• Thu, Feb 20 - 4:00 pm ET

This Baby Was Basically Stolen From Her Father, But It’s In Her Best Interest To Stay Where She Is

illegal-adoption

There’s news in the sad, messy story of Robert Manzanares and his daughter Kaia, who was adopted without his knowledge or consent back in 2008. He is now suing Kaia’s birth mother and her adoptive parents for $120 million in damages.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune,

On Tuesday, Manzanares filed a lawsuit in Utah’s federal district court alleging his former girlfriend, the adoptive parents and the attorneys who represented them colluded to deprive him of his parental rights and essentially kidnapped his daughter.

Wow. Big accusations that are actually founded. Apparently, in 2008, little Kaia’s birth mother gave her up for adoption in Utah without Manzanares knowing, even after he had applied for paternity in Colorado. Basically, since then, he has been trying to get her back, with varying degrees of legal success. I’ve read a couple of articles about it and I just can’t figure out how the baby was even allowed to be adopted, especially considering he applied for paternity before she was born. The couple who adopted her are her birth mother’s brother and his wife, who apparently live in Utah, where her birth mother traveled to give her up for adoption. Manzanares and his daughter do have a relationship…she’s visited him in his home in Las Cruces, New Mexico and he alleges that she says she wants to live with him.

There’s a lot of legalese going on in the article linked above from the SLC Tribune, so maybe those of you with legal backgrounds can decode it a bit better than me. It seems like Manzanares is mainly suing for damages, but does also want custody of his daughter? He has a website called IllegalAdoption.com, with text like “Baby Girl deserves to be with her daddy…Gonna bring you home this time.” Reportedly, he is suing for full custody even though he isn’t opposed to Kaia’s adoptive parents remaining in her life.

Honestly, it seems clear that Manzanares should have gotten custody of Kaia back when she was a baby, based on the shady actions and maneuvering (in two states!) by the child’s birth mother. It’s tragic and terrible that he was not able to. But at this point, Kaia has been raised by her adoptive family for six years, her entire life. In my opinion, it would be cruel to take her away from them now, even if she had regular visits with them.

I feel for Manzanares, I really do. This is an incredibly sad and totally corrupt situation, one I simply can’t wrap my head around. How did an illegal adoption like this happen in the United States in the modern age? Still, I don’t think it’s a good idea to take this little girl away from her adoptive parents for good. Whatever happens with Kaia and her families, I think the fault in this situation lies with the law (and with the birth mom, whose actions against Manzanares seem needlessly harsh). Both Utah and Colorado need to do some kind of legal inquest or investigation and take a long, hard look at the loopholes that allowed a wanted child to to be adopted away from her loving father.

Photo: Shutterstock

What We're Reading:
Share This Post:
  • K.

    So…I am not necessarily in disagreement with you–that it might be traumatic for the daughter to return to her father.

    But, from a sociological (legal? I’m not a lawyer…) perspective, I might have to say that the father’s rights should be upheld (if, in fact, it is proven that the child was not legally adopted) because it sets up an uncomfortable precedent for me if he didn’t have his rights restored–it suggests that people who illegally sell/adopt/kidnap kids would just have to “wait things out.”

    And, I hate to say it, but while I would like to think that I could be selfless if I were in his shoes, I look at my own child and the idea of NOT fighting seems completely wrong as well.

    Really, really sad on all accounts. I just hope that no matter what happens, Kaia will be able to have ALL caretakers in her life and have a loving and happy childhood.

  • Crusty Socks

    Carrie, (please don’t take this personally) but would your opinion change if somehow Manzanares is the mother and it’s Kaia’s father who stole her?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Ugh, nope. He doesn’t have a “right” to the child — the child, on the other hand, has every right to a stable, loving family, and she has that with her adoptive parents.

    • Crusty Socks

      Are you talking about a moral right or legal right?

      If your opinion is that a father has no moral right to raise his own biological child that was kidnapped from him, then that’s your opinion.

      If you meant a legal right, you’re wrong in all 50 states.

