Complaint Document and Exhibits.... view here!
On Wednesday, January 22nd 2014, daddy Jake Strickland's birthday, Wesley Hutchins, our attorney, filed a civil rights lawsuit against the prior Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and up and coming Attorney General John Swallow on behalf of 12 birthfathers who have been defrauded from their biological children due to Utah's unethical and unconstitional laws.
Since 2010, the Utah Attorney General's office has been aware of numerous complaints calling the Utah Adoption Act unconstitutional and they have turned a blind eye to the fraud and deception that has been going on. There were many instances where the Attorney General Mark Shurtleff could have made recommendations to the legislature about changes that were needed in order to provide father's equal rights, but they did nothing.
In August 2011, on a dateline episode regarding John Wyatt, Cody O'Dea, Ramsey Shaud, and other father's who have been defrauded by Utah's unethical adoption laws, Attorney Mark Shurtleff at the time was intereviewed and asked what he thought of Utah's laws regarding birthfathers? He said he was unaware of issues, but he would look into it and make recommendations to the legislature. Nothing has come from this. Directly following the airing of this episode, we had emailed the Attorney General's Office to informa them of Jake's case and they emailed us and said this was not a matter that was regarding Utah, but more a civil matter.
In September 2012, John Swallow was talked to in a private meeting off the record during upcoming election meetings about a proposed bill that was being presented by Democrat Christine Watkins about providing mandatory notice to fathers that an adoption would be taking place. Swallow acknowledged that he supported the bill, but he said "We backed the wrong horse to sponsor the bill" meaning it wouldn't pass because it was supported by a democrat.
By law any time their is a challenge to a constitionality issue of a law, you are required to send a certified copy of the complaint to the Attorney General's office. Our attorney Wes Hutchins, has been doing that since 2010, and has notified the Utah Attorney General's Office at least 5 times in the past 4 years, with no response whatsoever.
The purpose of this lawsuit is to get the Utah Adoption Act overturned and deemed unconstiutional to STOP babyselling in Utah, and depriving willing, able men from raising their children. This lawsuit will hopefully deter birthmothers, agencies, attorneys and others from consipring to defraud men from having their relationship severed from their biological children.
We will not stop until the laws are changed and men have an equal opportunity and say to raise their children.
The wheels are turning and things will be happening. Stay tuned people, things are going to get interesting.
Showing posts with label Wes Hutchins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wes Hutchins. Show all posts
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Thursday, January 23, 2014
12 fathers sue Utah over adoption laws
12 fathers sue Utah over adoption laws
January 23, 2014
SALT LAKE CITY — Twelve biological fathers are suing the state of Utah, claiming its adoption laws amount to legalized fraud and kidnapping.
All of them had children put up for adoption without their consent.
Attorney Wes Hutchins, who has worked in adoption law for more than two decades, believes this lawsuit could be the first of its kind in the country, and could eventually become a class-action case.
Hutchins said the case originated with what he describes as the broken promise of a former attorney general, during a network TV program about a Utah adoption case where the biological father was denied custody when the baby was adopted without his knowledge.
"He would investigate the issues and if there was a need for change, he would work with the Legislature to bring about change," Hutchins said the state's top cop promised.
Hutchins, who headed the Utah Adoption Council at the time, said he went undercover with a woman (his wife) posing as a birth mother seeking to give birth in Utah. He said they presented that attorney general and his successor with evidence birth mothers were being coached to lie.
"Statements like, ‘We'll just go home and tell the birth father that the baby died,' or 'Come to Utah, but don't tell the birth father where you're coming,'" Hutchins said. "'Don't tell him anything.'"
Hutchins claims Utah law permits birth mothers or people representing them to commit fraud, encouraging out-of-state women to give birth here because the laws exclude the rights of birth fathers.
"A birth mother, or anyone working with a birth mother, can commit fraud in placing the child for adoption," Hutchins explained, "but that is not a basis to overturn the adoptive placement."
In other words, a birth father can sue for damages, but not to get the child back.
All of the fathers in the lawsuit to date have fought to stop the adoptions of their children. A couple of them were able to gain custody, but not all have been successful.
The lawsuit seeks both monetary damages and to strike down the Utah Adoption Act.
January 23, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Suit: Utah adoption laws permit ‘legalized fraud and kidnapping'
Adoption • 12 biological fathers from across the country want Utah’s adoption law declared unconstitutional.
(Courtesy Dayna Smith) 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. His mother, Jeri Wyatt, is helping her son try to gain custody.
Twelve biological fathers whose children were placed for adoption in Utah without their knowledge or consent have filed a federal lawsuit against the state, alleging Utah laws permit “legalized fraud and kidnapping.”
