Dad files $130M suit after son in UT is adopted out

[chiver78]

link

Dad files $130M lawsuit after son in Utah is given up for adoption
By Erik Ortiz, Staff Writer, NBC News

A dad whose newborn son was given up for adoption by the birth mother — without his knowledge — is seeking $130 million in a lawsuit testing the boundaries of a biological father’s rights in Utah.

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.”

.....

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.’”

***********************************************************
it may not be good policy to change the laws for everyone when presented with some outlier cases, but doesn't it behoove you to review existing policy for fairness as part of good practice?

the highlighted case is very clearly one-sided, as the bio mom has refused comment. I'm absolutely interested in her side of the story though.

[Tennesseer]

There is probably quite a bit of drama yet to be reported. There are usually no saints in these types of situations-just good editors (lawyers).

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...I'm very "pro-father" in family matters... I will almost always vote in stronger paternal rights legislation... and I'd like this father to have his day in court...

[chiver78]

Dec 31, 2013 22:11:28 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I'm very "pro-father" in family matters... I will almost always vote in stronger paternal rights legislation... and I'd like this father to have his day in court...

interesting.....I'm very "pro-child" in family matters, I don't much care what gender the stable parent is, if one is stable and the other isn't, congratulations, you have custody!

I'm all for stronger paternal rights, and equality in parental rights in general, but I'm kind of taken aback by your declaration for paternal rights w/no qualifications here.

[Deleted]

It comes down to check out who you procreate with. I grew up with my sister's daddy drama, then my other sister's, and of course our own divorce as a young teen. Now I have my daughter's friends not giving a shit they had a baby growing (notice I said had) or that S was crying her eyes out the other day, it's exhausting, damn exhausting. IT IS NOT THE BEST THING TO DO, you will have this person in your life forever. A lot of things missing from the story that I would like to know.


Just a little addition. Went to a Christening the other day and after the Knights of Colombus came in and gave the parents white roses to symbolize (I think) pro life, and they had info for the fathers. i thought that was nice.

[The Captain]

So can anyone tell me why the mother is not being prosecuted?  It seems to me several crimes were committed here not the least of which was perjury.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 1, 2014 13:34:40 GMT -5 The Captain said:

So can anyone tell me why the mother is not being prosecuted?  It seems to me several crimes were committed here not the least of which was perjury.

And you have made this determination the mother is guilty of at least perjury based only upon the statements of the father and with zero information from the mother, her attorney or the LDS adoption agency?

[billisonboard]

Jan 1, 2014 13:34:40 GMT -5 The Captain said:

So can anyone tell me why the mother is not being prosecuted?  It seems to me several crimes were committed here not the least of which was perjury.

Seems like the government is not interesting in taking the alleged father's side in this situation. The kid was adopted by a good stable LDS family. Case closed.

[sesfw]

I'm wondering how the baby-daddy reacted when told of the pregnancy.  If his first reaction was to run far away I don't blame mommy doing what she thought was best for the child.

I can't connect with the article but what little I know baby-daddy is no angel.  Legal marriage has its advantages.

[The Captain]

Jan 1, 2014 13:45:33 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 1, 2014 13:34:40 GMT -5 The Captain said:

So can anyone tell me why the mother is not being prosecuted?  It seems to me several crimes were committed here not the least of which was perjury.

And you have made this determination the mother is guilty of at least perjury based only upon the statements of the father and with zero information from the mother, her attorney or the LDS adoption agency?

To the best of my knowledge EVERY state requires both the mother and the biological FATHER to sign off on adoption.  Since it is undisputed the biological father did not sign off there has to be perjury committed by whom she asserted to be the father.

However, if you have knowledge to the contrary (where the father is not required to sign off) please let me know.

[billisonboard]

Jan 1, 2014 15:10:58 GMT -5 The Captain said:

... Since it is undisputed the biological father ...

Paternity test done?

[Tennesseer]

Jan 1, 2014 15:10:58 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Jan 1, 2014 13:45:33 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And you have made this determination the mother is guilty of at least perjury based only upon the statements of the father and with zero information from the mother, her attorney or the LDS adoption agency?

To the best of my knowledge EVERY state requires both the mother and the biological FATHER to sign off on adoption.  Since it is undisputed the biological father did not sign off there has to be perjury committed by whom she asserted to be the father.

However, if you have knowledge to the contrary (where the father is not required to sign off) please let me know.

The father didn't sign Utah's putative father registry to assert his future parental rights.  Does he even have any rights after failing to follow Utah's law?

From the link provided in the opening post:  

But after Strickland returned to Utah, the romance dissolved. They began discussing parenting options. He said he told Pettersson that he would consider signing up with Utah’s putative father registry, which is how unmarried men can document with the state that they want parental rights.    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.

And a fast explanation about the Putative Father Registry:

In the United States, putative fathers will be notified when an action to terminate their parental rights as part of adoption proceedings are filed for a child they may have fathered and registered for.

Putative father registry

How do we know Pettersson warned him not to register?  Because he said she did is not 100 proof she warned him.  And if she did warn him, that is not a crime nor should it be even considered.  The man simply needed to grow a pair and register regardless of what she may or may not have said.

