a split decision, the justices said John Wyatt could pursue monetary damages in federal court for loss of companionship, mental anguish, loss of services and expenses incurred in his fight to recover his now 3-year-old daughter. Wyatt has a lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Mark McDermott, a Virginia attorney; A Act of Love, a Utah adoption agency; Lorraine Moon, the agency employee who facilitated the adoption; Larry Jenkins, a Utah attorney; and the adoptive parents.

The federal court had asked the Virginia Supreme Court to settle two questions: whether the commonwealth recognized the right to pursue a tort action for interference with paternal rights and, if so, what burden of proof must be met and what elements constitute a cause of action.

The decision is the first to address such questions in Virginia, the high court noted.

The majority found that while Virginia statutes do not specifically recognize “tortious interference with parental rights,” such a cause of action has existed in common law since 1607 and “continues to exist today.”

Failure to recognize that claim would “leave a substantial gap in the legal protection afforded to the parent-child relationship,” the majority wrote. It said an “overwhelming majority” of courts in “sister states” have reached similar conclusions.

“It is both astonishing and profoundly disturbing that in this case, a biological mother and her parents, with the aid of two licensed attorneys and an adoption agency, could intentionally act to prevent a biological father — who is in no way alleged to be an unfit parent — from legally establishing his parental rights and gaining custody of a child whom the mother did not want to keep, and that this father would have no recourse in the law,” the majority said.

It said the facts of the case showed that the defendants went to “great lengths to disguise their agenda from the biological father, including preventing notice of his daughter’s birth and hiding their intent to have an immediate out-of-state adoption, in order to prevent the legal establishment of his own parental rights.”

The court also found that Wyatt must meet a preponderance of the evidence standard, a less rigorous standard, in proving “tangible and intangible damages” caused by the “unauthorized” adoption. However, under a tort action, Wyatt is not entitled to seek an injunction or new custody orders involving his child.

There were two dissenting opinions in the 4-3 decision. In one dissent, a justice said that while “the facts as pled by Wyatt are unquestionably disturbing,” there was no cause of action under Virginia law and the majority was engaging in “legislating public policy in Virginia through judicial pronouncement.”

The majority, however, said it hoped that threat of civil action would help “deter third parties such as attorneys and adoption agencies from engaging in the sort of actions alleged to have taken place.”

“It means that if third parties interfere with a person’s normal parental rights, you can sue and hold them liable,” said Philip Hirschkop, Wyatt’s attorney. He said the federal case is set for trial in mid-July.

Wyatt and his then-girlfriend Emily Colleen Fahland were dating when she became pregnant. He accompanied Fahland to doctor appointments, and she repeatedly assured him they would raise the child together.

However, at the behest of her parents, Fahland also met with McDermott, an adoption attorney. He instructed Fahland to falsely indicate on adoption paperwork that she did not know Wyatt’s address, according to the court opinion. At McDermott’s urging, she also made other false statements to Wyatt so that he “would not take steps to secure his parental rights and prevent the adoption.”

Fahland gave birth in Virginia on Feb. 10, 2009, and two days later relinquished her rights and custody of the baby to the adoptive couple, who traveled to Virginia to pick up the infant. On Feb. 18, Wyatt initiated a paternity action in Virginia and was ultimately awarded custody of his daughter. However, a Utah court subsequently found he had no standing to intervene and approved the adoption.

The Utah Supreme Court upheld that finding in July 2011, holding that Wyatt did not meet required deadlines for asserting his parental rights under Utah law. Also, the court found that he was barred from arguing that the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act required Utah to follow a Virginia judge’s order granting him custody because he failed to raise that argument in the lower court.

brooke@sltrib.com


© 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune
Full Story

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Missing you...

Jack:

My sweet boy, I have been thinking a lot about you lately. I have definitely not forgotten about you. Easter was on Sunday and as with every holiday my heart ached as I long for you. A huge chunk of my heart is missing and it's waiting for you to fill that void. Jack, I think about you all day everyday and just hope you are well taken care of. I have asked to see you from a far, a picture, a health update anything to settle my heavy heart, and my request was denied. Jack, I know one day I will get to share my love with you. As time goes on, my love only gets stronger for you, not weaker. I hope we get a court date within the next week to intervene in the adoption. I hope that this will all come to an end real soon. I just want you here in my arms, where you are suppose to be.

Jackson, I love you with all my heart. I will never stop fighting.

XoXo,

Daddy Jake

Monday, April 2, 2012

Powerful!

