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.
Showing posts with label larry jenkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label larry jenkins. Show all posts
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Dad files $130M lawsuit after son in Utah is given up for adoption - NBC News
By Erik Ortiz, Staff Writer, NBC News
The complaint also strikes at Utah's parenting laws, accusing them of being “pro-adoption and anti-birth father.”
“It’s pulling him apart,” Hutchins told NBC News on Tuesday.
“They still think about him even though they don't have contact,” he added.
“I don’t know if it was done as an act of vindictiveness,” Hutchins said.
Despite contesting the adoption, Strickland learned in November 2011 that it was completed.
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.
Read Full Article
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.
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
Still fighting...
Many comments in the recent articles in the Salt Lake Tribune, KSL and Desert News have stated that Jake just wants money and why did he wait 3 years to file this lawsuit? For those that are uneducated about this case, Jake has been fighting for Jackson since he found out on January 5th, 2011, that he had been placed for adoption. He is currently STILL fighting and his case will be heard hopefully in the Utah Supreme Court in early Spring. The fraud lawsuit is a separate matter. There is a 3 year statute of limitations on filing a civil fraud lawsuit against the parties and this time frame was closing in on January 5th, 2014. This is why the fraud suit was filed when it was.
Ultimately Jake wants his son back. He wants nothing more to be in his life and be able to raise him as he should rightfully so. This is not about money. This is about deception, fraud, manipulation, conspiracy, and about the unethical laws and practices that are occurring in Utah. This is for every father out there that has suffered from Utah Laws or from having their children taken from them unrightfully. This is for the pain and suffering that our family has dealt with for 3 long years. This is not a publicity stunt and Jake would take his son over money any day.
Here is the verified complaint filed for court of appeals...
Ultimately Jake wants his son back. He wants nothing more to be in his life and be able to raise him as he should rightfully so. This is not about money. This is about deception, fraud, manipulation, conspiracy, and about the unethical laws and practices that are occurring in Utah. This is for every father out there that has suffered from Utah Laws or from having their children taken from them unrightfully. This is for the pain and suffering that our family has dealt with for 3 long years. This is not a publicity stunt and Jake would take his son over money any day.
Here is the verified complaint filed for court of appeals...
Monday, December 30, 2013
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
Adoption • Lawsuit alleges conspiracy to defraud, kidnap infant at birth.
Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune Jake Strickland of South Jordan is fighting a legal battle to gain custody of his son, born Dec. 29, 2010.
An unmarried Utah father whose son was placed for adoption at birth without his knowledge or consent has filed a $130 million federal lawsuit against the biological mother, adoption agency, adoptive parents and attorneys alleging they conspired in an “illegal deceit-ridden infant adoption” that deprived him of his son.
In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Jake Strickland alleges the defendants acted in a “clandestine” manner and “essentially kidnapped” his son. It alleges the defendants engaged in racketeering, human trafficking and various kinds of fraud as part of a conspiracy to deprive Strickland of his child.
Defendants named in the lawsuit include biological mother Whitney Vivian Pettersson Demke; the adoptive parents (identified only by initials); LDS Family Services; Kirton & McConkie, and attorneys Larry Jenkins and David J. Hardy, both of whom are now associated with Kirton & McConkie. Demke could not be reached for comment.
Hardy declined to comment on the lawsuit on behalf of himself, Jenkins and their law firm. Hardy also declined comment on behalf of LDS Family Services, which handled the adoption and is represented by Kirton & McConkie.
Attorney Wes Hutchins is representing Strickland in the federal lawsuit, as well as an action pending in the Utah Court of Appeals.
The lawsuit, Hutchins said, is “basically an effort to hold everyone accountable for the conspiracy to defraud Jake.”
Strickland and Demke met in 2009 and months later she announced she was pregnant. The baby was due in mid-January 2010.
Their relationship soon turned rocky, though they continued to see each other occasionally. When Strickland told Demke he planned to sign up with Utah’s putative father registry, he says she became furious and threatened to not let him see the baby.
During the course of the pregnancy, Strickland bought groceries and gave cash to cover medical bills and help support Demke and her child from another relationship. He also accompanied her to doctor’s visits and was present when an ultrasound revealed she was carrying a boy.
The two discussed baby names — they planned to name their son Jack — shared parenting plans, including Strickland’s desire to raise the boy on his own if necessary. He was eventually led to believe Demke, who had brought up adoption as an option, supported a shared parenting plan.