The fathers, represented by West Jordan attorney Wes Hutchins, allege that despite knowing about the “gross adoption infirmities” of Utah’s laws, two former attorneys general “did nothing for more than a decade to correct the fraud and deception” that led to their children being placed with adoptive families in Utah.
What happened to their sons and daughters was essentially “kidnapping and highly unethical and disruptive placement into adoptive homes without the knowledge or consent of their biological fathers,” the lawsuit states.
Utah’s laws have created a “confusing labyrinth of virtually incomprehensible legal mandates and nearly impossible deadlines” that amount to unconstitutional violations of the rights of unwed fathers, it states.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and a finding that the Utah Adoption Act is unconstitutional.
All of the fathers in the lawsuit have fought, with mixed results, to stop adoptions of their children. The men are: Robert B. Manzanares; Christopher D. Carlton; Jake M. Strickland; Jacob D. Brooks; Michael D. Hunter; Frank L. Martin; Samuel G. Dye; Bobby L. Nevares; William E. Bolden; John M. Wyatt III; Cody M. O’Dea; and Scottie Wallace.
Martin successfully fought adoption of his daughter, born in 2012, and now has custody of her. Dye also recently succeeded in regaining custody of his son, who was about 18 months old when his mother brought him to Utah and placed him for adoption.
The lawsuit says the dads represent a much larger group of an estimated 300 fathers whose constitutional rights have been violated by Utah’s adoption laws, and Hutchins later may seek to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit.
The defendants are the Utah attorney general’s office, former Attorneys General Mark Shurtleff and John Swallow, and unnamed state officials, though Hutchins said he may amend it to add current Attorney General Sean Reyes.
A spokeswoman for Reyes said Wednesday afternoon that the attorney general was reviewing the case but did not immediately have a comment.
At least one adoption attorney said the lawsuit’s odds of success may be limited.
“I have not seen the lawsuit, but Utah’s appellate courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the Utah Adoption Act,” said David Hardy, who is not a party to the lawsuit and has not yet reviewed it, though he was involved in some of the cases referenced in it. “I don’t have any reason to believe there is a basis to overturn the act.”
Biological mothers, adoption agencies and adoption attorneys have been able to exploit Utah’s laws, particularly a fraud immunity statute, in a way that was never intended, the lawsuit states. “An adoption may be accomplished through fraud, misdirection, misrepresentation, and lies, however, fraud expressly may not be a basis to undo an otherwise fraudulent adoption.”
In Manzanares’ case, for example, a former girlfriend asserted in a paternity proceeding in Colorado that she had no plan to pursue an adoption. She told Manzanares in a January 2008 email she planned to go to Utah in February to visit a sick relative. In fact, she gave birth to a daughter while in Utah and placed the infant with a relative.
Carlton, a former military veteran who lives in Pennsylvania, was told by a former girlfriend that their daughter had died shortly after birth in 2010. He learned months later, after a judge ordered the woman to disclose where the child was buried, that she had given birth and placed the infant for adoption in Utah.
Utah’s adoption laws encourage biological mothers to “secretly flee their home state” to give birth in Utah without any meaningful notice to or awareness on the part of biological fathers, the lawsuit states.
The mothers “return to their home state, seemingly unaccountable for their immoral, unethical, and fraudulent conduct,” the lawsuit states.
In his case, O’Dea told his former girlfriend he objected to her plan to place their child for adoption and signed with putative father registries in his home state of Wyoming, as well as Montana, where the biological mother had at one time lived. In June 2006, the woman called O’Dea from a blocked telephone number and said she was in Utah. She told O’Dea that he “will not father this child. You will pay child support until the child is in college.”
“You will never see this baby,” she told O’Dea, according to the lawsuit, and then asked if he understood what she meant.
After O’Dea tried to ask if that meant she no longer planned to place the infant for adoption, the woman responded, “If you understand what I have told you, that is all I have to say,” and hung up.
O’Dea’s child was born that same day and placed for adoption. O’Dea eventually learned the adoption had taken place in Utah; he fought the adoption in a case that ended up before the Utah Supreme Court, where he lost.
The lawsuit states that one of the “express” roles of the state’s attorney general is to protect against deception, fraud and misrepresentation. Another role is to protect children from abuse and neglect.
But the state’s top law enforcement officers have “utterly failed” to protect minor children of the biological fathers and to safeguard their rights and best interests, despite being personally contacted about the situations involving at least five fathers.
“Neither Shurtleff nor his successors have done anything as promised, and, in the meantime, biological fathers, and others, have been again and again unlawfully and continuously deprived of their constitutionally protected paternity rights,” the lawsuit states.