      (Also, was a downvote really necessary? Aren’t you being a bit immature?)

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Morally and legally. He’s a sperm donor, and should not have the “right” to take a child away from hir family.

      PS: You realize you just argued that rapists should have a “right” to continually victimise and terrorise their victims by virtue of conceiving a child.

    • Crusty Socks

      OK, now you’re just trolling

      Eve, can I rail on Shawna? PLEASE?

    • courtneth

      Based on the information provided in this article, it’s the father who had his family taken away from him. If his child was adopted without his consent, he hasn’t done anything to waive his right to raise his own child.

      Unless you’re privy to some information the rest of us aren’t that supports your position?

    • keelhaulrose

      It is in no way saying the same as “rapists have a right to their child”.
      If you can’t see the difference between a consenting sexual relationship between adults that ended during a pregnancy and a pregnancy that results from the commission of a violent crime there’s no reasoning with you.

    • gothicgaelicgirl

      Rape is illegal- choosing to conceive a child together is not

    • courtneth

      Why do you think fathers have no rights to their children?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      He should have exactly as many rights as the mother allows him, and the mother in this case clearly wanted nothing more to do with him and did not want him to have access to the child. I don’t know what her reasons were, but if she felt it was best to keep the child away from him, she must have had good reason.

      If he wanted the child, he should have applied to adopt it, and that application should have been fairly considered in a court of law.

      She legally gave the child to another couple. That couple has been raising the child for six years. The child, by now, has bonded with the people she has always known as her parents.

      From what I’ve read, the courts (with few exceptions) have sided quite rightly with the mother and the adoptive family. This family should be kept intact, instead of torn apart at the whims of some guy that this kid has no relationship with.

    • Crusty Socks

      Obviously with your education from Whatcom Community College you have a lot to offer, but maybe you should just go away.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Maybe you should stop trolling.

    • Kheldarson

      Apply to adopt? Why should he apply to have parental rights that are already his by law by virtue of being the father?

      The only court to side with the mother and adoptive parents were the lower level courts, who held that the basis of the adoption was legal. The Utah Supreme Court overturned such support when it was shown the adoption was held under false pretenses.

      You’re presupposing things about the father and mother that are not stated. Without concrete proof of there being a good reason for her to unilaterally overrule his parental rights illegally, we can only presume that she had a reason of her own, good, bad, indifferent. It doesn’t matter to the law, only the fact that he was in process of filing for paternal rights in another state already (proof of his intent) and the fact that she lied to the courts to pull this off (proof of her intent) do.

    • SarahJesness

      Just curious: why do you feel that only the mother should have any kind of parental rights?

    • gothicgaelicgirl

      Were you dropped on your head as a child?
      EVERY parent has rights.
      The father is just that, the child’s FATHER.
      If she had used a sperm donor, then fine, but they created this life TOGETHER. The father has every ounce of parental right as the mother.

      Or have you evidence it was an immaculate conception?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      He didn’t put in ten months of work building the kid with his own body. The mother has more of a natural right because she did all the hard and dangerous work.

    • gothicgaelicgirl

      That’s utter bullshit.
      So if my partner and I had a child, I’d have more parental rights because I would be birthing the child?

      I pity your partner if you decide to have kids, seeing as how you feel a father is inferior to a mother

  • Mystik Spiral

    This is eerily similar to a Law & Order SVU episode that aired YEARS ago.

  • Kay_Sue

    This is kind of similar to the Baby Veronica story. She did, if I remember correctly, wind up in the care of her adoptive parents. It’s a tricky case on all angles. You have a parent that seems to care about his child. I can’t imagine not wanting to fight. You have adoptive parents that probably were unaware of the whole mess. Then you have a little one caught right smack dab in the middle. It’s heartbreaking, really. I would not want to be one of those in charge of sorting the mess out.

    • Crusty Socks

      But in that situation, the dad voluntarily gave up his fight for his daughter.

      And unless there’s abuse/neglect, the child should ALWAYS go back to a biological parent who wants the child back.

