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.
Showing posts with label John Wyatt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Wyatt. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2012
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.
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
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Baby Emma Wyatt appeals to U.S. Supreme Court
John Wyatt, we truly hope the U.S. Supreme Court hears your case, and overturns the wrongful decisions made by the Utah Court System. God Bless!
Steve Griffin | Tribune file photo John Wyatt listens as the Utah Supreme Court hears arguments in the Baby Emma case in September 2010. 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.
© 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune
Virginia man asks U.S. high court to hear adoption case
Laws • Utah judge ruled the father acted too late to protect his rights.
Steve Griffin | Tribune file photo John Wyatt listens as the Utah Supreme Court hears arguments in the Baby Emma case in September 2010. 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.
A Virginia father has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his battle for custody of his daughter, arguing his case presents a “head-on collision” caused by conflicting rulings in different states and showcases how Utah’s adoption law is “effectively projecting its authority well beyond its borders.”
The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), a federal law that sets a “first in time” rule for interstate custody disputes, is designed to prevent both problems but was “undermined” by the Utah Supreme Court’s July 2011 ruling against John Wyatt, he argues in a petition to the justices.
When an unmarried father such as Wyatt is in one state and prospective adoptive parents in another, there is great potential for “jurisdictional friction” if more than one state is allowed to address custody issues, the petition states. The petition asks the court to review whether the PKPA applied to the adoption case since Wyatt had filed a timely custody action under Virginia law and whether Utah violated Wyatt’s rights by shutting him out of the adoption proceeding involving his daughter.
“Given the overriding importance of the interests at stake, it is especially important that the ground rules for multi-jurisdictional adoption disputes be as clear, fair and consistent as the courts — including this court — can make them,” the petition states.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a handful of decisions regarding unmarried fathers’ rights in adoption proceedings, but none of those rulings involved newborn infants. It will likely be six months or so before the court decides whether to grant a review.
Since 2008, higher courts in Utah have reviewed seven cases involving unwed fathers who lost custody fights despite filing timely paternity actions in their home states to protect their rights. The Utah Supreme Court is weighing a decision in a case involving a Colorado father that involves questions about the PKPA.
“Obviously, it is an important and recurring issue,” said Clifton S. Elgarten, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who is representing Wyatt. “The Supreme Court doesn’t take many cases, but we’re hopeful they will see the wisdom of considering this one.”
Utah attorney Larry S. Jenkins, who represents the adoption agency, said Friday he is still considering whether to file a response.
Wyatt learned in May 2008 that Emily Colleen Fahland, his then-19-year-old girlfriend, was pregnant. According to court documents, on Feb. 4, 2009, Fahland informed Wyatt by telephone that she had spoken with A Act of Love Adoption Agency, based in Utah. She sent a text message the next day that said: “Do you understand that I’m receiving information from a Utah agency for proceeding with an adoption.”
But Wyatt said he thought Fahland was just gathering information and that their co-parenting plan was still in place.
Unbeknownst to Wyatt, Fahland gave birth on Feb. 10, 2009, and a day later signed a document agreeing to waive Virginia law and proceed with an adoption in Utah. Wyatt learned of the birth on Feb. 11 but was initially unable to locate Fahland, who had checked out of the hospital and into a hotel under an assumed name.
A Utah couple flew to Virginia on Feb. 12 to pick up the infant. That same day, Fahland relinquished her parental rights. Wyatt hand-delivered a letter to the adoption agency’s Virginia attorney on Feb. 12 requesting to see his daughter and take her home. Wyatt said he was told he could see the infant only if he consented to the adoption. He refused.
Eight days after Baby Emma’s birth, Wyatt filed a custody action in Virginia. By then, the adoptive parents had returned to Utah with the baby and, on Feb. 23, began adoption proceedings here.
From that point on, court proceedings unfolded in both Utah and Virginia. In Virginia, a judge confirmed Wyatt’s rights to his child. In Utah, a judge ruled Wyatt acted too late to protect his rights since he filed a custody action in Virginia after Fahland consented to the adoption and did not file with putative-father registries in Virginia or Utah until April. The judge also said she saw “no legal basis for deferring” to the Virginia court’s decision that it had jurisdiction in the case.
In July, the Utah Supreme Court upheld that decision. It also found that Wyatt could not invoke the federal kidnapping law because he had not used it to support his case in the lower court. One justice argued that the PKPA doesn’t apply to adoption disputes.
In the writ of certiorari, filed Dec. 15, Wyatt notes that the Utah Supreme Court did not say when or how he might have raised the PKPA argument earlier since he was barred from participating in the adoption proceeding. He also argues that Utah requires a father to comply with the law in his home state before a mother consents to an adoption — whether or not that is the same deadline set by his home state.
“Utah law required that he fulfill Virginia’s requirements more quickly than Virginia itself requires — in this case, before the baby was born and before he knew there would be any contest over his custodial rights, let alone a contest in Utah,” the petition states. The Utah law also “fosters fraud and deception on an unmarried father by the mother or unscrupulous adoption agencies” but then burdens the victim with anticipating such acts, which raises “troubling due-process questions.”
In fact, Wyatt said he did timely assert his rights under Virginia law, as acknowledged by a judge in that state. The petition also argues that Virginia requires a birth mother to identify and provide notice of a pending adoption to a “reasonably ascertained” father and to wait three days before consenting to an adoption, which are rules Wyatt says Fahland violated.
The Virginia court, under the PKPA, had jurisdiction to decide who received custody of Baby Emma, Wyatt argues. Instead, the Utah Supreme Court has “re-injected ambiguity and the potential for sharp conflict between states that the PKPA had seemingly eliminated with its jurisdictional command,” Wyatt argues, and “widens a split among state courts” in interpretations of the federal law.
brooke@sltrib.com
© 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)