citylog
The E-
Edition:
CW
page
by page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Home / Articles / News / Cover Story /  Some Call It Kidnapping Page 1
Cover Story

Some Call It Kidnapping Page 1

How Utah adoption laws take babies from the nation's unmarried fathers.

By Jesse Fruhwirth
Posted // July 28,2010 -

About one year ago, Ramsey Shaud learned he was going to be a dad. Even though he and the mother only had a casual relationship, Shaud, 23, dreamed of raising his first child—either with his baby's mother or without her, if needed.

Shaud has a Southern drawl evidencing his Florida-Panhandle upbringing in the small city of Crestview, population about 15,000. He met his baby’s mother, Shasta, 20, when they were children. She was a friend of his sister’s and her mother taught at the middle school they both attended. Shaud and Shasta started dating, however, only a few months before she became pregnant.

“I told her that I wanted to be there in every aspect: get a place together and everything,” Shaud says. “I wanted to be there for the birth of the child and I wanted the child.”

Shasta’s mother, who Shaud says was once a teen mother, objected. “‘I’m not going to let her make the same mistakes I made,’ ” Shaud recalls Shasta’s mother telling him. He says Shasta briefly considered abortion, which prompted Shaud to offer to raise the child himself.

Both Shaud and Shasta live in Florida, but he nevertheless learned quickly what it means to be a “putative father,” or an unmarried man who is presumed to be the baby’s father, under Utah adoption law.

Contact between Shaud and Shasta became strained because of Shasta’s wish to place the baby for adoption. Each time he called, she asked him to sign forms consenting to adoption and would hang up when he refused. At an impasse, communication ended entirely in November 2009. Shaud took to the Internet, where he found legal documents that would help him stop an adoption proceeding in Florida. Shasta had family in Arizona, so he did the same thing there. He said both were easy.

In December, he received a note from Shasta: “Hey, Ramsey, I’ll be in Arizona with my family for the holidays and will stay on in Utah for awhile.” It was a strange note to receive after weeks of no communication and ample anger preceding that. But, that random and mysterious note—a so-called “qualifying circumstance” under Utah law—triggered a 20-day deadline for Shaud to comply with Utah’s adoption laws—by hiring a Utah attorney and submitting various forms—or lose his child.

About eight months since receiving that note and the birth, Shaud has never seen his child, who lives with an adoptive family. Shaud is appealing. A higher court will decide whether Shaud complied with Utah’s requirements within the time limits—or whether he was one day too late. Shaud alleges that he was two days early, but that a delay at the state Office of Vital Records and Statistics sabotaged his efforts and made his paperwork one day late.

Other fathers have similar complaints. One was told by the mother that she had miscarried. Yet another was told he hadn’t adequately explained his “plan for care” of the child in his court paperwork that his hired attorney authored.

In most states, putative fathers have certain requirements they must meet to stop an adoption, but many local and national experts agree that Utah is one of the toughest—if not the toughest—state for unmarried fathers to stop an adoption. Presiding judge of the Utah Court of Appeals James Davis has written that Utah adoption laws put unmarried fathers in an “impossible bind.” Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court Christine Durham has written that Utah could become a national “magnet for those seeking to unfairly cut off opportunities” for fathers qualified to raise their own children. Five men registered as putative fathers in June alone. According to the Utah Office of Vital Records and Statistics, about 20 men register each year.

The rhetoric from the aggrieved families, many of whom communicate cross-country, is flaring. Geri Wyatt, of Dumphries, Va., whose granddaughter Emma was born in Virginia but was placed for adoption under Utah law, says the Beehive State is facilitating kidnapping.

“We went to the hospital to see his child and the hospital [in Virginia] … lied to us and told us there was no baby there. While they were keeping us at bay, they slipped the birth mother and baby out a side exit … where she signed away her rights on a Utah relinquishment form,” she says. “To me, if that isn’t kidnapping, I don’t know what is.”

Strong Adoptions
The intent of Utah’s adoption laws is to quickly place children with a stable family.