The attorneys general “knew of the fraud and kidnapping that was taking place in Utah, under the guise of Utah’s adoption laws, and turned a blind eye to such practices, in direct contradiction to their personal promises, their oath of office, their statutory mandates, and their stated priorities, and also their oaths as licensed attorneys in Utah,” that lawsuit adds.
The lawsuit says some adoption agencies, as shown in secretly recorded telephone conversations, encourage biological mothers to come to Utah and take steps so that a birth father would “never have a shot in hell in ever getting his child back,” as one agency worker put it.
brooke@sltrib.com
© Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Good Morning America: Dad Files $130 M Suit, Alleging His Son Was Unknowingly Put Up for Adoption
Full Story HERE
Dad Files $130M Suit, Alleging His Son Was Unknowingly Put
Up for Adoption
By ADITI ROY | Good Morning America – 2 hours 40 minutes ago
An unmarried Utah father has filed a $130 million federal lawsuit against his son's biological mother, claiming she put their son up for adoption without his knowledge.In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court Friday, Jake Strickland alleges the boy's mother, Whitney Pettersson Demke "essentially kidnapped" his son shortly after birth three years ago. Strickland alleges Demke, the adoptive parents and the adoption agency conspired in an "illegal, deceit-ridden infant adoption" that deprived him of his son, according to the suit.
"My son doesn't deserve to go through this. I don't deserve to go through this. This has been very heart-wrenching for everyone involved," Strickland says on GetBabyJack.com, a website explaining his fight to gain custody of the son that he has never met.
Pettersson and LDS Family Services, which facilitated the adoption, didn't respond to ABC News' request for comment.
Strickland and Demke met in 2009 but broke up before the baby was born in December 2010, according to court documents obtained by ABC News. But Strickland contends they remained friendly and agreed to share custody. Strickland says they even decided to name the baby boy Jack.
"I helped her with as much as I could. Gave her money whenever she needed it," Strickland explains in a video posted on the website.
The baby was born Dec. 29, 2010 and was put up for adoption the next day by Pettersson, Strickland says in the suit.Pettersson, according to Strickland, didn't tell him about the adoption until one week later.
"She had my son without telling me and put him up for adoption the next day," Strickland explains in the video. Days later, Pettersson confessed that she had been planning to put Jack up for adoption from the beginning, according to Strickland. "The moment that I found out, I filed for paternity, which was already too late. I know I should have filed earlier, but I trusted her," Strickland says.
But there was still another surprise waiting for Strickland, who thought Pettersson was divorced. But, in fact, she was still married to her estranged husband, who under Utah law, was presumed the father of Jack and had the right to give custody away.
Soon after Strickland learned the adoption was completed, he filed a paternity claim. That battle is still being fought in Utah's 2nd District Court. Strickland's suit is challenging the boundaries of an unmarried father's rights in Utah."Under current Utah law, if you are the biological father, and have not filed every paper required, you could permanently lose your child," said Utah attorney Mark Wiser, who is not affiliated with this case.
Strickland continues to use the website to send messages to his son, who just turned 3 years old Sunday, and hopes to someday deliver them in person.
Dad Files $130M Suit, Alleging His Son Was Unknowingly Put
Up for Adoption
By ADITI ROY | Good Morning America – 2 hours 40 minutes ago
An unmarried Utah father has filed a $130 million federal lawsuit against his son's biological mother, claiming she put their son up for adoption without his knowledge.In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court Friday, Jake Strickland alleges the boy's mother, Whitney Pettersson Demke "essentially kidnapped" his son shortly after birth three years ago. Strickland alleges Demke, the adoptive parents and the adoption agency conspired in an "illegal, deceit-ridden infant adoption" that deprived him of his son, according to the suit.
"My son doesn't deserve to go through this. I don't deserve to go through this. This has been very heart-wrenching for everyone involved," Strickland says on GetBabyJack.com, a website explaining his fight to gain custody of the son that he has never met.
Pettersson and LDS Family Services, which facilitated the adoption, didn't respond to ABC News' request for comment.
Strickland and Demke met in 2009 but broke up before the baby was born in December 2010, according to court documents obtained by ABC News. But Strickland contends they remained friendly and agreed to share custody. Strickland says they even decided to name the baby boy Jack.
"I helped her with as much as I could. Gave her money whenever she needed it," Strickland explains in a video posted on the website.
The baby was born Dec. 29, 2010 and was put up for adoption the next day by Pettersson, Strickland says in the suit.Pettersson, according to Strickland, didn't tell him about the adoption until one week later.