"If you shut up truth and bury it underground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way."
Emile Zola
French Novelist, Critic, Activist
1840-1902

Sunday, April 1, 2012

A contested adoption can take years to resolve





Families • Lengthy process psychologically hard for all — especially a child


image
Rob Manzanares, shown here with his son, is still entangled in a custody fight for a daughter born to a former girlfriend and placed for adoption in Utah. Courtesy of Robert Manzanares

Four years ago, as it returned a young boy to his biological father, the Utah Supreme Court expressed alarm that contested adoptions were taking so long to resolve and urged that such cases be put on a fast track.

In that particular case, the child was 18 months old when his mother placed him for adoption and the father sought to intervene, a legal battle that ended in the dad’s favor nearly three years later.

“We anticipate that, in the future, every effort will be made to avoid delay in cases like this,” the court said, asking that the boy be reunited with his father with “all due haste” while paying “special attention” to the child’s needs.

“This transition may be hardest for him, and his needs must come first,” the justices said in the 2007 decision.

But there is no indication that the time it takes for contested adoptions to work through Utah’s court system has improved, leaving some observers to repeat calls for an expedited process like that used in child welfare cases to reach quicker final decisions and lessen psychological trauma when a placement is disrupted.

Robert Manzanares, for example, began a custody bid for his daughter more than a month before her birth in 2008, filing first in Colorado and then here in Utah. The case wound its way from a lower court to the Utah Supreme Court over 2½ years. Utah’s high court then took 15 months to issue a decision — in Manzanares’ favor — sending the case back to trial court for more debate over who has the right to raise the child. Last week, a Utah judge agreed to dismiss the case so the girl’s custody can be decided in Colorado; those proceedings will likely continue for at least several more months.

Manzanares’ daughter is now 4 years old.

“These kids are growing up fast,” said Joshua Peterman, a Salt Lake City attorney who has represented several unwed biological fathers in bids to stop or reverse adoptions. “There is a big difference between removing a child who is less than a year old from her home and taking a 4-year-old out of a home. It’s essentially a failure of the system to protect them. They should be moving a lot quicker.”

Protracted adoption cases don’t just involve unwed biological fathers.

A biological mother who placed her baby for adoption at birth sought to reverse the decision months later after alleging she’d been misled about the adoptive parents’ capabilities. The boy was nearly 6 by the time the Utah Supreme Court issued an opinion that returned the case to the appeals court so the mother could argue for custody.

In the majority opinion, issued in 2006, Justice Ronald E. Nehring lamented the “very human saga that has played out on the stage of our courts.”

“We hold fast to the hope that in the near future E.H. will know who his parents will be and where he will call home,” Nehring wrote, adding that the word “unfortunate” greatly “understates our concern for the harmful effects that years of litigation have visited on this young man.”

In that case, the mother ultimately lost her fight.

David Hardy, a Salt Lake City attorney who represents the birth mother in the Manzanares case, said members of the Utah Adoption Council have discussed the need for an expedited track for contested adoptions but so far nothing has happened.

A 2010 article in the Journal of Law & Family Studies made the case for a “speedy court process” like that used for juvenile court shelter hearings and appeals in child welfare cases, noting that the “lack of a specific rule for expediting contested adoption cases means that appeals take years.” According to the article, 90 percent of termination of parental rights and voluntary relinquishment cases between Oct. 1, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2009, were completed within a year.

“A similar expedited timeframe for contested adoption cases would better serve the best interests of the child, the father and the adoptive parents,” the article states.

But despite “some discussion” there has so far been “no real action,” Hardy said. And so the lengthy legal battles continue.

Another example: Floridian Ramsey Shaud, one of Peterman’s clients, filed a paternity action in Utah three days before his daughter’s birth on Jan. 15, 2010. Four months later a lower court judge ruled he had not strictly complied with Utah’s strict adoption law, which requires notice of a paternity action to be filed within a day of birth. Although Shaud filed his paperwork on time, it wasn’t recorded by the state’s Office of Vital Records and Statistics until Jan. 20, 2010, because of a holiday and the state’s then four-day work week.

Shaud appealed and the Utah Supreme Court heard arguments in Shaud’s case on September 2011. If the past is a guide, Shaud’s daughter will be nearly 3 before the court issues its decision in the case.

“The appellate process is a slow process … no matter what kind of case,” said Linda Smith, a professor at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah and the attorney who represented the birth mom in the 2006 case. “From the time the trial concludes until you get a decision from the Utah Supreme Court, it’s a year and if you go through the appeals court, it is two years.”

But, “in issues of custody, especially when a child might change families, it is wrong to take this long,” she said.

The prospect that a judge’s own heart strings may be pulled is a liability of protracted cases, one that may lead to “ends-mean thinking” where emotions influence decisions, Smith said. The Utah Supreme Court distanced itself from emotional decision making in its 2007 decision, noting in its opinion that: “Once an unmarried biological father has established standing to contest, and does in fact contest, an adoption, the level of bonding between child and anyone other than the biological parents becomes legally irrelevant.”