Adoption attorney and lobbyist Larry Jenkins, a man at the forefront of Utah's adoption policies, says mothers who place their children for adoption may do so to avoid sharing custody with the baby's birth father, which can lead to conflicts over parent time and child-support disagreements that could last 18 years. "They want their babies in a good, stable situation," Jenkins says.

Federal and state laws do give more power to women, and to some extent, that’s legitimate, says Utah Rep. Lorie Fowlke, R-Orem, a family-law attorney who has represented putative fathers and adoptive families. Health risks related to childbirth should give women an edge. “The guy does escape much of the trauma a girl has to go through,” she says.

But since the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that unmarried biological fathers also have rights to their children after birth.

So, to help distinguish ne’er-do-wells from truly capable and desirous parents-to-be, Utah requires unmarried fathers to “put their money where their mouth is,” as Fowlke puts it, by requiring them to file a paternity petition in court, which requires an attorney. That already is stricter than most states.

But there’s more. That court petition must state a plan for care of the child, that the father offered to pay pre-birth costs related to the pregnancy and that he is willing to pay child support. If he fails to mention either of those last two, it’s gone-baby-gone, even if he actually did pay pre-birth costs and is willing to pay child support. Simultaneously, fathers must also place their name on the Putative Father Registry in the Utah Office of Vital Records and Statistics. In many cases, they can do this any time prior to the birth of a child until the time the mother relinquishes her rights to the child and places it for adoption, which under Utah law can happen 24 hours after the birth. Ohio, on the other hand, gives fathers a minimum of 30 days after the birth.

Defenders of Utah’s laws say the putative-father registry—a tool used by dozens of states, but each with different requirements and procedures—adequately helps fathers protect their rights. Some even suggest that a national putative-fathers registry would regularize the procedure so that fathers aren’t so confused by varied state laws.

Others are critical of the registries. “As they currently exist, [putative-father registries] too often are used to cut men out under the guise of cutting them in,” says Adam Pertman, the executive director of the New York City-based Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.

A July blog post on Orem-based A Act of Love Adoptions’ Website announcing a soon-to-be-born baby available for adoption contained this note to prospective parents: “Agency will not be getting a consent from birth father. The Utah Birthfather [sic] Registry can be used specifically for families finalizing the adoption in Utah.”

The registry is only one tool “used” to cut out fathers, who are often ignored by the agencies, at least in their advertising. The Adoption Center of Choice, for example, says, “All of our adoptions are tailored to meet the needs of both our birth mothers and adoptive families.” Fathers’ needs aren’t mentioned.

Both agencies declined comment for this story.

Fowlke says, “There are some adoption agencies that will purposefully try and manipulate factual situations to get around the law.” Indeed, manipulation, deceit, bureaucratic errors and pedantic adherence to procedure have all separated fathers from their babies in Utah.

Continue reading: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Read All
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post a comment
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // July 29,2010 at 12:57

You can "call" it whatever you want. What it actually is is a legal adoption. Get over it.

 

Posted // July 29,2010 at 16:29 - Doll, it may be legal but it is morally wrong. These young men want their baby. I think it is a shame that a young lady can show up with a baby (that a young man didn't even know about) and if it is proven his, he is responsible for the next 18 years. Here are young men that want to be responsible and take care of their babies and they don't have any rights. For someone to say get over it is heartless!

 

Posted // July 29,2010 at 16:54 - Doll I mean Voodoo Doll my son did everthing legally to cover his rights not in one state but three when you have nothing but corruption in the state of Utah it is not a legal adoption. I hope you do not have a son and this happens in your family because you will have "TO GET OVER IT"

 

Posted // July 29,2010 at 19:03 - and im callin u an idiot ...its 100% kidnapping no questions asked even someone as slow as u could figure that out..so get over it! u ignorant douche bag

 

Posted // July 29,2010 at 19:43 - Only legal in Utah. Only because the State is corrupt. Sad thing is, these birth fathers protected their rights in their home states. VA even demanded the return of Emma, Utah has their own set of rules though....disgusting. Hopefully your firstborn isn't born there!