"She had my son without telling me and put him up for adoption the next day," Strickland explains in the video. Days later, Pettersson confessed that she had been planning to put Jack up for adoption from the beginning, according to Strickland. "The moment that I found out, I filed for paternity, which was already too late. I know I should have filed earlier, but I trusted her," Strickland says.
But there was still another surprise waiting for Strickland, who thought Pettersson was divorced. But, in fact, she was still married to her estranged husband, who under Utah law, was presumed the father of Jack and had the right to give custody away.
Soon after Strickland learned the adoption was completed, he filed a paternity claim. That battle is still being fought in Utah's 2nd District Court. Strickland's suit is challenging the boundaries of an unmarried father's rights in Utah."Under current Utah law, if you are the biological father, and have not filed every paper required, you could permanently lose your child," said Utah attorney Mark Wiser, who is not affiliated with this case.
Strickland continues to use the website to send messages to his son, who just turned 3 years old Sunday, and hopes to someday deliver them in person.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
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...
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
Utah father takes fight for son to federal court
Adoption • Lawsuit alleges conspiracy to defraud, kidnap infant at birth.
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
© Copyright 2013 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
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!
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Still Waiting...
Jackson:
We are still waiting to hear about a court date with the Utah Supreme Court. We haven't given up on you and are still fighting. We will never forget about you even if we are quiet on this blog. We don't ever stop thinking,worrying, or loving you
We were hoping and praying that there was going to be a miracle we were going to be reunited, but it seems that is not going to happen.
Jackson, we can't believe that 2 and 1/2 years of your life have come and gone, and we don't know a thing about you. We hope that one day soon, that will change and we get to be involved with your childhood, with your milestones and in your life. We hope with the many changes happening in the courts daily that we can finally have justice prevail, and have you reunited with your dad, where you belong.
We love you with all of our heart and will always have a special place for you.
XoXo,
Your 1st Family
We are still waiting to hear about a court date with the Utah Supreme Court. We haven't given up on you and are still fighting. We will never forget about you even if we are quiet on this blog. We don't ever stop thinking,worrying, or loving you
We were hoping and praying that there was going to be a miracle we were going to be reunited, but it seems that is not going to happen.
Jackson, we can't believe that 2 and 1/2 years of your life have come and gone, and we don't know a thing about you. We hope that one day soon, that will change and we get to be involved with your childhood, with your milestones and in your life. We hope with the many changes happening in the courts daily that we can finally have justice prevail, and have you reunited with your dad, where you belong.
We love you with all of our heart and will always have a special place for you.
XoXo,
Your 1st Family
Friday, February 22, 2013
Utah Legislation Session 2013
Utah is in full swing for their legislative session. There have been numerous adoption related bills. There are quite a few bills that we support, that will be helpful for protecting father's rights. We still have a long ways to go, but I think it's a start.
SB183 helps with pushing agencies, birthmoms or father's, or adoptive parents for commiting fraud. It can be punishable by revoking of the agency's license or can reap attorneys fees if fraud can be proven. Although, this is a good step it doesn't remove the fraud immunity statue in the law and the adoption would not solely be reveresed based on fraud. In Jake's case, we have OUTRIGHT fraud in multiple forms and it would still not bring Jake and Jack together.
SB155 is a bill for open adoption agreements to be enforceable. This will be a great tool for parents thinking to place and are made promises in return for their child. These promises should be upheld. Although, they made revisions to this bill and it will only apply to DCFS currently.
Here is a story Fox13 ran about the legislative bills and Jack's story.
Fox13 Clip
SALT LAKE CITY – A Utah senator has introduced legislation that would provide legal rights for the father of a child put up for adoption.
It’s a scenario you may be familiar with: a mother gives birth to her child and doesn’t tell the father when she gives up the baby for adoption. The dad is left with no legal rights because of a legal loophole, a legal loophole some say could cost a father his child, and a bill aimed at changing that was debated in a committee hearing Tuesday, that got very heated at times.
Some excerpts (a conversation between Senator Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake County, the sponsor of the adoption bill and the chair of the committee):
“It’s my bill Senator, point of order.”
“Thank you.”
“Senator, let me answer your question.”
“Wait, whoa whoa. Questions directed at the Chair. I don’t want badgering going on.”
“I didn’t get an answer to my question.”
Questions and concerns over the adoption bill left its fate in the hands of the committee, where it’s being held for now.
Wes Hutchins, an adoption attorney, says the legislation would have held adoption agencies more accountable. Hutchins claims some agencies encourage deception and lies.
“Adoption agencies coach Mothers on how to cut birth fathers out of the parenting picture,” Hutchins said.
However, lawmakers echoed several concerns saying, “We’re saying that after an adoption occurs in this bill, anyone can say a lie was told in the process?”