      I mean, what if this happened to you and your child. Someone basically kidnaps your child and adopts them, wouldn’t you want your child back, regardless of how long your child’s lived with the loving adoptive parents?

    • Maria Guido

      Yeah – he’s been fighting since day one – so, I totally agree with you.

    • Kay_Sue

      He thought he was relinquishing rights to her mother, and then on closer examination, realized that they were to adoptive parents, upon which realization he tried to contest the entire move. I don’t necessarily think it was the most moral move on his part to relinquish the rights–I am assuming to avoid financial obligations–but there is a significant difference between someone asking you to terminate your paternal rights to them, as the other biological parent, and asking you to terminate your rights so the child can be adopted by people you hadn’t met. He was deceived.

      I do see the difference as far as that case not being precedent for this one, and wasn’t suggesting it as such. For one, this has nothing to do with the ICWA, which was a key component of the Baby Veronica case. For another, the facts are different. I’m merely pointing out that there’s been several cases of this type over the last few years. This is by no means new, and I personally believe it’s something that should be addressed in adoption law. Rights of noncustodial parents should be protected too.

      And over and above that, I am surprised at you, Crusty. Usually your reading comprehension is better, because I said quite clearly: “You have a parent that seems to care about his child. I can’t imagine not wanting to fight.” Of course I would fight for my kid. I don’t blame him in the slightest. I just think it’s an incredibly complicated case for everyone involved.

    • Crusty Socks

      No, my reading comp is terrible ;P

      And of course I never meant that you wouldn’t fight for your child. Anyone who’s read your comments know you’re the type that would walk through hell for your children.

      But I always believe that a biological parent’s rights and the rights of a child to be raised by his/her biological parent far exceeds all rights of any other people. Even in that Baby Veronica case, the mother deceived the father. I could see him willing to give up his paternal rights to the baby’s mother, but not to an adoptive couple.

    • Kay_Sue

      This is a sensitive topic for me. I actually terminated my older son’s biological father’s rights. He had not seen my son since he was three days old, and there were many, many reasons that brought me to that decision. It was not an easy process, and it was an emotional one, with many tears and much questioning of whether I was doing the right thing. I can’t imagine any woman willingly depriving someone of being a father who wants to be one. It’s disgusting and despicable to me, to be honest, and even more so as someone that made that decision and found it difficult.

    • Crusty Socks

      :( I am genuinely sorry to read you had to go through that Kay.

      But what you were forced to do, and what Kaia’s mother and Veronica’s mother did are completely night and day. You were honest in how you went about this. These two other mothers were not. More importantly, you are still there loving and raising your son.

    • Kay_Sue

      Oh, I know. Believe me. And I can’t say that I regret it. It took a lot to bring me to that point, and I bear him no ill will. It was a real “oops” moment, and he had no idea how to be a father. He’d never had one himself. I hope that he found peace and happiness wherever he is now.

      It’s just that having been through making the decision, if I’m being honest, I’m more judgmental of these women than most anyone. It’s not something you should take lightly. It impacts so many lives, not the least of which is the child involved, whom as a mother, even as a mother who’s making the choice to place the child up for adoption, you should be most concerned with protecting. It’s completely mind-boggling to me

    • Kay_Sue

      And thank you. Internet forum friend validation is always nice to have.

    • Crusty Socks

      I also accept paypal

    • Kay_Sue

      Dually noted!

    • Crusty Socks

      No bitcoins… market’s in flux!

    • Alex

      The adoptive parents were the birth mother’s brother and sister-in-law, I don’t believe for a second that they were not aware of what was going on.

    • Crusty Socks

      There’s a chance that Kaia’s mom lied to them saying Kaia’s dad is a deadbeat and nowhere to be found… we just don’t know.

    • Kay_Sue

      While I do agree that they might have known something, it is incredibly easy for people to lie, and the closer you are to someone, the more likely you are to believe them unless you have significant reason not to.