That winter, the two had a joint baby shower and attended a Christmas party, both hosted by Strickland’s family.
On Dec. 28, 2010, they toured the holiday lights at the LDS Church’s Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City. The next day, Strickland exchanged text messages with Demke, but nothing seemed amiss.
In fact, she gave birth on Dec. 29 and a day later placed the baby for adoption. Strickland did not learn until Jan. 5 that Demke had already given birth and relinquished her rights to the child. There was another surprise, too: It turned out Demke was still legally married to her husband — not divorced, as she had led Strickland to believe — and under Utah law, as the child’s presumed father, he had had to sign off on the adoption despite knowing the infant was not his offspring.
On Jan. 6, Strickland launched a paternity claim and a legal battle that has met with both wins and losses. A 3rd District judge declined to dismiss Strickland’s paternity claim and asked that it be joined with the adoption proceeding underway in Utah’s 2nd District Court.
While the adoptive parents and birth mother later stipulated to Strickland’s paternity, the case was never consolidated with the adoption proceeding. Strickland learned in November 2011 that his son’s adoption had been completed. A 2nd District Judge denied Strickland’s efforts to challenge the adoption, and last January he filed a notice of appeal with the Utah Court of Appeals.
In the lawsuit, Strickland alleges Demke never intended to co-parent “Baby Jack” with him and “intentionally defrauded” him. The other parties, he alleges, assisted her in carrying out that “fraudulent scheme,” including coercing her then-estranged husband to sign a paternity relinquishment.
“Utah’s pro-adoption and anti-birth father laws, facilitated through fraud immunity, have given rise to a greater number of out-of-state birth mothers forum shopping Utah, and through their own efforts, aided by legal counsel, and in some cases by the prospective adoptive parents, they have been able to successfully place their babies for adoption through misrepresentation and fraud — keeping biological fathers in the dark throughout the process,” the complaint says.
Utah’s adoption statute, which provides immunity to birth mothers who engage in fraudulent acts, “has become an ugly sword slicing through father/child relationships … resulting in fathers being lied to, deceived, and defrauded out of their paternity rights, all in an effort to manufacture the perception of a new, and perceived ‘improved’ family relationship,” according to the complaint.
It alleges the two attorneys, agency and adoptive parents facilitated that sort of deception in the Strickland case; the attorneys also engaged in such practices in other cases involving unwed, biological fathers, the complaint alleges.
brooke@sltrib.com
Twitter: @Brooke4Trib
© Copyright 2013 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Utah Legislation Session 2013
Utah is in full swing for their legislative session. There have been numerous adoption related bills. There are quite a few bills that we support, that will be helpful for protecting father's rights. We still have a long ways to go, but I think it's a start.
SB183 helps with pushing agencies, birthmoms or father's, or adoptive parents for commiting fraud. It can be punishable by revoking of the agency's license or can reap attorneys fees if fraud can be proven. Although, this is a good step it doesn't remove the fraud immunity statue in the law and the adoption would not solely be reveresed based on fraud. In Jake's case, we have OUTRIGHT fraud in multiple forms and it would still not bring Jake and Jack together.
SB155 is a bill for open adoption agreements to be enforceable. This will be a great tool for parents thinking to place and are made promises in return for their child. These promises should be upheld. Although, they made revisions to this bill and it will only apply to DCFS currently.
Here is a story Fox13 ran about the legislative bills and Jack's story.
Fox13 Clip
SALT LAKE CITY – A Utah senator has introduced legislation that would provide legal rights for the father of a child put up for adoption.
It’s a scenario you may be familiar with: a mother gives birth to her child and doesn’t tell the father when she gives up the baby for adoption. The dad is left with no legal rights because of a legal loophole, a legal loophole some say could cost a father his child, and a bill aimed at changing that was debated in a committee hearing Tuesday, that got very heated at times.
Some excerpts (a conversation between Senator Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake County, the sponsor of the adoption bill and the chair of the committee):
“It’s my bill Senator, point of order.”
“Thank you.”
“Senator, let me answer your question.”
“Wait, whoa whoa. Questions directed at the Chair. I don’t want badgering going on.”
“I didn’t get an answer to my question.”
Questions and concerns over the adoption bill left its fate in the hands of the committee, where it’s being held for now.
Wes Hutchins, an adoption attorney, says the legislation would have held adoption agencies more accountable. Hutchins claims some agencies encourage deception and lies.