Despite strong testimony from Jennifer Graham, whose son has never meet his baby boy Jack because his birth mother gave him up for adoption without his knowledge, legislators said the current law would have protected him had filed for paternity before his child was born.
“He was told that if he did that he would never see his son,” said Jennifer Graham.
“Understood,” said one State Senator.
“That is in text message,” replied Graham.
“I can see that but the law would have worked if he would have filed. You’d have your grandson.”
The Committee did not vote on Senator Robles’ bill, instead deciding to bring it back another day during the session.
SB183 helps with pushing agencies, birthmoms or father's, or adoptive parents for commiting fraud. It can be punishable by revoking of the agency's license or can reap attorneys fees if fraud can be proven. Although, this is a good step it doesn't remove the fraud immunity statue in the law and the adoption would not solely be reveresed based on fraud. In Jake's case, we have OUTRIGHT fraud in multiple forms and it would still not bring Jake and Jack together.
SB155 is a bill for open adoption agreements to be enforceable. This will be a great tool for parents thinking to place and are made promises in return for their child. These promises should be upheld. Although, they made revisions to this bill and it will only apply to DCFS currently.
Here is a story Fox13 ran about the legislative bills and Jack's story.
Fox13 Clip
SALT LAKE CITY – A Utah senator has introduced legislation that would provide legal rights for the father of a child put up for adoption.
It’s a scenario you may be familiar with: a mother gives birth to her child and doesn’t tell the father when she gives up the baby for adoption. The dad is left with no legal rights because of a legal loophole, a legal loophole some say could cost a father his child, and a bill aimed at changing that was debated in a committee hearing Tuesday, that got very heated at times.
Some excerpts (a conversation between Senator Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake County, the sponsor of the adoption bill and the chair of the committee):
“It’s my bill Senator, point of order.”
“Thank you.”
“Senator, let me answer your question.”
“Wait, whoa whoa. Questions directed at the Chair. I don’t want badgering going on.”
“I didn’t get an answer to my question.”
Questions and concerns over the adoption bill left its fate in the hands of the committee, where it’s being held for now.
Wes Hutchins, an adoption attorney, says the legislation would have held adoption agencies more accountable. Hutchins claims some agencies encourage deception and lies.
“Adoption agencies coach Mothers on how to cut birth fathers out of the parenting picture,” Hutchins said.
However, lawmakers echoed several concerns saying, “We’re saying that after an adoption occurs in this bill, anyone can say a lie was told in the process?”
Despite strong testimony from Jennifer Graham, whose son has never meet his baby boy Jack because his birth mother gave him up for adoption without his knowledge, legislators said the current law would have protected him had filed for paternity before his child was born.
“He was told that if he did that he would never see his son,” said Jennifer Graham.
“Understood,” said one State Senator.
“That is in text message,” replied Graham.
“I can see that but the law would have worked if he would have filed. You’d have your grandson.”
The Committee did not vote on Senator Robles’ bill, instead deciding to bring it back another day during the session.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Next Step.
We have heard back from Judge Hamilton on the constitutionality motion. He has denied Jake's motion. He felt like Jake's constitutional rights were not violated and he did not file timely.
This means we will be moving on with appeals as we originally had planned. It is our belief the judge felt like he was not able to rule on constitutional rights at his court level. We have another 1-3 years of court battles ahead of us.
As you can imagine we are all physically, mentally, emotionally and financially exhausted. Any financial help would be greatly appreciated to help with the ongoing legal battle. You can donate at the paypal account located on the right side of this blog. Jake will not let money get in the way to fight until the end for his son.
We still have hope that the Utah Supreme Court will rule in our favor due to the constitutionality motion. We feel like if we can also get the law changed, there is a hope we can potentially be grandfathered in, but will most likely not happen.
We will be doing some fundraisers in the Spring, and would love any help we can get with donations, or volunteers.
Thank you so much for all of the continued support and prayers. We will never give up on Jackson. He deserves the right to have his father in his life.
Jackson, we will be with you one day, we are hoping it's not when you turn 18, but nonetheless we will be with you! We Love You.
This means we will be moving on with appeals as we originally had planned. It is our belief the judge felt like he was not able to rule on constitutional rights at his court level. We have another 1-3 years of court battles ahead of us.
As you can imagine we are all physically, mentally, emotionally and financially exhausted. Any financial help would be greatly appreciated to help with the ongoing legal battle. You can donate at the paypal account located on the right side of this blog. Jake will not let money get in the way to fight until the end for his son.
We still have hope that the Utah Supreme Court will rule in our favor due to the constitutionality motion. We feel like if we can also get the law changed, there is a hope we can potentially be grandfathered in, but will most likely not happen.