      Off the top of my head, here are some of the reasons I can think of for a mother to justify not having a father to sign off his paternal rights:

      1. Can’t locate him
      2. He hasn’t been involved
      3. Don’t know who he is
      4. Killed
      5. Abducted by aliens

      Okay maybe that last part was a bit facetious, but my point is, there could be a ton of explanations for why they didn’t fully understand what they were getting into. None of the fully reprises them of any blame if they did purposefully conspire to keep this father from his child.

    • Crusty Socks

      When the father is abducted by aliens, hopefully they will probe his fathering skills

    • Kay_Sue

      I think a good probing is the only way to really settle this.

    • practicallyperfectineveryway

      I think a good probing is what got them into this whole thing in the first place ;)

    • Kay_Sue

      So right!

  • Alex

    Wasn’t there another case in Utah that was almost exactly like this, only the judge ended up awarding custody back to the father? I think the child was only two or so at the time rather than six, although I don’t know how much that made a difference:

    http://www.mommyish.com/2013/01/27/custody-battle/

    Sorry, have to side with the father on this one. Yes, it will be distressing for the child and certainly would have been less so had this been resolved, oh about six years ago. But I’m also quite concerned about the precedent it would set, as others have already alluded to, that any child you find is yours if you play “keep away” long enough.

    • elle

      Yep, I live in Utah and its a HUGE problem here. Our adoption laws make it so easy to skirt the father and woman/girls come from all over the country to adopt their kids out. Honestly I genuinely feel our adoption laws ate akin to human trafficking. Hopefully with the negative press Utah has been getting we start to change our laws. And I’m team Robert all away.

    • Angela

      And there will continue to be cases like this unless Utah revises their horrible adoption laws. In Utah in order to stop an adoption the unwed birth father has to
      1) Formally acknowledge Paternity 2) Pay for prenatal care (or attempt to) and economically support the mother during the pregnancy and 3) Hire a lawyer to officially petition for his rights in Utah.

      As long as the father was aware of the pregnancy at least 20 days prior to the birth then he only has 24 hours after the birth to have his petition completed. The birth mother is under no obligation to inform him of either the birth or her intent to place for adoption. Also, if the baby was conceived in Utah or the birth occurs in Utah then he must comply with Utah laws even if neither parents are residents of the state as long as the mother informed him that she was traveling to Utah.

      So it’s not really surprising that Utah keeps having these types of problems considering that according to our laws this was perfectly legal.

    • Kheldarson

      Thank you for that explanation. That just means even further that the mom set up this mess deliberately.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Anything to paint her as an evil baby-stealing whore, eh?

    • Kheldarson

      Did I say that? Just because you have the most anti-male bias I have ever seen does not mean that I’m trying to paint her as anything.

      She did that herself.

      Let’s look at the facts.

      Mom tells Colorado courts, where Dad is filing for paternity, that she does not intend to give the child up for adoption.

      Mom then travels to Utah and gives birth. Since Dad knows about the child, that means in Utah law he has 24 hours now to claim paternity in that state. However, he’s in Colorado and is never contacted. This means Mom made the decision to not inform him. Dad loses rights in Utah that he didn’t know he had to claim.

      Mom then skips out on a court date in Colorado to go to court in Utah to give the child up for adoption.

      Even if she didn’t plan for it to go down like that, she had to make a conscious decision to exclude him at some point. That means she is in the wrong.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      That reads like something an abused woman would do to keep her abuser away from their child, not “dishonest” at all, and she had every right to exclude him.

    • Kheldarson

      Except you are the only one presupposing abuse. Unless you have another source that even hints that was her reason, then it is an unsubstantiated claim. Is it really hard to suppose that she did this without his knowledge for reasons of her own, that have nothing to do with abuse? Maybe she was the one punishing him. Maybe her brother paid her. Maybe she wanted to be sure she’d never be liable for child support. All the reasons you are applying to him can be said of her.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Sorry, but her actions read, to me, like a woman avoiding an abusive partner.

