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.

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...

 

 Court of Appeals Verified Complaint

The evidence...

Verified Complaint and Exhibits ....

 

Don't trust our word, see the proof yourself.

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.

Related Stories:

Do Utah's adoption-friendly laws make it anti-birth father? 
Utah's adoption-friendly laws have turned the state anti-birth father, say proponents of legislation to give fathers a stronger voice in what happens with the child.

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

---

Utah father takes fight for son to federal court

Adoption • Lawsuit alleges conspiracy to defraud, kidnap infant at birth.

BY BROOKE ADAMS

THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

PUBLISHED: DECEMBER 30, 2013 07:04PM
UPDATED: DECEMBER 30, 2013 07:33PM

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!

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

Terry Achane

We just wanted to express our excitement for SGT. Terry Achane and for this fundamental case in Utah. SGT. Terry Achane, congratulations for being reunited with your sweet little Teleah. You deserve to be able to raise your child and be in her life. We hope that this tragedy, that should have never happend can be turned into a positive in the state of Utah in getting the laws changed for Father's Rights. We hope that this will be helpful in our case as we have filed our appeal with the Utah Supreme Court. We hope that the judges are sick of seeing father's rights be TRAMPLED and will recgonize that Jake's rights were violated and that Jack needs to be re-united with his father and be in his life.

Source: Inside Edition

If you are new to this blog, please start with reading Baby Jack's Story and see how Jackson was STOLEN from his father who was willing, wanting and excited to be in his child's life. He was manipulated, lied to and deceived just as SGT. Achane was. The only difference was SGT. Achane was married to the mother and Jake Strickalnd was not. We will continue to fight until justice has prevailed. We will be with Jackson one day. It may be when he googles his name in 12 years, but nonetheless we will always be here with open arms.

Thanks again for sharing the word about Get Baby Jack Back. We love and appreciate all of the followers and those who have contributed to Jake's legal bills we appreciate it.

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.

Dear Readers.

Dear readers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, 

Jack's Grandma

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!

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! 

Stealing from the married ones too...

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

---

Father is ready to turn page on Utah adoption horror story

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

By Brooke Adams

The Salt Lake Tribune

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

brooke@sltrib.com

Twitter: Brooke4Trib

A married father’s rights

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

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

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

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

— Brooke Adams

---

© 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune

Father is ready to turn page on Utah adoption horror story

By Brooke Adams

The Salt Lake Tribune

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:

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)

Another Win For All Birth Fathers!

Jackson:

We still have hope that one day we will be able to be re-united with you and be able to be in your life and get to know you. We pray everyday for your safety and well being. We hope that you are being loved as much as we would love you. The holidays come with family, love, and laughter, and we always struggle celebrating these without you. This past holiday, Thanksgiving, we felt thankful to have you a part of our family, we felt grateful knowing where you are at, and that you are in good hands. We felt thankful that one day we will get to be a part of your life and get to be a part of your family. Jackson, we love you so much! We will never stop fighting for you. With each of these Utah Supreme Court decisions ruling in the favor of father's who's rights were wrongfully terminated gives us hope that the justices will see the truth in your case as well. We are waiting for some things to settle with the lower district court before we can move forward to the Utah Supreme Court. Jack, we love you with all our hearts.

Love,

YOUR FIRST FAMILY



The Salt Lake Tribune

---

Florida man gets a shot at being a dad

Adoption • Utah’s high court says father needs to have a chance to build a relationship with his child.

By Brooke Adams

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: November 27, 2012 02:15PM
Updated: November 27, 2012 07:32PM

Leah Hogsten | Tribune file photo Florida resident Ramsey Shaud, left, appeared in Utah's Supreme Court, with his attorney Daniel Drage, in 2011 in his parental rights case.

In a 3-2 decision, the Utah Supreme Court has found that Utah’s adoption law was “constitutionally defective” in depriving a Florida father a “meaningful chance” to develop a relationship with his child after a notice of paternity he filed was not recorded in a timely manner because of the state’s then four-day workweek and a federal holiday.

The high court reversed a decision by a trial judge who found that Ramsey Shaud had acted too late to stop the adoption of his daughter, born in January 2010. The justices sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider whether the Utah Office Vital Records and Statistics received Shaud’s paternity notice before the child’s mother placed her for adoption.

Shaud alleges, the court noted, that he attempted to protect his parental rights in a timely fashion but that the office “negligently delayed” entry of his notice in the state’s paternity registry, which the trial judge used as a basis of finding he had moved too late to have any say in his daughter’s adoption.

