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 lawsuit after son in Utah is given up for adoption - NBC News

By Erik Ortiz, Staff Writer, NBC News

December 31, 2013, 2:06 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strickland said Pettersson was having problems with her marriage, and she later told him she got

divorced. They began dating, and three months later, she texted him that she was pregnant.

Strickland left Utah for a temp job in Texas, but said he assured Pettersson that he wanted to be present in their child’s life, according to the lawsuit. He started a fund for the baby boy. The couple came up with a name: Jack. But Strickland didn’t register.

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

“I don’t know if it was done as an act of vindictiveness,” Hutchins said.

Pettersson couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday, and attorneys involved in the adoption weren’t

immediately available. The adoption agency, LDS Family Services, operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also didn’t respond to a request for comment.

 A nursery that was set up in 2010 for Jake

Strickland's baby, whom he named Jack.

According to the lawsuit, Strickland continued to financially support Pettersson, who also had a child from another relationship, until her alleged lies about their son began to unravel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Article

The evidence...

Verified Complaint and Exhibits ....

 

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

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!

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

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.

10 days or less...

**Update**

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

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

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

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

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

Rescheduled Once Again...

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

Monday August 6th at 2:00 PM

at the Layton Courthouse.

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

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

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