But the best way for courts to ensure fair and rational decisions is to deal with a case early enough that “heartstrings aren’t tugged,” Smith said. “They should institute a rule where they would fast track these cases, not allow any extensions and the timeframe might be truncated.”

David McConkie, an adoption attorney who now works for LDS Church Family Services, has handled cases where children were removed from adoptive families.

“The hardest cases the courts ever deal with are cases when they’ve got a baby being raised in a home and they’ve got to remove that child from a home,” he said. “But judges will follow the law, and they will apply the law and say if the father’s rights were violated under the statutes of whatever state you’re in, they’ll remove those children from that home. It happens more than you think.”

But there is no question that the more time that passes, the more uncomfortable the prospect of disrupting a placement becomes for nearly all those involved — a situation that would seem to benefit prospective adoptive parents.

“My experience generally is that adoptive couples want resolution and don’t generally seek to specifically drag things out,” Hardy said. “They may recognized that is to their advantage, but they won’t take steps to specifically drag things out. In my experience, it is generally the system that drags it out, not one party or another that does so.”

Hardy said he has had several cases, most outside of Utah, in which a judge was “very reluctant” to disrupt custody because a child had been with adoptive parents for a lengthy period. Instead, the judge urged the parties to come up with an alternative, such as shared custody or visitation.

That’s happened in a few Utah cases, too, after Utah Supreme Court decisions issued opinions favoring an unwed father’s right to intervene in an adoption proceeding.

The months and years of uncertainty are stressful for all the adults, no doubt, but the greatest concern is for the well-being of the child at the center of these adoption disputes.

Doug Goldsmith, executive director of The Children’s Center in Salt Lake City, said at the point a trial judge makes a finding, a child is typically no older than a year or so.

“The months that subsequently pass, especially when the father has not had any contact, are critical to the child’s psychological health,” he said, adding that fathers face a “significant complication” in that toddlers and preschool-age children are too young to grasp what a “dad” is.

“One of the things we know with attachment research is that after the age of 2 it gets more difficult to move children successfully,” Goldsmith said. “And moving a 4-year-old who says, ‘This is mommy and daddy’ is a very different story than moving a child who is not quite that developed yet.”

And, he points out, a child isn’t just being removed from the adoptive parents. There is a whole community — siblings, extended relatives, people the child may know at church or school, even the family pets — who are left behind.

“It’s really, really complicated but we don’t have great answers for it yet,” he said. Ideally, it would be sorted out before birth, or at least by the time an infant is 6 months old, he added.

That’s one of the objectives of the voluntary pre-birth notice provision just approved by the Utah Legislature, Hardy said. The provision allows a birth mother, adoption agency or their attorneys to send an unwed father a notice that the mother is considering an adoption proceeding in Utah and giving him 30 days to fully assert his rights under the state’s statute.

Ideally, an unwed father shouldn’t have to intervene, which would greatly shorten the process, said Erik Smith, an Ohio attorney who years ago engaged in his own custody battle. “You want to have timely registration and then get notice and a hearing right away,” he said. “If you have to intervene, you’re too late already.”

“It’s a bummer for everybody, in my opinion, mostly for the child and the contesting parent,” he said. “Regardless of whether he or she, usually he, wins or loses, it’s a very stressful time and your anxiety is high. You know your child is getting older every day that goes by and you’re losing that experience. You miss that part of life. And if a child is taken out of a home at a later age … that’s hard on the child and the adoptive parents.”

brooke@sltrib.com


Contested adoptions

According to court data, there have been just 16 contested adoption cases in 3rd District Court, the state’s largest, since 2005. That count may not include paternity actions filed by unwed biological fathers.

On average it took judges in the 3rd District court 535 days to resolve the contested adoption cases heard between 2005 and 2011. The average number of days cases were pending last year: 777.

Go to sltrib.com to see a timeline of one contested adoption case.


© 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Come show your support

Tomorrow at 9 AM, please find yourself at the Matheson Courthouse Rm N42 in Salt Lake, Utah, in support of Robert Manzanares. He has a court hearing to dismiss his case in Utah and allow it to move to the Colorado court system, where he has properly been fighting for his rights to parent his biological daughter. Rob's case has seen a first in the Utah Supreme Court where they have ruled against a lower Utah district court ruling and ruled in favor of the father. His case is HUGE for Baby Jack. There is a very, very great chance he will be getting custody of his precious daughter that he never wanted to be placed for adoption.

If you have a free moment, we would love the support.

Thank you!