 

Posted // July 29,2010 at 20:46 - What people fail to understand is that an unmarried male does not have any rights. Paternity is not a legal right, and if these men had established paternity legally as they claim they had, these adoptions would not have been able to take place. Law is law, going after the lawyer involved will not change the law. Change the legislation. Harsh, maybe..but that is the reality. If men want to guarantee legal rights to children they help conceive, they must be married to the child's mother. You may not like to hear it, but brass tacks, that is how it is.

 

Posted // July 30,2010 at 09:03 - Refresh my history please. Slavery was legal too, right? Call it what you will...

 

Ady
Posted // July 30,2010 at 22:32 - Doll: There is no legality in the adoption of these cases. No one is "calling" it anything other than what it is............AN ILLEGAL ADOPTION! Maybe YOU should read the article a few times before making an ignorant comment as "Get over it", some people have to read things a few times before they understand it. If you READ the article you will see that Ramsey protected his rights in Florida, where the baby was conceived, in Arizona, the first state she took off to and attempted to in Utah but because the OVS (Office of Vital Statistics-in case you didn't understand that either) didn't register his paperwork timely he missed out on his CHILD?!? This isn't missing out on a free hamburger, this is a BABY-HIS baby girl. Your ignorant and crass comment not only floored me but disgusted me. SHAME ON YOU! Betty: The laws for unmarried males must differ from state to state because in the State of FLA (where Ramsey's child was conceived) and unmaried male has plenty of rights as long as he is to sign that birth certificate. A signature on a birth certificate with an unmarried male is a legal acknowledgment of paternity and is witheld in a court of law. The men have to be given the opportunity to be present at the child's birth to sign the birth certificate and jumping state to state or sneaking out the back door of a hospital doesn't exactly give them that chance. Marriage is not the only way to establish paternity. Just as if a male is on the registry, his rights are protected. Maybe our OVS just does their JOB. Just sayin...........

 

???
Posted // August 1,2010 at 16:16 - If a man and woman have sex the man automatically knows their is a possibility she is pregnant. Don't sleep with someone you aren't prepared to have a baby with. If you stayed in contact with that woman and had a close relationship she wouldn't place the child for adoption. Too often these men want nothing to do with her or the child until after the adoption happens and they feel the guilt. Then lies are made up and these men act like they cared all along and weren't able to choose to care for the child. These women need you for the full 9 months not just when the child is born.

 

Posted // August 1,2010 at 18:19 - John and Cody both stayed in contact with the birth mother. John is STILL with the birth mother of his child. So clearly, they understood the result of having intercourse. BOTH men wanted to take care of the birth mothers. In both cases, the men would have married the birth mother. To say that the birth mother wouldn't have given the child up is idiotic. You clearly know nothing about this and should stick to some simple articles you might be able to comprehend. Each father wanted and was capable to raise their children. However, in Utah, adoptive parents have more rights than biological parents. Sickening to me.

 

Posted // August 1,2010 at 20:57 - My heart goes out to both of these birth fathers. They seem sincere in wanting to raise their children. But there are sides to this story that we are not hearing. Why did these moms call an adoption agency in the first place? Did they call one in Utah because they didn't want the father involved? There are more states than Utah that have laws against the birth father. I feel that their is more to both stories we are not hearing.

 

Posted // August 1,2010 at 21:56 - "the whole story," due to PC brainwashing, people are programmed to always ask what the man did wrong or how he made the woman make her choice, including her bad and very irresponsible choices. As long as we keep doing that, WE fuel this problem much more than the men in these stories. The fact is (the actual other side of the story) that women do make bad choices more often than men do 9since women have no consequences - what you reward, you get more of...). Yes, women have been trained by folks like you and politicians, etc., that nothing is never their fault. What you reward, you get more of. The problems and corruption that govt subsidizes, we get MORE of.

 

Posted // August 2,2010 at 12:45 - "Anonymous" Sounds to me like you have an underline problem with women in general and your comment has nothing to do with these cases but how YOU feel women are seen by PC.