“Adoption agencies coach Mothers on how to cut birth fathers out of the parenting picture,” Hutchins said.
However, lawmakers echoed several concerns saying, “We’re saying that after an adoption occurs in this bill, anyone can say a lie was told in the process?”
Despite strong testimony from Jennifer Graham, whose son has never meet his baby boy Jack because his birth mother gave him up for adoption without his knowledge, legislators said the current law would have protected him had filed for paternity before his child was born.
“He was told that if he did that he would never see his son,” said Jennifer Graham.
“Understood,” said one State Senator.
“That is in text message,” replied Graham.
“I can see that but the law would have worked if he would have filed. You’d have your grandson.”
The Committee did not vote on Senator Robles’ bill, instead deciding to bring it back another day during the session.
SB183 helps with pushing agencies, birthmoms or father's, or adoptive parents for commiting fraud. It can be punishable by revoking of the agency's license or can reap attorneys fees if fraud can be proven. Although, this is a good step it doesn't remove the fraud immunity statue in the law and the adoption would not solely be reveresed based on fraud. In Jake's case, we have OUTRIGHT fraud in multiple forms and it would still not bring Jake and Jack together.
SB155 is a bill for open adoption agreements to be enforceable. This will be a great tool for parents thinking to place and are made promises in return for their child. These promises should be upheld. Although, they made revisions to this bill and it will only apply to DCFS currently.
Here is a story Fox13 ran about the legislative bills and Jack's story.
Fox13 Clip
SALT LAKE CITY – A Utah senator has introduced legislation that would provide legal rights for the father of a child put up for adoption.
It’s a scenario you may be familiar with: a mother gives birth to her child and doesn’t tell the father when she gives up the baby for adoption. The dad is left with no legal rights because of a legal loophole, a legal loophole some say could cost a father his child, and a bill aimed at changing that was debated in a committee hearing Tuesday, that got very heated at times.
Some excerpts (a conversation between Senator Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake County, the sponsor of the adoption bill and the chair of the committee):
“It’s my bill Senator, point of order.”
“Thank you.”
“Senator, let me answer your question.”
“Wait, whoa whoa. Questions directed at the Chair. I don’t want badgering going on.”
“I didn’t get an answer to my question.”
Questions and concerns over the adoption bill left its fate in the hands of the committee, where it’s being held for now.
Wes Hutchins, an adoption attorney, says the legislation would have held adoption agencies more accountable. Hutchins claims some agencies encourage deception and lies.
“Adoption agencies coach Mothers on how to cut birth fathers out of the parenting picture,” Hutchins said.
However, lawmakers echoed several concerns saying, “We’re saying that after an adoption occurs in this bill, anyone can say a lie was told in the process?”
Despite strong testimony from Jennifer Graham, whose son has never meet his baby boy Jack because his birth mother gave him up for adoption without his knowledge, legislators said the current law would have protected him had filed for paternity before his child was born.
“He was told that if he did that he would never see his son,” said Jennifer Graham.
“Understood,” said one State Senator.
“That is in text message,” replied Graham.
“I can see that but the law would have worked if he would have filed. You’d have your grandson.”
The Committee did not vote on Senator Robles’ bill, instead deciding to bring it back another day during the session.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Next Step.
We have heard back from Judge Hamilton on the constitutionality motion. He has denied Jake's motion. He felt like Jake's constitutional rights were not violated and he did not file timely.
This means we will be moving on with appeals as we originally had planned. It is our belief the judge felt like he was not able to rule on constitutional rights at his court level. We have another 1-3 years of court battles ahead of us.
As you can imagine we are all physically, mentally, emotionally and financially exhausted. Any financial help would be greatly appreciated to help with the ongoing legal battle. You can donate at the paypal account located on the right side of this blog. Jake will not let money get in the way to fight until the end for his son.
We still have hope that the Utah Supreme Court will rule in our favor due to the constitutionality motion. We feel like if we can also get the law changed, there is a hope we can potentially be grandfathered in, but will most likely not happen.
We will be doing some fundraisers in the Spring, and would love any help we can get with donations, or volunteers.
Thank you so much for all of the continued support and prayers. We will never give up on Jackson. He deserves the right to have his father in his life.
Jackson, we will be with you one day, we are hoping it's not when you turn 18, but nonetheless we will be with you! We Love You.
This means we will be moving on with appeals as we originally had planned. It is our belief the judge felt like he was not able to rule on constitutional rights at his court level. We have another 1-3 years of court battles ahead of us.