    • Kheldarson

      Prove it then. Prove it conclusively, and I’ll back you to the ends of the earth. Because, as the facts stand, all I see is a woman who wanted to do what she wanted, consequences to others be damned.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      And I see a woman desperate to get away from her ex, and to keep her child safe.

      I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I’ve heard too many stories about abusive partners coercing women into giving birth as another way to keep control over them. I’m going to side with her until it is conclusively proven — beyond a reasonable doubt — that she is deliberately trying to “screw him over”.

    • Kheldarson

      Ah, so we’re going with the all men are rapists argument? Sorry, until you can prove conclusively that he is abusive, I get to keep presuming that she did this for a purpose beyond trying to save her child.

    • Angela

      I’ll be honest that the possibility of abuse has crossed my mind but we really don’t know the facts. I get that abuse can be really hard to prove but I don’t think the solution is to write laws that treat every unmarried man as an unfit father.

      And because I live in Utah and am familiar with the culture I can think of other possibilities. The Mormon church has a history of pressuring unwed couples to either marry or to adopt out the child to a “good” Mormon home. I know of cases where LDS (Mormon) caseworkers pressured birth mothers to deliberately deceive birth fathers in order to close an adoption. They pull out heavily doctored statistics portraying the evils of single parenthood and tell them that if she loves her unborn child at all then she will do whatever it takes to give him married, heterosexual parents. I’ve even heard of cases where birth mothers were relocated to Utah on the Church’s dime for the birth in order to take advantage of our lax adoption laws. Plus they advise the women on the exact minimum that they need to communicate to the birth father in order to keep him in the dark.

      Now in all fairness I have heard that LDS social services has undergone some reforms in the past few years so that things like this are much less common, but they still happen. Also, it’s not just Mormons. There are a few disreputable pregnancy crisis centers that use the same tactics to coerce women into adopting against the father’s will and send birth mothers to Utah to give birth.

    • moonie27

      Yeah, I don’t agree with the laws, but I can definitely see their use as a safe haven for abused, pregnant women.

      (And abused women are often forcibly impregnated as a method of controlling them, unfortunately.)

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Yep. You get 18 years of control out of one baby. (thank Science for injectable contraception!)

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      The thing is, I can’t see jumping through all those hoops without having a damn good reason to keep him in the dark.

    • Kheldarson

      She’s getting paid to keep him in the dark?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      That only happens in shitty daytime soaps.

    • Kheldarson

      Or in real life.

    • moonie27

      I had an aunt who was this hateful. She did everything and anything to keep her children’s father from them, even though he was the better parental choice by a depressingly large amount. He played completely by the rules and finally got custody of his child but she was put through three years of hell while the court battles raged on.

      Mind you, I’ve known *a lot* more women who were in abusive relationships/have been abused by men (and it is certainly a possibility in this case); she’s the only person I’ve ever met who’s that hateful. But people, both men and women, like that do exist.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      I’m not discounting the possibility.

      I’m disturbed that a bunch of women automatically jumped to the most sexist explanation: hateful bitch.

    • Team Dad

      But it’s not sexist to assume he’s abusive because he’s got a wang?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      No, it’s not. I’m not “assuming” anything, I am noting that a woman generally wouldn’t go to all that trouble to keep her baby’s father out of the loop without very, very good reason. I say this as a survivor who, if I were in a similar situation, would have done anything necessary, legal or otherwise, to keep my abuser away.

      Problem is, we only have his side of the story, and he has a vested interest in painting his ex as a vindictive bitch. (Incidentally, the exact same thing an abuser would do.)

      I want HER side of things to be heard, because I’m damn sure there’s a lot more to this story than we’re actually seeing.

    • prsnk4

      My mother did exactly this. She put more effort into keeping my sister away from my father than she has ever put into anything else in her life. She tried to hide. She exaggerated her income. She pulled her family in for support, all in the name of keeping my father away from her children. Her abuser.