 

Posted // August 2,2010 at 19:36 - "the whole story," why are you so angry at the truth AND so angry at the whole story?

 

Posted // August 8,2010 at 17:28 - Emma was born in Virginia. Thus Virginia was her home state under interstate child custody placement laws. John Wyatt followed the laws of Virginia in filing for paternity in Virginia. Utah should not have proceeded with the adoption of a child who was legally a resident of another state where her father had followed the proper legal procedure to file for custody under the laws of the child's home state. As for the baby in this story it sounds like the father made the effort to file under Utah law (which I don't even think he should have had to do IMO because neither he nor the mother were from Utah, it's not fair their laws apply to him or his child) and given the reputation of the state I would not be shocked at all if they purposely made his paperwork a day late.

 

Posted // August 10,2010 at 20:58 - to anonymous:Re:the whole story "the whole story," due to PC brainwashing, people are programmed to always ask what the man did wrong or how he made the woman make her choice, including her bad and very irresponsible choices. As long as we keep doing that, WE fuel this problem much more than the men in these stories. The fact is (the actual other side of the story) that women do make bad choices more often than men do 9since women have no consequences - what you reward, you get more of...). Yes, women have been trained by folks like you and politicians, etc., that nothing is never their fault. What you reward, you get more of. The problems and corruption that govt subsidizes, we get MORE of." Wow...hate women much? Women make more bad choices then men do? Really? Where is your data supporting that? And how can you say women have no consequences? Woem are damned if they do, and damned if they dont. If they abort, they are a whore....if they keep the child, they are a whore....if they choose adoption..they are a whore. Men are the ones who can generally walk away, with no consequences. I would LOVE to hear the other sides of these stories. There is absolutely no way to know why the women who carried these children for 9 months, then made the very difficult decisions to place them in adoptive homes, decided to do so. How dare you think that YOU can judge them? It will be interesting to see how this Wyatt case plays out in court.

 

Posted // September 9,2010 at 08:29 - It might be legal in Utah, because Utah's theocracy supports the destruction of non-LDS families in order to increase their numbers. Utah punishes fathers who wish to parent their children and thumbs their nose at any state which views non-LDS fathers as being equal to every other citizen. Utah realizes the immense profit to be made from our fractured, damaging adoption system and works hard to expand this income source. Shiite Muslums would never think of deliberately seperating family members the way LDS promotes. It's sad that a fanatic cult can gain so much political power here in the US.

 

Posted // September 9,2010 at 18:25 - enfanta non grata, You can thank fimi-Marxist anti-family mole Fred Riley (director of LDS Family Svcs) for all of that destruction and so much more by bringing in the NOW anti-father hate-model and installing it firmly and getting much praise for all his destruction of the average4 family as well, via the femi-hate domestic violence agenda of "All men are EVILLLLL abusers!". He ignores the fact that fathers commit the least family abuse of spouse and children and are the most protective and stabilizing force to the family AND society and to Churches. What a wolf in sheep's clothing Fred Riley is...

 

Posted // September 9,2010 at 18:52 - @Wow, LDS Family Svcs President Fred Riley's anti-LDS, anti-Christ, anti-father, propaganda hate-programs are what take all of women's accountability away and assign women's accountability solely onto men and fathers. That's taken right out of Fred "anti-Christ" Riley's NOW-destroy-the-family, Church and society playbook. The Church recognises the anti-family offensive by NOW's outright anti-family gay/lesbian marriage program and NOW's pro-abortion program and NOW's anti-religion program. but the Church kinda seems to not recognize NOW's anti-family hysteria against fathers campaign of lies and hate through NOW's domestic violence propaganda which is their most aggressive aggressive program for destroying families right and left all around you. Isn't taking away accountability from one gender and transferring that accountability to other people (the other gender) very anti-LDS and anti-Christ teaching to begin with? But that IS Fred Riley's MO, in sheep's clothing. But who would have ever known who was behind this self-claimed Marxist corruption and mayhem which LDS FS Pres Fred Riley has built "secretly" right inside the Church, targeting the destruction of the family, Church and society? Give credit where credit is due, or you loose the war against evil when you can't even identify your own enemy - Fred "NOW" Riley, who slipped in under the radar, to NOW's delight!!!