We will be doing some fundraisers in the Spring, and would love any help we can get with donations, or volunteers.
Thank you so much for all of the continued support and prayers. We will never give up on Jackson. He deserves the right to have his father in his life.
Jackson, we will be with you one day, we are hoping it's not when you turn 18, but nonetheless we will be with you! We Love You.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Isn't it Ironic?
Thinking of our upcoming court date and the endless possibilities that it could mean for Jackson and our family, allows our minds to run wild. I came across a blog today that was sharing the news of an upcoming baby and the name they were choosing for their son, Jack.Over the past few years, the name Jack and Jackson have resurfaced and have made gains in popularity again. When Jake and Whitney found out they were having a boy, they both agreed on the name Jackson, but Jake knew he would be calling him Jack, after his great grandpa Jack. Throughout these past two years, I have never looked into the meaning of Jack, but ran into that meaning tonight.
The Hebrew definition of Jack means God is Gracious, or Gracious Gift of God. WOW! Isn't this true? There is so much a name can say about a person and I feel like this definition was meant to be shared with us at this time. We hope that court on Wednesday, God will be gracious in helping Judge Hamilton do the right thing, and re-unite Jake and Jack, father and son. We know in the bottom of hearts that this will come.
We hope more than anything that Jake will receive a Christmas wish, and get the opportunity to meet his son. Even to begin if it's only for a few hours, he will take it at this point.
Thank you for the prayers, and please continue to pray for Jack, Jake, Judge Hamilton and our family this week as we head to court.
Sincerely,
Aunt Heidi
We hope more than anything that Jake will receive a Christmas wish, and get the opportunity to meet his son. Even to begin if it's only for a few hours, he will take it at this point.
Thank you for the prayers, and please continue to pray for Jack, Jake, Judge Hamilton and our family this week as we head to court.
Sincerely,
Aunt Heidi
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Their dirty laundry is aired....
Terry Achane, we feel your pain. We hope that Jared and Kristi Frei, the adoptive couple, will be cooperative in the transistion back with you, her FATHER. Keep fighting and God Bless you for fighting for our freedom!
Shame on Adoption Center of Choice and James Webb for all of their scandolous moves. It makes me sick how they are not only scamming birthfathers, birthmothers, but also the adoptive couples. It's sick and wrong that they are charging these couples $9800 for THEIR marketing and advertising cost, when that money is going directly back into their pocket books. I am sure there are plenty other questionable costs. I hope the state of Utah audits every single adoption agency and closes them down who aren't operating ethically.
Great job Brooke Adams for shedding light on the corruption that is occuring in the Utah Adoption Industry. Keep it up!
Courtesy photo Leah Frei, now 21 months old, has lived with her adoptive parents since birth. Her biological father, who calls her Teleah, is waging a legal battle to get her back.
© 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune
Shame on Adoption Center of Choice and James Webb for all of their scandolous moves. It makes me sick how they are not only scamming birthfathers, birthmothers, but also the adoptive couples. It's sick and wrong that they are charging these couples $9800 for THEIR marketing and advertising cost, when that money is going directly back into their pocket books. I am sure there are plenty other questionable costs. I hope the state of Utah audits every single adoption agency and closes them down who aren't operating ethically.
Great job Brooke Adams for shedding light on the corruption that is occuring in the Utah Adoption Industry. Keep it up!
Utah adoption saga: New questions as fight continues
Courts • Utah adoptive parents want order to return S.
Carolina man’s child stayed.
Courtesy photo Leah Frei, now 21 months old, has lived with her adoptive parents since birth. Her biological father, who calls her Teleah, is waging a legal battle to get her back.
The Salt Lake Tribune has learned the Utah
adoption agency that arranged for a married father’s child to be given up at
birth is under scrutiny by state licensing officials and the adoptive parents
have acted on their pledge to try to block the toddler’s return to her dad.
Ken Stettler, licensing director for the Utah Department
of Health and Human Services, told the Tribune that the Adoption Center of
Choice has operated under a corrective action plan since September, when its
license was extended but not renewed. The action was taken because of
documentation deficiencies in some case files, Stettler said.
The extension expires at the end of December, the
deadline for the agency to come into compliance. But allegations in the adoption
case have raised new questions and prompted additional review, Stettler
said.
Meanwhile, a new legal battle is forming over the
child.
Attorney Larry Jenkins, who now represents Jared and
Kristi Frei, confirmed Wednesday they have filed a motion asking 4th District
Judge Darold J. McDade to stay his order dismissing their adoption petition and
requiring the couple to transition Terry Achane’s now 21-month old daughter to
him by mid-January. Jenkins also said he is reviewing the case in anticipation
of appealing McDade’s decision.