      Of course, this was all bullshit. She claimed physical abuse to anyone who would listen, while glossing over the fact that she had been abusing both of her children for years. My father never touched my mother. Had I been just a bit younger at the time of my parents’ divorce, there is an excellent chance both my sister and myself would have ended up in my mother’s care permanently. As it was, I lived with my father, who was able to successfully sue for custody of my sister as well.

      You are absolutely assuming this man is abusive based on nothing more than his being a man; women can be every bit as vindictive, hateful, and abusive as any man. Pretending otherwise is misogyny at its finest. We know nothing about the mother’s mental or emotional stability. She could be a horrible abusive shrew with borderline personality disorder. She could be mean-spirited and vindictive. She could be a down-trodden abuse victim.

      Laws exist for a reason. The presumption of innocence exists for a reason. This was not a legal adoption. Hopefully they can work something out that benefits both the father, the child, and her adoptive parents. Joint custody would probably be the closest thing, assuming it is logistically possible.

    • Véronique Houde

      Calling a man a rapist because you think most women wouldn’t jump through hoops to keep a father away from their child is equally as sexist.

    • moonie27

      Okay. Her actions are either reasonable for an abused woman or unreasonable for a woman in a non-abusive situation.

      If there was abuse, it probably should’ve come out years before – but it often doesn’t. It’s sad but true that violence against women, especially if it’s sexual or domestic, is underreported, under prosecuted, and often turned against the woman when it does come out, which leads to pretty strong motivation for the woman not to tell anyone. It’s also sad that dads are not thought of as capable, real parents or that they’re not as good as parents, or that they don’t have as much claim to their child as the women do because they’re male. I don’t think you should discount the possibility of abuse; I don’t think wmdkitty should discount the possibility of a hateful ex.

      I am highly disturbed that most people are jumping to hateful-ex/wronged dad and very few are considered the abuse scenario. Both deserve equal consideration.

    • Kheldarson

      Honestly, I can see either. I’m mostly arguing the hateful ex because wmdkitty is only arguing the abuse victim. We don’t know in either case. My arguments, though, are based on the facts as presented in this article and others that I’m finding online. And the facts are this: for whatever reason, she engaged in deceitful behavior to prevent his interfering with the adoption.

      Further fact, there’s currently a lawsuit against the state that shows proof that women are coached in how to give up their children for adoption without paternal consent ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-usa-utah-adoption-idUSBREA0M1RR20140123 ). This means that there is a proven industry that supports severing a father’s rights without his knowledge. This is not right, and just lends credence to the idea that he’s probably not abusive.

    • moonie27

      To be clear, I absolutely do not agree with the laws in question. I think we need to have better paths for women to get out of abusive relationships that don’t involve punishing innocent dads.

    • Kheldarson

      Amen to that.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Agreed.

    • jabberwocky

      So even though you admit that the child will be caused distress, you side with a grown man, who can more easily recover from an emotional trauma than can a child? Do you have any children yourself? Do you realize that after six years a child is irrefutably bonded intensely with it’s parents? Do you realize the emotional devastation that will haunt this innocent child because of her father’s selfish wish to have her for himself?

      What a pity

  • ted3553

    This is a terrible decision because I agree that it might be less stress for her to stay with her adoptive parents but if I were the father who has been fighting constantly, there’s no way I’d say-ok, keep her. It seems to me that the courts screwed this up and if the adoptive parents were aware of his input from way back, then they needed to give their adopted daughter up at the beginning realizing that because her bio father wanted her, they really had no right to her

    • Crusty Socks

      Actually, both courts did exactly what they’re supposed to do.

      Courts rely on people to tell the truth. Kaia’s mom and her lawyers lied to the Utah court that the dad wasn’t around (perjury). With fraudulent information, the Utah court granted the adoption pursuant to Utah law.

      I cannot understand why Kaia’s mom and her lawyers haven’t been arrested for perjury and kidnapping. The lawyers should also be disbarred.

