Adoption Council prez-elect concerned about Utah laws

I won custody of my child, in utah, in circumstances very different (but not tooo different) from the plight of Emma's dad, but nevertheless I found that a coherent case presented to a reasonable judge can gain traction. This case regarding Emma is a high-profile news case now, but behind the flurry of reports, the judges must have facts to determine not only the law, but, really and truly, where the best placement for the child will be. In Emma's case the mum didn't want her. End of story. But who next? And by what measure should we make that decision? By religion? biological imperitive? financial practicalities? common decency? And - pardon my insolence - was the mum paid for this service of adopting her child away? (yes, dear reader, some mothers get paid cash by adoptive parents and agencies for their babies; but do the dads get a cut of the loot?)(PS - Adoption info is public info at the county court, last time I looked) And, what were mum's motives for denying dad the right and option of being dad? There is no better way to spite a man than to deny, remove, sell the man's biological child out from under him. It is the ultimate form of payback, a fabulously painful blow. But now to the dad - is he a stellar citizen worthy of raising the child? Does he have skeletons in his closet? (Does anyone not have some bones rattling around?) But has he not expressed sufficient and credible desire to prove his worth as a father by going public with his agonizing tale? Really, how is it that a father must prove his worthiness as a father when a mother can slough off a baby she doesn't want with the stroke of a pen on an adoption form? Where is the moral sense in that? Oh, this is not a pretty tale, and I doubt the whole tale has been unveiled. Regardless, this case is a battlegound for some basic primal issues of biological succession: Who has foremost right to a child? Mum? Dad? An adoptive parent? a good attorney/lobbyist/adoption agency? A judge - who is also considering 20 cases in the same day? Someone with an inside track to people in power? To base a legal decision as important to the child, the parents, adoptive parents and to future outcomes of similar cases, on details like whether-or-not a dad filed a paternity-related document in the required time (a document most people would not know was required) is an insult to the intent of laws created to protect children and to uphold the institution of parenthood. I can tell you from personal experience that in utah critical filings for child custody matters are routinely ignored/broken/given leeway/lost/misplaced/misinterpreted/waived by courts, all at the discretion of judges and clerks of the court. The Appeals Court and the Supreme court are intended to filter law into the most pure and 'correct' applications and to 'correct' the potential flaws that district courts might build into a case. However, it seems quite primal and straightforward to this reader that if a mother does not want a child or is incapable to care for said child, then the father should have the next right of refusal to raise that child. If he does not or can not care for said child, then adoption is logical. but a willing father's natural right should not be obfuscated by the shennanigans of lobbyists, lawyers and shufflers of a mountain of paperwork that is replete with incomprehensible language and unfollowable rules. Some day this child will read all the legal paperwork and the newspaper accounts of the battle waged over her. Whatever the outcome she'll want to know who her biological parents are, and she'll want to know who made the decisions that got her to the place where she has landed. That will be her right to know, warts and all, and one hopes she can handle that knowledge. One also hopes that those who will make the decisions in this case can sleep with the same knowledge.

Clearly you are smoking crack! Jenkins and everyone who support him are a bunch of thieves. Did he steal a baby for you? That would be the only reason I could envision supporting him. Why don't you pull your head out and realize that Jenkins is ruining lives of people who deserve to raise their children. Every man in this article had intent to raise their children. Not the fault of the father that the birth mothers didn't want anything to do with the children. You should pray to God that this doesn't ever happen to you or one of your family members.

Mr. Jenkins deserves a special place in hell for the pain he has inflicted on unwed fathers and for the lies he has both taken part in and provided legal cover for. He purposefully aids in the kidnapping of children from their fathers. There can be no other description of what he does on behalf of his immoral adoption agency clients.

So glad to finally see people questioning Jenkins' motives. I have had a strange feeling that he adopted (kidnapped) his own children. Hopefully, once all eyes are on him, this madness will stop and all the children that have been taken away from their Fathers (and Mothers) will be returned and Jenkins himself will reimburse all the attorney fees that have been spent fighting this fight!