“We conclude that the district court’s interpretation of the [adoption act’s] strict compliance standard poses an unacceptable risk of erroneous deprivation of unwed fathers’ rights,” the court said. It also said that protecting the state’s compelling interest in timely adoption decisions did not require that a paternity petition be considered filed only at the time it was entered into the registry.

“Rather, we hold that Mr. Shaud’s notice must be considered filed when Vital Records received it, because, at that point, Mr. Shaud had done all that he could to strictly comply with the act,” the court said.

The opinion was written by Justice Christine Durham, who was joined by Justices Ronald Nehring and Jill Parrish. Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and Justice Thomas Lee dissented.

The court heard oral arguments in the case in September 2011. It issued the decision Friday, but it was not posted on the court’s website until Tuesday after The Salt Lake Tribune inquired about the ruling.

“I honestly never thought this day would come!” Shaud said Tuesday. “All I can do is smile. ... [It has] restored my faith in the judicial system out there, and I look forward to getting our case going in the lower court.”

Daniel Drage, his attorney, praised the justices for thoroughly considering the constitutional implications and due-process pitfalls of Utah’s current adoption law. Drage said he and his client were looking forward to getting back in court for a hearing to “establish that he has perfected his rights as a father, that notice was timely received by the Bureau of Vital Records and that he will have an opportunity to be a father to his daughter.”

While the decision assures Shaud, 26, a shot at making the argument that he acted in time to protect his parental rights, it does not guarantee he’ll get to parent his child — a matter that will likely involve numerous additional court hearings in which his fitness as a parent will be weighed against those of the child’s adoptive parents and what is in the child’s best interests.

How it began • Shaud learned in 2009 that 19-year-old Shasta Tew, with whom he had a casual relationship, was pregnant. When Tew said she didn’t want to raise the baby, Shaud, who was then 22, said he would take responsibility and care for the child. After Tew began pursuing an adoption, Shaud refused to sign off and moved quickly to protect his parental rights for the coming baby, due in February 2010.

He signed with the Putative Father Registry in Florida, where both live, so he would be notified of any adoption proceedings. Five months later, Tew sent Shaud a note saying she planned to visit Arizona and Utah for the holidays. He feared her real intent was to go to one of those states to place her baby for adoption.

Shaud easily filed with Arizona’s registry but had trouble finding information about what he needed to do in Utah to protect his rights. At the time, Utah’s Department of Health did not provide a link to putative-father forms online; it added a link in January 2012.

Shaud hired Drage, who filed the required paternity petition in court Jan. 12, 2010, and the same day faxed a copy to the Office of Vital Records and Statistics. At the time, the state followed a four-day work schedule so it was closed that Friday, as well as the following Monday, which was a federal holiday. The office did not file Shaud’s paternity notice until Jan. 20, 2010.

By then, Tew had already given birth — Shaud’s daughter was born prematurely Jan. 15, 2010. On the same day Shaud’s paternity paperwork was officially filed, Tew relinquished her parental rights and the infant was placed with adoptive parents through A Act of Love Adoptions in Orem.

Shaud tried to fight the placement in a lower court, but a trial judge said he had acted too late to protect his parental rights under Utah’s adoption law. Shaud appealed.

The high court’s ruling is the second decision in a father’s favor this year. In January, it ruled a Colorado father was improperly denied a say in his daughter’s adoption and also sent the case back to a lower court for a rehearing.

In that decision, the court said Robert Manzanares did not know and reasonably could not have known that a birth and adoption would take place in Utah and that he needed to protect his rights here. Manzanares had filed a paternity petition in Colorado and had been assured by his daughter’s mother that she had no intention of placing the child for adoption, something the woman also told a Colorado judge. Manzanares learned about a week after his daughter’s birth Feb. 17, 2008, that she had been born in Utah and placed for adoption.

After the Utah Supreme Court ruling, a Utah judge dismissed Manzanares’ case so that it could proceed in Colorado. His parental rights were affirmed and, under the guidance of a child psychologist, he has slowly been introduced to and allowed to build a relationship with his daughter. She was told in October that Manzanares is her daddy.

A matter of timing • In Shaud’s case, the Vital Records office told A Act of Love that no paternity filing had been made; 45 minutes later, it officially logged Shaud’s paperwork.

But a notice “cannot be considered filed only upon its entry into Vital Records’ registry,” the high court said. “This definition of ‘filed’ creates unfair uncertainty as to the proper filing date and infringes upon Mr. Shaud’s opportunity interest in protecting his relationship with his daughter.”