    • ted3553

      did the court just take their word for it that the dad wasn’t around? I have a friend who got sole parental rights and she had to show all kinds of paperwork to prove that they had contacted the father, his family, etc and hadn’t heard back from him.
      I also agree that they should then be charged for perjury

    • Crusty Socks

      Oh sorry, I didn’t mean that I knew what happened in the court proceedings. I was talking in general, that when you petition the court for adoption, you submit affidavits, etc. If a woman declares to the court that she doesn’t know who the father is, the court will usually accept that unless there is contrary evidence. I mean, the mother can’t prove a negative right? So the courts will tend to accept swore affidavits

    • Alex

      Well, correct. The court cannot force you to tell the truth, even under oath or on a sworn affidavit.

      The court CAN, however, impose legal sanctions and consequences if it is discovered that you deliberately and knowingly provided false information. THAT is what I believe the $120 million lawsuit is about, to pay the expenses involved in cleaning up this mess and making it right (six years’ worth of court filings and petitions are not cheap either).

    • Crusty Socks

      LOL I’m sure the $120M lawsuit is a “I’m F’ing seriously pissed off” thing more than anything else. I mean, none of the people involved has that money

    • Alex

      The attorneys and adoption agency, if they’re pulling something off this shady and absurdly fraudulent, might.

  • Jen

    Reminds me of the case of Grayson Vaughn/Thaddeus Wyrembek. I personally find it despicable when the adoptive parents know from the start that one of the biological parents didn’t consent to the adoption and wants their child back, but they just delay, delay, and delay as long as they can so they can then claim that the child has been with them so long that it would be too psychologically damaging for them to go back to their bio parent.

    • moonie27

      To be honest, I hear going through the adoption process is hell and I can’t imagine what I would do if my child suddenly wasn’t supposed to be my child anymore.

      They may not have known from the start, either.

  • Lackadaisical

    Without knowing anything about the father or adoptive parents I wouldn’t know who she should live with. She has been with her adoptive parents a while and if she is happy with them then that may be best for her. However they are the kind of people who would adopt a child despite her having a dad who wanted her, with legal proceedings properly started by him before birth I do not see how they could not know that. It’s shady and a nasty thing to do so not there kind of people who should be rewarded for that with a lovely daughter. However, perhaps they knew something about the dad which there was no record of so might be ignored in court. If he was physically abusive but the mum never reported it, or sadistically cruel to animals but never caught as extreme examples. There are so many potential scenarios that could make a huge difference that we might not know about. Personally I would say that an impartial social worker should investigate and discuss with the girl what she wants (away from both sides) and then make a decision that the social worker thinks is best for the kid. It sounds a tangled mess.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    While I feel bad for the alleged “father”, he really doesn’t have a case. He wasn’t the one who carried and birthed the child, he wasn’t there for the mother, and he does not have a “right” to a child that may or may not even be his. In short, he’s a sperm donor, nothing more.

    The child’s rights are paramount, in that the child is absolutely entitled to a stable, loving home — which she has with her parents — and to even consider giving this sperm-donor custody is severely disruptive to the child.

    • Crusty Socks

      Wow, did you just go through the entire comment section and DOWNVOTE everyone that disagreed with your opinion?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Nope. I downvoted the people arguing for the sperm-donor’s “rights” over the clear rights OF THE CHILD.

      Seeing that the child has a stable, loving home, it would be the height of cruelty to remove her from that home.

    • Crusty Socks

      I’m glad your inspection of that home turned out so positive.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      The adoption wouldn’t have gone through if the parents didn’t meet or exceed rigorous qualifications.

    • keelhaulrose

      It’s an uncontested family adoption (at least it is on the part of the mother). Probably not done through an agency. The inspections would be minimal, if there was even one done at all.

    • keelhaulrose

      In fact 23 states do not require a home study if the adoptive parents are close family, such as a brother.
      In a twist absolutely anyone could see coming Utah happens to be one of those states.
      Unless the court thought there reason to do a home study they didn’t have to pass one. If they passed a background check they were good to go.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      See? They met the qualifications.

      If he wanted to contest the adoption, the time to do that was six years ago, not after the child has bonded with her family!