 

Posted // September 9,2010 at 18:58 - Tom M, you're right about Fred wearing sheeps clothing. The LDS tout themselves as holding the family up as the pillar of society, then Fred's division works so hard at destroying it. He's a bigot in charge of an oxymoron of an organization. Great material for a satire if it didn't destroy so many peoples' lives. I'm not about to blame it on the feminists though. Most only want equal rights and protections and I'm with them 100%. I simply view ALL law-abiding people as deserving of equal rights and protections, something LDS and the State of Utah obviously doesn't.

 

Posted // January 7,2012 at 12:03 - Doll: the "adoption" never went through. Thomas and Chandra Zarembinski are only holding on to her. There are parental kidnapping charges which have stopped the entire process. When this is all over, Emma will go home to her daddy and the Zarembinski's will get divorced. Sounds fair to me.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // July 29,2010 at 15:15

i call this wrong and heartless if the father wants too raise his child he should have that right despite any law

 

Posted // July 29,2010 at 22:23 - What about what's best for the child? Is it best to place a child in an already broken situation when the mother wants something better for her child? If the father wants to raise his child he should step up to the plate and marry the mother. If he is willing to take on raising the child, he should also take on marrying the mother.

 

Posted // July 30,2010 at 09:10 - OK, anonymous. Fair is fair, I guess. Is it best to place a child in an already broken situation when the FATHER wants something better for HIS child? If the MOTHER wants to raise HER child SHE should step up to the plate and marry the FATHER. If SHE is willing to take on raising the child, SHE should also take on marrying the FATHER. So...by your own logic, if the mother does not want to marry the father, the father should be allowed to put their child up for adoption against the mother's wishes.

 

Posted // July 30,2010 at 16:30 - Anonymous you said that if a father is willing to take on raising the child, he should also take on marrying the mother. I can tell you that my brother offered the mother that. He told her that they could get a place & raise the child together. You say is it best to place a child in an already broken situation? Well I'll ask you this, is it fair for a father to lose his chance at raising his child because the mother isn't ready for the responsibility? I'll tell you. No it is not. This is not only affecting my brother and hurting him but it is affecting my whole family. My mother is missing all the first's of her first grandchild & I am missing all the first's of my first niece that we can never get back. She has grandaddys, aunts, uncles, cousins who all wish she could come home. We sit everynight wondering what she looks like, what she is doing, does the family she's with treat her good & love her like we would. I can tell you this it may be a broken situation to you, but that baby would get more love from this family then she would know what to do with. Divorce can happen in any family or with any couple. So the mother may think she's putting the baby in a better home with a mother & a father.. when who knows they could get a divorce & look the baby is now in another broken situation. So if one parent wants to step up & take care of their child they should not be stripped of that right & they also should not have to marry the mother just to do so.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // July 29,2010 at 18:05

Morrally wrong??? Do you know what's morrally wrong? Having sex out of wedlock. These laws are designed to promote healthy stable families for children.

 

Posted // July 29,2010 at 18:34 - Whether or not it's morally wrong to have sex out of wedlock (spare us your religious B.S.) it happens, that's the reality of it! A father who actually WANTS his child deserves to have his child. I am a single Mom with a child his father wants nothing to do with and I think that's a huge tragedy. This young woman was very selfish to take this child away from a loving father who is fighting for his child. It's disgusting! I am appalled that anyone could justify this happening.

 

Posted // July 29,2010 at 19:41 - This laws are to help lawyers make millions and ensure that their buddies get first pick on white newborns. It's 2010, people have been having sex before marriage for a long, long time. That doesn't mean they should have their children kidnapped from them.

 

Posted // July 29,2010 at 22:12 - Sure it happens, and has been happening for a long time. But does that make it right? And should the child be the one to suffer for it?