In a statement released to KUTV on Monday, the Freis
claim Achane abandoned his wife before their child’s birth and has done nothing
to build a relationship with the now 21-month-old girl.
“We are deeply saddened by the court’s decision to give
the child back to a father she does not know at all,” said the Freis, who have
four biological children and two adopted children, including Leah. “We believe
that the court made serious legal errors in his decision and will address these
concerns with the Utah Court of Appeals.”
Achane, who calls his daughter “Teleah,” told The Tribune
he did not attempt to send gifts or other support once he learned the Freis had
his daughter because, given her age and the circumstances, he felt those
gestures were unlikely to reach her or make sense to her. Achane, 31, has had
two three-hour visits with her during trips to Utah for legal hearings, but
otherwise the Freis have not allowed contact.
But Mark Wiser, Achane’s attorney, said the Freis have
not responded to repeated attempts by Achane to connect with his daughter since
the Nov. 20 ruling.
Achane “has called numerous times only to have the phone
go to voice mail, or is busy,” Wiser said. “He still can’t talk with his
daughter. He even left his phone number and if the Freis are out on the
weekends, they won’t return the call.”
Achane and Tira Bland married in 2009 in Texas and
learned in June 2010 she was pregnant and that the baby was due in mid-March of
2011. The couple had marital problems but were still together in January 2011
when Achane accepted a position as a drill sergeant at Fort Jackson in South
Carolina. He left in mid-month to set up a home and report for duty, expecting
to return to Texas for the baby’s birth.
Less than two weeks later, Bland decided to pursue an
adoption; she came to Utah in mid-February and stopped communicating with
Achane. Bland, who claimed her husband had abandoned her, gave birth on March 1,
2011.
Achane says he had no idea what had become of Bland or
his baby until Bland contacted him in June and informed him she had placed the
child for adoption. Achane immediately contacted The Adoption Center of Choice
and began asserting his parental rights as the child’s father. He has since
divorced Bland.
The Freis were “duped themselves, but eventually they
found out what happened and they had to make a choice — do the right thing and
return the child to the legal father or keep the child,” said Scott Wiser,
Mark’s son and part of Achane’s legal team. “It is a human tragedy. There are
victims all around, but two wrongs don’t make a right.”
On its website, the center claims to have facilitated
about 1,400 successful adoptions since its founding in 1995. According to its
corporate registration filing, it has done business under eight other names in
the past, including A Heart of Gold Adoptions, An All American Adoption Agency,
A Bridge Adoption Services and A Adoption with Love.
In 2005, the center incorporated as a nonprofit
organization under state law, though it does not have federal tax exempt status
from the Internal Revenue Service.
James C. Webb, who is currently listed as the only
representative — director, officer, president, and registered agent — for the
adoption center, did not return a call from The Tribune. His office referred the
newspaper to Jenkins, who also represents the adoption agency.
Jenkins confirmed the business was set up as a nonprofit
under Utah law.
In its incorporation filing, the center listed its
purpose as a child placing agency; providing humanitarian relief and education
to underprivileged children worldwide; sheltering children who do not have
homes, families or both; assisting adoptive parents; and soliciting
contributions.
The center, based in American Fork, has facilitated at
least five other controversial adoptions that ended up in rulings by the Utah
Supreme Court or Utah Court of Appeals. All of those adoptions involved
unmarried fathers, unlike the current case. Each of those fathers — Victor
Johnson, Frank Osborne, Buddy Pruitt, Cody O’Dea and Bryn Ayers — were
unsuccessful in stopping adoptions of their biological children, mostly based on
findings they acted too late under Utah law to protect their parental
rights.
The center received harsh criticism in the ruling by
McDade, who rebuked the agency for its failure to return Achane’s daughter to
him once he realized what had happened to her.
McDade also questioned the agency’s requirement that the
Freis pay an “advertising fee” of $9,800 to a marketing company, in addition to
other adoption and pregnancy-related expenses it collected.
That business, Blue Sky Choice Marketing, was founded and
is operated by Webb, who is the only principal listed for the firm in its
corporate registration. According to that document, the marketing company is
located in Cedar City and has been in business about two years.
While holding itself out as a nonprofit, the agency also
requires clients to pay the advertising fee to Webb’s other company, the judge
noted.
brooke@sltrib.com
Twitter: @Brooke4Trib
—
Agency participated in reality show
Earlier this year, the Adoption Center of Choice was
featured on an hour-long special on TLC called “Birth Moms,” a reality show that
chronicled experiences of three unwed, pregnant women who were living in homes
provided by the center and struggling with their decisions to pursue
adoption.