As you can imagine we are all physically, mentally, emotionally and financially exhausted. Any financial help would be greatly appreciated to help with the ongoing legal battle. You can donate at the paypal account located on the right side of this blog. Jake will not let money get in the way to fight until the end for his son.
We still have hope that the Utah Supreme Court will rule in our favor due to the constitutionality motion. We feel like if we can also get the law changed, there is a hope we can potentially be grandfathered in, but will most likely not happen.
We will be doing some fundraisers in the Spring, and would love any help we can get with donations, or volunteers.
Thank you so much for all of the continued support and prayers. We will never give up on Jackson. He deserves the right to have his father in his life.
Jackson, we will be with you one day, we are hoping it's not when you turn 18, but nonetheless we will be with you! We Love You.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
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
Saturday, December 29, 2012
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!
Monday, December 3, 2012
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.
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
Sunday, December 2, 2012
A Christmas Blessing?
We will be heading back to court on December 19th, back in front of Judge Hamilton. There had been some disagreeing on some issues when Larry Jenkins submitted the order to the court, and Judge Hamilton wanted to conduct a hearing. We feel like this is a good sign. We aren't sure quite what to expect from this hearing, but think we may have a chance to argue about the constitutionality motion as well as the 5th amendment right motion. This is a great time to argue about Jake's constitutional rights being violated due to the recent ruling in Ramsey Shaud's decision from the Utah Supreme Court and speaking about the due process in his case. We have strong faith and hope that Jack and Jake will be re-united in the very near future.
For anyone looking to attend, here are the details:
For anyone looking to attend, here are the details:
Farmington Court
Judge Hamilton
December 19th, 2012
2:30 PM
800 West State Street
Farmington, Utah
Thank you for the continued support. Throughout this tragic journey we have met some wonderful people that have kept us going when the light is dim. It's been almost 2 years since Jack has made his entrance into this world and we are blessed that he is here, and can't wait for the day we get to meet him.
LBBJH
(Let's Bring Baby Jack Home)
Sunday, November 4, 2012
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!
Monday, September 3, 2012
Not a coincidence.
Jackson:
We took family photos on Saturday and of course we missed you deeply. It's PAINFUL when people ask how many kids will be there. We have to say one, but we want to shout "Well, there should be two!." It's so disheartening you are not with us. We were at an amazing studio called Camera Shy and on one of their amazing walls that had chalkboard paint had Jack already wrote on the wall. It was meant to be there we know it. It was a great reminder of you. You were with us there in spirit.
Jackson, everywhere we go we are reminded of you. We will never forget you. We hope this a good indicator we can be reunited soon. Your daddy is missing you. Your cousin Boston is getting so big, so we can only imagine that you are growing like a weed as well. Eat lots of food so you can grow and be a strong boy.
:::Your Family:::
We LOVE you so so much.
Friday, August 24, 2012
All in.
Jake is all in. We will APPEAL! Fasten your seat belt, it's gonna get bumpy. We can't wait to get before the Utah Supreme Court and have Jake's constitutional rights and due process motions ruled on. There is no doubt, that Jake and Jackson will be reunited. If only the process was quicker. It will probably take about 2 years for a ruling.
Jake not only chose to continue to be with his son, but to get the laws changed in Utah and protect others from this happening.
We will never stop until justice prevails.
Thank you again for all of the positive words of encouragement. We sincerely appreciate all of the support we have received.
“Destiny is not a matter of chance; it is a matter of choice.
It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.”
― William Jennings Bryan
― William Jennings Bryan
"Even if things don't unfold the way you expected, don't be disheartened or give up.
One who continues to advance will win in the end.”
― Daisaku Ikeda
― Daisaku Ikeda
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The news...
Sorry to keep you all waiting in anticipation of the news from Judge Hamilton. On Saturday, we received the devastating news that our motion to intervene in the adoption was DENIED. Judge Hamilton solely could not rule in Jake's favor due to not filing timely according to Utah Law, even though he stated that the birth mother, Whitney Pettersson Rathjen Demke, defrauded Jake intentionally out of his child. The judge did not even address the constitutionality issues or due process. Our attorney feels that he didn't even want to address this and let the Supreme Court rule on this.
Jake is needing time to think through the next step in this emotional journey. Prayers, thoughts, and positive vibes sent his way would be greatly appreciated.