The majority referred several times to the court’s decision in the 2007 case, in which it held that the state’s adoption law had to “avoid due process implications that arise when a father’s compliance is not within his power.”

It also said that Shaud’s attorney did not need to specifically use the “magic words” of “due process” in the lower court to raise that constitutional argument. The court pointed out the attorney had made numerous other references about the rights at stake. The fact that a copy of his court filing was not included with the notice did not matter because Vital Records accepted his filing and it was not the basis of the lower court’s ruling, the majority also said.

Those two points were the basis of the dissent. Justice Lee said the majority was “jumping the gun” and reading “far too much into the arguments Shaud presented in the district court.” He found that Shaud had not preserved a constitutional challenge but merely “questioned the fairness of the statutory scheme on policy grounds.”

“When Shaud complained that he had done everything within his control, he was not asserting the due process point that the court today embraces in his opinion,” Lee wrote in the dissent. “He was merely seeking, in other words, to protect his rights under the statute in light of his vague concerns about fairness and broad epithets about the state’s carelessness.”

brooke@sltrib.com

Twitter: @Brooke4Trib

Florida man gets a shot at being a dad

By Brooke Adams

The Salt Lake Tribune

Little Cowboy.

Jack:

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

 

Say Howdy to your cousin Boston!

 

 

We love you so much Jack!

A letter to Jack

                                                                                                                                                  October 12, 2012

Dear Jack,

I was just thinking about you again today, and wanted to write down some of my thoughts so that one day when you come home you will know how much we have missed and loved you while you were away.

Today is Friday, one of my favorite days of the week because I get to tend your cousin Boston while his mommy and daddy are at work.  This morning Boston and I played cars and trucks in the toy room, we raced over the tracks, then the carpet and finally we went a little crazy and drove them over all the other toys, chairs and tables.  We crashed into each other and laughed more and more with each wreck, it was so much fun.  Then we went for a walk. We have two strollers still hanging in the garage one for you and one for Boston, as I reached for one my heart sank a little more because I wished once again you could be here with us. 

When we came home after enjoying seeing a fire engine, garbage truck and talking to the workers who are building a house down the road,  we walked past the wall of family pictures where the one and only picture of you is hanging.  Boston stopped and pointed to your picture and said Jack.   I love to see this photo every day; it reminds me what a blessing you are to have in our family. 

After lunch and more silly games Boston and I laid down to watch Monsters Inc, and it wasn’t long before he fell asleep which is where he is right now.  We will try to go outside to swing and jump on the tramp if it isn’t raining after he wakes up, if it is raining maybe we will just stay inside and make some cookies. 

Jack, I pray every day for you and your adoptive parents, and hope you are making wonderful memories together.  I hope that you are playing cars and trucks, going on long walks to enjoy the fresh air, and taking in all the beautiful flowers and trees.  I pray that you are seeing the world as it should be seen through a child’s eyes.    You deserve to feel loved, warm, cherished and protected.   I know your adoptive family through your adoptive dad’s side they are very kind and loving people, which does help us to know that you are in a good home.

Jack, we think of you daily. Whenever I see a blonde mommy with a toddler about your age I do a double take, and my heart skips a beat.   There are times I am in the same neighborhood where your grandparents live because your Great Aunt and Great Grandpa live just down the street.  I want to stop and just ask how you are doing, maybe to see a recent picture, to plead to let your daddy see you just once.  It breaks my heart how close you are, but we can’t reach out to you because of the lawyers. I am certain that your daddy’s side has not been shared with 100% honesty with your adoptive parents.  

Boston has now gone home with his mommy, after he woke up from his nap. It turned out to be a cookie making day because of the weather.   Your daddy stopped by for a few minutes to say hi to Boston on his lunch break from work. They played cars, tickled and chased each other for a while until they both were on the floor laughing.  Boston loves his Uncle Jake, and Jake loves his little buddy Boston, but he has a missing part of his heart where you will always fit.  He loves you so much.

Aunt Hailey came home just before Boston left and they were able to sit and read together while his mommy and I listened.  Jack, I am writing to you because this is the only way I have to reach out to you so far.  I know one day you will come home and know the truth why you weren’t with us for a while.  But, until then I don’t want you to miss out on the simple days that you should have had with us. 

I pray that you had a wonderful day today that you played and giggled, watched the rain on the windows, ate warm chocolate chip cookies and felt loved.

I love and miss you little Jack

Love Grandma Jenny

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.