[chiver78]

Jan 1, 2014 15:10:58 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Jan 1, 2014 13:45:33 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And you have made this determination the mother is guilty of at least perjury based only upon the statements of the father and with zero information from the mother, her attorney or the LDS adoption agency?

To the best of my knowledge EVERY state requires both the mother and the biological FATHER to sign off on adoption.  Since it is undisputed the biological father did not sign off there has to be perjury committed by whom she asserted to be the father.

However, if you have knowledge to the contrary (where the father is not required to sign off) please let me know.

what I read in the linked article was that she was married at the time she gave birth and that her husband was listed on the birth certificate as the presumed father, and she did not correct that information - which as far as I know is not a crime. her husband is the one that signed off on the adoption.

[billisonboard]

I think that "Dad" needs to let it go for the long term sake of the kid.  Sometimes life is a b****. 

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Dec 31, 2013 23:16:35 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Dec 31, 2013 22:11:28 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I'm very "pro-father" in family matters... I will almost always vote in stronger paternal rights legislation... and I'd like this father to have his day in court...

interesting.....I'm very "pro-child" in family matters, I don't much care what gender the stable parent is, if one is stable and the other isn't, congratulations, you have custody!

I'm all for stronger paternal rights, and equality in parental rights in general, but I'm kind of taken aback by your declaration for paternal rights w/no qualifications here.

...and I'd say it's interesting that you'd need a qualifier to accept my response... I'm pro-child AND pro-parent, but it is the paternal rights that have taken a beating, so to speak, in recent years... that's where new legislation is needed, imo...

...in the meantime, this guy should still have his day in court...

[chiver78]

Jan 1, 2014 18:04:33 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Dec 31, 2013 23:16:35 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

interesting.....I'm very "pro-child" in family matters, I don't much care what gender the stable parent is, if one is stable and the other isn't, congratulations, you have custody!

I'm all for stronger paternal rights, and equality in parental rights in general, but I'm kind of taken aback by your declaration for paternal rights w/no qualifications here.

...and I'd say it's interesting that you'd need a qualifier to accept my response... I'm pro-child AND pro-parent, but it is the paternal rights that have taken a beating, so to speak, in recent years... that's where new legislation is needed, imo...

...in the meantime, this guy should still have his day in court...

ya know, I guess I read your comments wrong last night. I think we're in complete agreement. my bad!

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jan 1, 2014 18:23:11 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jan 1, 2014 18:04:33 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...and I'd say it's interesting that you'd need a qualifier to accept my response... I'm pro-child AND pro-parent, but it is the paternal rights that have taken a beating, so to speak, in recent years... that's where new legislation is needed, imo...

...in the meantime, this guy should still have his day in court...

ya know, I guess I read your comments wrong last night. I think we're in complete agreement. my bad!

[billisonboard]

Jan 1, 2014 18:04:33 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...

...in the meantime, this guy should still have his day in court...

After a 2nd U.S. District judge shot down Strickland’s bid to gain custody, (from the link in the OP)

Looks like he has had a couple "days" already. So no custody but maybe he can get his $130 million dollars.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...maybe...

[whoisjohngalt]

So, I just finished taking a class on Non-traditional families and you wouldn't believe the kind of crap some people have to put up with bc yes, courts *usually* take the view of "best interest of the child". 

And you know what?  No one really knows what that means, really.

Also, I've long held a view that fathers get screwed royally when it comes to baby making business.  Mothers have many more rights since the second the kid was conceived. 

thank G-d I am not a man.  

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 1, 2014 16:41:12 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 1, 2014 15:10:58 GMT -5 The Captain said:

To the best of my knowledge EVERY state requires both the mother and the biological FATHER to sign off on adoption.  Since it is undisputed the biological father did not sign off there has to be perjury committed by whom she asserted to be the father.

However, if you have knowledge to the contrary (where the father is not required to sign off) please let me know.

The father didn't sign Utah's putative father registry to assert his future parental rights.  Does he even have any rights after failing to follow Utah's law?

From the link provided in the opening post:  

But after Strickland returned to Utah, the romance dissolved. They began discussing parenting options. He said he told Pettersson that he would consider signing up with Utah’s putative father registry, which is how unmarried men can document with the state that they want parental rights.    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.

And a fast explanation about the Putative Father Registry:

In the United States, putative fathers will be notified when an action to terminate their parental rights as part of adoption proceedings are filed for a child they may have fathered and registered for.

Putative father registry

How do we know Pettersson warned him not to register?  Because he said she did is not 100 proof she warned him.  And if she did warn him, that is not a crime nor should it be even considered.  The man simply needed to grow a pair and register regardless of what she may or may not have said.

This is a great question, TN.  It seems that he didn't follow the law that was there specifically to protect his parental rights.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 1, 2014 23:43:34 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

So, I just finished taking a class on Non-traditional families and you wouldn't believe the kind of crap some people have to put up with bc yes, courts *usually* take the view of "best interest of the child". 