James C. Webb, the agency’s executive director, told
The Salt Lake Tribune as part of a report on the show that five of his seven
daughters are adopted. Of birth moms, he said: “Here they are doing this amazing
thing — giving a gift of life to a child and a family. And it’s not an easy
thing. I can’t even imagine how challenging it is.”
Webb said that of the 150 to 200 women who seek
the agency’s services each year, about 100 decide to move forward with an
adoption. On a blog at its website, a company representative says adoption fees
can run from $22,000 to $30,000.
—
Donation funds for both sides
Jared and Kristi Frei are soliciting contributions
for their legal fund on their blog at
http://frei-adoption.com/Frei/Leah.html.
Numerous people also have asked how to contribute to
Terry Achane’s legal fund. Contributions may be sent to The Law Offices of Wiser
and Wiser, 2825 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Ste. 500, Salt Lake City, Utah,
84121.
© 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune
Sunday, December 2, 2012
A Christmas Blessing?
We will be heading back to court on December 19th, back in front of Judge Hamilton. There had been some disagreeing on some issues when Larry Jenkins submitted the order to the court, and Judge Hamilton wanted to conduct a hearing. We feel like this is a good sign. We aren't sure quite what to expect from this hearing, but think we may have a chance to argue about the constitutionality motion as well as the 5th amendment right motion. This is a great time to argue about Jake's constitutional rights being violated due to the recent ruling in Ramsey Shaud's decision from the Utah Supreme Court and speaking about the due process in his case. We have strong faith and hope that Jack and Jake will be re-united in the very near future.
For anyone looking to attend, here are the details:
For anyone looking to attend, here are the details:
Farmington Court
Judge Hamilton
December 19th, 2012
2:30 PM
800 West State Street
Farmington, Utah
Thank you for the continued support. Throughout this tragic journey we have met some wonderful people that have kept us going when the light is dim. It's been almost 2 years since Jack has made his entrance into this world and we are blessed that he is here, and can't wait for the day we get to meet him.
LBBJH
(Let's Bring Baby Jack Home)
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.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Proposed bill would penalize adoption agencies for fraudulent representations
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.
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.
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Tomorrow.
Tomorrow could be one of the best or worst days yet to come in this ongoing emotional rollercoaster. The best outcome we could hope for would to be allowed to intervene in the adoption, have opposing counsel off of the case due to witnesses in the finalization of the adoption and to allow Jake to be able to meet his son, Jackson Michael Strickland, for the first time. There will be many emotions that will take place tomorrow and we can only hope we get to fill joy in our hearts, rather than crushing as we have felt so much over the past 20 months.
"Do not fear to repeat what has already been said. Men need the truth dinned into their ears many times and from all sides. The first rumor makes them prick up their ears, the second registers, and the third enters."
--Rene Theophile Hyacinthe LaÎnnec
Court:
Tomorrow 2:00 PM
Location: Layton Courthouse
435 North Wasatch Drive
Layton, Utah
Friday, August 3, 2012
See ya soon...
Jackson, 4 days until your daddy's voice will be heard.
We hope you and your daddy can meet for the first time shortly.
We love you and see you soon!
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Finally a court date
We finally have a court date! August 1st at 1:30 PM we will be meeting in Farmington 2nd District Court in front of Judge Hamilton. This court hearing will determine if we will be granted permission to intervene in the adoption proceeding. We pray that this Judge will do what is right and grant Jake a chance to be heard.
Although court is 6 weeks away we are excited to finally have a court date. We have been anxiously awaiting for this.
Please keep Jake and Jack in your prayers and pray that the prospective adoptive couple will have the strength and courage to do what it is right in their hearts and choose to give Jackson back to his loving father.
Jackson Michael Strickland, you are so loved, cared about and thought about every single day. Although, you are getting older our love for you has only gotten stronger. We wish we knew you were healthy and happy. We have been denied an opportunity to hear how you are growing, developing and enjoying life. We hope one day soon we will get to witness your personality, and get to know your quirks and characteristics. WE LOVE YOU Jackson and will never stop fighting.
Although court is 6 weeks away we are excited to finally have a court date. We have been anxiously awaiting for this.
Please keep Jake and Jack in your prayers and pray that the prospective adoptive couple will have the strength and courage to do what it is right in their hearts and choose to give Jackson back to his loving father.
Jackson Michael Strickland, you are so loved, cared about and thought about every single day. Although, you are getting older our love for you has only gotten stronger. We wish we knew you were healthy and happy. We have been denied an opportunity to hear how you are growing, developing and enjoying life. We hope one day soon we will get to witness your personality, and get to know your quirks and characteristics. WE LOVE YOU Jackson and will never stop fighting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)