 

Posted // July 30,2010 at 16:36 - Anonymous: It is *not* the sole discretion of the mother to determine what is best for the child. She is not the only arbiter of what's right as far as the child's concerned and the role of the father. And as for your claim that father should just marry the mother if he wants to have a role: brining up a child in a loveless, and potentially resentful marriage is far from the best interest of the child anyway. And since when is it only the man who decides he doesn't want to get married. The mother has a say too in that decision and surely there are some women out there who don't want to marry the father of their children. So your stereotyped judgment and sexist beliefs earn you a "fail" on weighing on this matter!

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // July 29,2010 at 20:05

This article is very personal to me! I am a twenty eight year old school teacher, I became pregnant unexpectly whenever I was 19. I was a sophmore in college and the birth father in my case wanted nothing to do with me or the baby. My family was very conservative and basically forced me into adoption. At first the lds adoption agencey they chose seemed concerned about me and the future of both myself and my child. They drilled me on how I was unable to provide for my child, how I was basically a whore for having him out of wedlock, and how they had a great upper middle class family that would love to have him. They convinced me that this was the best and only option. They made me believe I could never provide him with the lifestyle and oppurtunity the adoptive parents could. Under more pressure than any pregnant 19 year old girl should ever be I honestly thought I was doing the right thing. I was promised this would be an "open adoption". I would recieve photos, birthday cards, and I would be a part of my sons life from a distance. I signed my rights to my son over and it was the worst mistake I ever made in my life. The adoptive parents did communicate with me until the adoption was final then the communication ceased. I have no idea where my son is today. I was a 19 year old scared girl with no where to turn and this lds kidnapping agencey swooped right in and took my son. Not 1 day goes by that I dont regret this, hate myself for it and often cry myself to sleep. These men want their childern and right here in America they can be kidnapped from them! Does anybody have any idea how much $$$ is tied into these adoptions??? MILLIONS to say the least! This is the most corrupt and disgusting thing. The adoption agencey doesn't care about the baby, the mother and damn sure not the father! They care about the upper middel class couple paying around $50,000 for the baby.

 

Posted // August 1,2010 at 22:04 - Your story is VERY common. Read them all over the Internet and even watch it on youtube, cases much like yours. This adoption scam is very much like the very negative, dark after-effects women have after an abortion. We can all thank wolves in sheep's clothing like LDS Family Services' Fred Riley for embracing the other side of feminarcissism's "compassionate" wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // July 29,2010 at 20:50

Do the Wyqtt's m not understand HIPAA laws? If a patien does not want information released, the hospital cannot release any information BY LAW!

So the hospital cannot havelied to them. Obviously the baby's mother did not want them to know she was there.

 

Posted // August 3,2010 at 11:22 - One thing you must understand in Utah or Maine, the Family Courts view a Father as nothing more than as a source of money. You see every since the Title D-4 money has come into play the states needed a source and a reason to get more money and guess who they could blame is the fathers. This process is a multi billion dollar recovery source for the states. And when you walk into the Family Courts your Constitutional Right are taken away because if your rights were enforce the courts would have nothing to stand on and that would do away with ORS and DHR. That is why when you call Jim Matheson, Orrin Hatch or Bob Bennett office they do not recognize a father as having any rights against the states... It is the money. I would like to see the Editor of this paper go forth and put some time into this and seek out the corruption and expose it to the people of the state of Utah as well as America. Because all the people know is that all Fathers are dead beats and leave there children and run and hide.

 

Posted // September 8,2010 at 16:16 - i think this is one m ore way for men to control women's bodies and reprodutive rights this stuff should stop on both sides eveyone put the baby first and decide who is bst able to care for i. then you will have a just and reasoned answer to the problem

 

Posted // September 8,2010 at 23:35 - Martha Brown, I'm so glad you brought that comment up for examination. This is in reality just one more way women control men's bodies. since when have men had ANY reproductive rights, choice like women do always and forever? Men have NO reproductive rights - wake up and take the side of true equality rather than quoting feminist supremacist rhetoric. If you are calling abstaining from sex a great male chioice then try exactly and only that for women too...

 

 
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next »
 
Close
Close
Close