Friday, August 19, 2011

Father "never going to give up" seeking custody of adopted-out daughter

From the Today Show, the case of the Virginia father whose child was adopted in Utah without his consent. Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute also interviewed.


Linda said...

Aaaaahhhhh, Utah. Stealing souls and babies since 1830.

Anonymous said...

After watching this I can't help but wonder if his motives are purely centered around the best interests of this child or for purposes less noble.

Sorry that's my take and in no way is this meant to make a sweeping judgement on birth families vs. adoptive families: who is the more able family.

One just wonders why he wasn't as vigilant with supporting and keeping in contact with this young woman after engaging in a relationship this intimate. How long was he aware of this impending birth?

And I believe someone already said it previously when this topic was discussed why is the birth mother so adamant this father not parent? There must be a rational.

And too, in this country often it IS the wishes of the birth mother that take precedent ~ whether that be wrong or not. Perhaps she wishes for this child to be raised in a two parent home with values that more closely match her own?

Sticky business any way you cut it especially when one day that baby girl begins asking about her origins.

Cassi said...

I'll never understand how anyone can question the motives of a father fighting for his child. What parent wouldn't fight to the ends of the earth and back for their child? Just because adoption is involved, it doesn't change the fact that this father wanted his daughter and yet she was snuck out of the hospital without his knowledge and sent to a different state without his consent.

We live in a very sad world that determines strangers have more rights to a child than their own families. And it is very dangerous to support any suggestion that one parent has the power to determine, without question, if the other parent is "fit" to raise their child or has any right to deny the other parent's rights for their own personal reasons.

Stories like this shock and frighten me. Support of such actions, taking a child from his or her father without their consent so that strangers may adopt them, terrifies me!

Steve said...

Anonymous at 10:26 a.m.:

1. Why should the birth father's desire be less important than the birth mother's desire? I watched part of this interview on television where it was suggested that the birth mother went to Utah because their state laws made it easier to circumvent the birth father's desires.

2. Why should we assume that the birth mother's rationale was actually rational? I do not think that the rationality of a decision can be presumed based solely on the parent's gender.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

And yet his motives are not questioned? So because he impregnated a woman, his become purely noble?

Okay then.

I'm with the other Anon.; something stinks here and something is off.

While I wouldn't want to be those adoptive parents, nor would I go forward with an adoption knowing of his search and desire to parent; still begs the question:

Where was he during the pregnancy? Did he offer support then? Was he only notified after the birth? Why are his wishes being ignored by the birth mother?

Hmmmm....I also agree with Anon. that it's a bloody mess, though he/she didn't use those words.

Anon. 2

cmarie said...

I'm amazed how many people are questioning John's motives. Why comment on the show if you didn't watch it? He was absolutely involved in the pregnancy from the beginning, taking Colleen to appointments, preparing a nursery etc. The agency and PAP's knew that he didn't want to place his daughter for adoption because that is exactly what Colleen wrote on their document and what's shown on the program. She disappeared into a motel, stopped returning his calls and it wasn't until he had secured a lawyer for himself that he finally was able to find out the child had been smuggled into Utah. The people holding her have been aware of all this since day one. They were notified (again) that the father wanted his child. At this point she was a few weeks old, but they decided that she was too bonded to them to ever return to her father and that is the argument they continue to make. Suppose they are sucessful and arrange (with the support of Utah and LDS) to keep Emma with them. They can't keep her away from a computer forever. All she'll need is a library card. Eventually she'll search her name and/or theirs and that is when the s*** will hit the fan. This might well happen years before she turns eighteen. Imagine those years! Even, if you forgive everything in the past and concentrate only on Emma's future and emotional health, returning her to her father now is absolutely in her interest. If anything's "fishy" is with Utah and the people holding Emma.

Anonymous said...

I have a few adopted kids of my own and it never ceases to amaze me that birth fathers want nothing to do with the girl they impregnated after they find out she is pregnant, but suddenly come out of the woodwork when someone else wants to step up and adopt the child. I am not making a blanket statement, but usually there is financial gain involved.

This man had warning that the girl was pregnant. He should have stepped up like a man. If she stonewalled him then there are remedies under the law he could have availed himself of. He could have started a court case alleging himself the father. She would have had to answer the charge in court and it would have stopped the woman from moving the newborn out of state for the purpose of adoption. He did none of this.

The child is 3 it is really not in the best interest of the kid to remove her now.

theadoptedones said...

Anonymous 11:30 am...

Did you watch Dateline last night? Obviously not based on your comment. John Wyatts story has been in the adoption community for the last 2.5 years - he has never wavered in his goal to be a father from the moment she told him they going to have a child. My gut feeling is her parents did some serious "pushing" and that is my speculation only.

If the PAPS had any decency they would not have accepted a child under the legal risk conditions that blatantly stated father was against adoption and wanted to parent.

If the agency had any ethical and moral foundation they would not have touched this with a ten foot pole.

Utah and everyone involved in this case would be hanging their heads in shame if they truly had a moral and ethical spirit in their souls.

All I know now is that every single adoption in Utah now carries the public taint from how they have treated fathers. There will always be whispers and questions...just like there are with Guat, Cambodia, Vietnam, Napal, etc. and guaranteed to be many more countries before people finally get the guts to say no more.

Anonymous said...

This happened to my father in 1969 in California. However, he was NEVER told that he impregnated my mother and that I was born so he didn't even know he had a daughter. This has been an industry tactic from the beginning, only Utah's blatant screwing of the fathers is bringing this serupticious practice to light.

I'm 42 and still can't find my father thanks to an industry that turned me into a fatherless child, a "blank slate" and sold me for profit.

If anyone knows a William Parker in his mid-60's...


Cassi said...

**This man had warning that the girl was pregnant. He should have stepped up like a man.**

I highly suggest you seek more information about this story since you seem unaware of the fact that the father DID step up and was supportive of the mom and his unborn child during the pregnancy.

The laws of what a father MUST DO to "prove" himself worthy to raise his own child are not created to protect the child, or even the mother. They exist to make it easier to adopt a child away from his or her father.

I'm a new grandmother (by my son and daughter-in-law) and it terrifies me and angers me to know that there are laws in place that would give complete strangers more rights to my wonderful granddaughter than her own family.

Adoption is supposed to be about children in need of families not about a couples desire for a child. Sadly, though, in this case, and many others, a little girl, who didn't need a family, was taken away from the one one that loved her and wanted her to satisfy the desires of a couple who wanted a child.

Steve said...

Thank you Cmarie and Cassi for filling in the specifics. I only saw part of the interview on the Today show. From what I watched, the father has been fighting to raise his child since he learned about the pregnancy.

Bob said...

Utah Governor Huntsman wants to be President of the US. No decent person who cares about fathers and children would vote for the violent Utah baby stealer. Huntsman needs to go down.

Anonymous said...

First off if someone wants to give their child up how can they legally have a child in one state and take it to another state to give it up. The proceedings should have to take place in the state the child was born, resides, etc. This is wrong of Utah and it makes it see so wrong that they can do that.

Louise said...

This is heartbreaking. Interesting, the father says the adoptive family signed a paper for "at risk adoption." Malinda, do you know what that is?
According to this father, the adoptive family knew from Day 1 that he wanted his baby.
What a tragedy.

theadoptedones said...


"At Risk" paperwork means one of the parents of the baby is not agreeing to the adoption and they fully understand the adoption may not happen.

Louise said...

This is such a no brainer. Totally shocking that this happened. The poor little girl. The result will probably be her removal from the only family she has ever known, all the while she cannot understand her father has loved and wanted her from Day 1.