And you know what?  No one really knows what that means, really.

Also, I've long held a view that fathers get screwed royally when it comes to baby making business.  Mothers have many more rights since the second the kid was conceived. 

thank G-d I am not a man.  

Possession is 9//10ths of the law.  How would a father come to possess a child?  She's carrying the developing newborn for 9 months, you don't rip a child away from its mother during the nursing stage which can be another year or so (or probably up to 18 given our current nutty culture).  I'm not saying it's fair, or even right in all cases- but even as a father, I'm thankful we have laws that generally favor the mother of the child. 

[swamp]

Jan 1, 2014 15:10:58 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Jan 1, 2014 13:45:33 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And you have made this determination the mother is guilty of at least perjury based only upon the statements of the father and with zero information from the mother, her attorney or the LDS adoption agency?

To the best of my knowledge EVERY state requires both the mother and the biological FATHER to sign off on adoption.  Since it is undisputed the biological father did not sign off there has to be perjury committed by whom she asserted to be the father.

However, if you have knowledge to the contrary (where the father is not required to sign off) please let me know.

New York state:

If dad does not sign off, he is served with a citation to show up in court and be heard. If he does not show, it is assumed he doesn't object. If he cannot be found, the court can fashion other means of service, like publication, email, service on a relative

If it is unknown who dad is, mom has to give sworn testimony about who she slept with and when, and who could be the father. They are tracked down from there and paternity tested.

[The Captain]

Jan 2, 2014 9:41:48 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jan 1, 2014 15:10:58 GMT -5 The Captain said:

To the best of my knowledge EVERY state requires both the mother and the biological FATHER to sign off on adoption.  Since it is undisputed the biological father did not sign off there has to be perjury committed by whom she asserted to be the father.

However, if you have knowledge to the contrary (where the father is not required to sign off) please let me know.

New York state:

If dad does not sign off, he is served with a citation to show up in court and be heard. If he does not show, it is assumed he doesn't object. If he cannot be found, the court can fashion other means of service, like publication, email, service on a relative

If it is unknown who dad is, mom has to give sworn testimony about who she slept with and when, and who could be the father. They are tracked down from there and paternity tested.

So Swamp, based on my understanding of the above, this could not have happened in NY, correct?

[whoisjohngalt]

Jan 2, 2014 9:40:52 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 1, 2014 23:43:34 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

So, I just finished taking a class on Non-traditional families and you wouldn't believe the kind of crap some people have to put up with bc yes, courts *usually* take the view of "best interest of the child". 

And you know what?  No one really knows what that means, really.

Also, I've long held a view that fathers get screwed royally when it comes to baby making business.  Mothers have many more rights since the second the kid was conceived. 

thank G-d I am not a man.  

Possession is 9//10ths of the law.  How would a father come to possess a child?  She's carrying the developing newborn for 9 months, you don't rip a child away from its mother during the nursing stage which can be another year or so (or probably up to 18 given our current nutty culture).  I'm not saying it's fair, or even right in all cases- but even as a father, I'm thankful we have laws that generally favor the mother of the child. 

Possession or not, my problem is that the mother can unilaterally decide whether to have a kid or not.  It's "her body" for only 9 months, it's the father's LIFE for the rest of his.

Women hold a lot more cards in the baby making, baby bearing business.  So, while it takes two to make that baby, it seems it only takes one to make major decisions.

[The Captain]

whoisjohngalt - I think you and I are in agreement.

I believe that if a woman acts in a manner to deny paternity rights to the father of their child they should be subject to prosecution. 

Does anyone remember the Baby Richard and Baby Jessica cases?  Why do we give a free pass to mothers who lie about the baby daddy in order to deny him his rights?

[swamp]

Jan 2, 2014 9:44:47 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Jan 2, 2014 9:41:48 GMT -5 swamp said:

New York state:

If dad does not sign off, he is served with a citation to show up in court and be heard. If he does not show, it is assumed he doesn't object. If he cannot be found, the court can fashion other means of service, like publication, email, service on a relative

If it is unknown who dad is, mom has to give sworn testimony about who she slept with and when, and who could be the father. They are tracked down from there and paternity tested.

So Swamp, based on my understanding of the above, this could not have happened in NY, correct?

probably not.  anything could happen, but not likely. 

[Tennesseer]

Jan 2, 2014 10:00:49 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jan 2, 2014 9:44:47 GMT -5 The Captain said:

So Swamp, based on my understanding of the above, this could not have happened in NY, correct?

probably not.  anything could happen, but not likely. 

Swamp-do you know ìf NY has a Putative Father law?

[swamp]

Jan 2, 2014 10:13:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 2, 2014 10:00:49 GMT -5 swamp said:

probably not.  anything could happen, but not likely. 

Swamp-do you know ìf NY has a Putative Father law?

I think so, but not sure.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 2, 2014 10:16:10 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jan 2, 2014 10:13:52 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Swamp-do you know ìf NY has a Putative Father law?

I think so, but not sure.

I just checked-they do.  Which explains why the NY courts make every effort to locate the father ìf they register.

NY State Office of Children and Family Services