Civil Rights Lawsuit against Utah Attorney General

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.

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! 

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

Thinking about you

Jackson:

Our family can not stop thinking about you. We wonder about you every day and hope and pray you are being well taken care of. Every where we go there is something that reminds us of you. There are street signs with Jackson, trucks with the name Jackson on it, new little babies named Jack, little boys that are within 4 months like you and Boston everywhere. Everywhere we turn we think of you.

Jackson, you will know one day how much we love you and think about you. Jack, we wonder every day what you look like. Do you have baby blues like your daddy,? Are you a little Blondie or do you have dark brown hair? Are you a shy little boy or outgoing like your cousin? Do you like to play cars and trucks, and play outside? Hopefully, one day soon we will get answers to our questions.

August 1st is right around the corner and we can not be happier to finally be back in front of a judge to share with him OUR side of the story, and not be voiceless.

Jackson, there is so much positive change that has been happening with birth father rights everywhere. We can only hope this can help with bringing you home.

We love you Jack! See you soon.

XoXo,

Your family

Adoption Agency Recordings