Hopefully, we will have more news on the what is to come next in the coming week. We will never give up on Jackson and will never stop fighting to get the laws changed here in Utah. More and more we keep seeing father's being denied the rights to parent their children. WHY??? Why would we deny a willing, and capable father the right to parent, when so many children grow up without a father figure or role model in their life and strive to have one.
We will never back down until the law is fair for ALL parties involved in adoption. All meaning, birth mother, birth father, adoptive parents and most importantly the CHILD. We need to seriously consider as society what message we are sending to our future generation of children who are placed for adoption illegally, unethical and based on fraudulently practices.
What will the adoptive couple say to Jackson when he asks why he has dark hair and not light hair like his parents? Will they lie to him and not tell him he is adoptive? Or will they only tell him bits and pieces about his adoption? Surely, they can't answer the truth, that he is with them due to them winning in court based on fraud, lies and dishonesty.
We will have Jackson in our lives one way or another. It's only a matter of time. We hope and pray everyday that Jackson is loved, cared for and is a healthy vibrant child. If only we knew for certain.....
Jake is needing time to think through the next step in this emotional journey. Prayers, thoughts, and positive vibes sent his way would be greatly appreciated.
Hopefully, we will have more news on the what is to come next in the coming week. We will never give up on Jackson and will never stop fighting to get the laws changed here in Utah. More and more we keep seeing father's being denied the rights to parent their children. WHY??? Why would we deny a willing, and capable father the right to parent, when so many children grow up without a father figure or role model in their life and strive to have one.
We will never back down until the law is fair for ALL parties involved in adoption. All meaning, birth mother, birth father, adoptive parents and most importantly the CHILD. We need to seriously consider as society what message we are sending to our future generation of children who are placed for adoption illegally, unethical and based on fraudulently practices.
What will the adoptive couple say to Jackson when he asks why he has dark hair and not light hair like his parents? Will they lie to him and not tell him he is adoptive? Or will they only tell him bits and pieces about his adoption? Surely, they can't answer the truth, that he is with them due to them winning in court based on fraud, lies and dishonesty.
We will have Jackson in our lives one way or another. It's only a matter of time. We hope and pray everyday that Jackson is loved, cared for and is a healthy vibrant child. If only we knew for certain.....
JACKSON MICHAEL STRICKLAND
we love you and will never give up!!!
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
10 days or less...
**Update**
Thank you so much for the many thoughts, prayers, comments and concerns. Court went very well. Judge Hamilton really let Wes our attorney share our side of the story and explain how so many things were not dealt with properly. He brought up that Jake's constitutional rights were violated, he touched on the enormous amount of fraud by Whitney, LDS Family Services, and opposing counsel David Hardy and Larry Jenkins, as well as Jake's due process to rightfully be heard was not given. Court lasted 3 hours and we thought the Judge would be ruling on allowing us to intervene that day, but after hearing argument, he said he was in a conundrum and need to take it under advisement. The Judge said he would have a ruling within 10 days of his decision. He will be ruling on 3 things: 1. Motion to Intervene in the Adoption 2. Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel, due to them being a witness to the finalization of the adoption 3. Motion for limited discovery.
Obviously, we need to intervene for this to be a victory for Jake and Jackson. After that is determined, we have filed a motion for the adoption decree to be set aside, so we can move to an evidentiary hearing to present our case.
We had so much family support there it was wonderful. Thank you again to all of our blog followers, Facebook fans, and all of you who have shown interest in our case. This will be HUGE if we can win in the district court and not have to be the ones appealing to the Supreme Court.
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Tomorrow.
Tomorrow could be one of the best or worst days yet to come in this ongoing emotional rollercoaster. The best outcome we could hope for would to be allowed to intervene in the adoption, have opposing counsel off of the case due to witnesses in the finalization of the adoption and to allow Jake to be able to meet his son, Jackson Michael Strickland, for the first time. There will be many emotions that will take place tomorrow and we can only hope we get to fill joy in our hearts, rather than crushing as we have felt so much over the past 20 months.
"Do not fear to repeat what has already been said. Men need the truth dinned into their ears many times and from all sides. The first rumor makes them prick up their ears, the second registers, and the third enters."
--Rene Theophile Hyacinthe LaÎnnec
Court:
Tomorrow 2:00 PM
Location: Layton Courthouse
435 North Wasatch Drive
Layton, Utah
Friday, August 3, 2012
See ya soon...
Jackson, 4 days until your daddy's voice will be heard.
We hope you and your daddy can meet for the first time shortly.
We love you and see you soon!
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)