    • Kheldarson

      He did question it. Utah barred his ability to intervene. He had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to get that initial ruling overruled, and guess what? That takes time.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      So? The child is in a stable family environment, and should remain there.

      To remove her would cause unnecessary trauma and disruption.

      He needs to recognize that the current arrangement with the adoptive parents is in the best interests of the child, and deal with it.

    • Kheldarson

      So, by that same logic, a child who was kidnapped from his/her family at a young age (you know, like on the boards at Wal-mart) and given up for adoption by the kidnapper shouldn’t be returned to their birth family because they’re in a stable family environment? This is the same situation. It’s called illegal adoption for a reason.

    • keelhaulrose

      If “pass a background check” is the only thing that makes a couple suitable for adoption you wouldn’t mind handing over a child to the BTK killer or any number of child-murderers just because they’ve never been arrested. For someone with such ridiculously high standards for biological fathers you seem to have extremely low expectations for adoptive parents.
      And, in case your reading comprehension hasn’t hit third grade level yet I’ll say it quickly: He DID file for custody a month before the baby was born.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      And that filing was either denied or dismissed. Tough shit, he lost.

    • Kheldarson

      It was in Colorado (which Utah has, in its infinite wisdom, to rule that it will only recognize paternity claims from its state) and was passed immediately upon the dad finding out about the birth.

      Again, from the article:

      “Manzanares learned Feb. 25, 2008, from someone who worked with Morelock
      that the child had already been born. He filed an emergency motion with
      the Colorado court, which entered a paternity finding days later.”

      Just because Utah has a stick up its ass, doesn’t mean the dad didn’t do exactly what he knew to do, in accordance to the state in which he lived.

    • keelhaulrose

      Again, reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit.
      He didn’t lose. In fact, he won his most recent case, which was a challenge to his paternity determination. He’s now established he’s the biological father, and can sue on that aspect. It’s ongoing.
      And very telling the adoptive parents are only trying for joint custody and not full custody. They know they don’t have a legal leg to stand on, they’re just hoping for something, but they know he’s going to get some form of custody.

    • Crusty Socks

      Also, do you have a child? Or know of a child being raised in a loving biological family?

      OK, now pretend some incredibly loving couple who wishes to raise a child kidnaps this child, and raises the child in the most loving home for 10 years.

    • Crusty Socks

      Nevermind, I just saw your facebook page.

      Let me rephrase. Pretend someone kidnaps your cats…

      (SMH)

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      You’re a fucking idiot. This was not a kidnapping, it was a legal transfer of custody to the child’s legal parents.

      If you support this “father”, you also support the laws allowing a rapist to sue for custody.

    • Crusty Socks

      Eve… please can I rail on her? just once!

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      What happened here was not “kidnapping”. It was a perfectly legal adoption that the sperm-donor is now trying to disrupt just to get back at his ex.

    • courtneth

      Did you miss the part where he filed for paternity before the child was born?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      So? He wanted to force her to keep the child instead of giving it up, it’s a common tactic.

    • Kheldarson

      That’s not what the article says at all. Quit trying to force a point on the father that doesn’t exist.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Missing the point — he’s using common tactics used by abusers and controllers, and that should be an automatic red flag. In fact, when abusers do this, they often spin it as “oh, poor me, trying to be part of the child’s life, and this horrible woman won’t let me” when she has good reason to keep him away.

    • Kheldarson

      Source? There’s no proof that he’s an abuser or a controller. There’s no statement saying that he beat the birth mother or in any way tried to give her harm: the only facts we’re given is that he wants parental rights to care for HIS DAUGHTER. That’s all, nothing more or less. Unless you have more info to share on how he’s an abuser, you need to stop reading more into this than there is.

    • Alex

      She doesn’t need a source or facts, because penis.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      There’s no proof that he’s not. If he wants parental rights, he should have been there six years ago — it’s done and over, he signed the papers (says so in the article!), he can’t go and take her away from her FAMILY.

    • Kheldarson

      He did not sign away his rights. From the article:

      “The adoption proceeding was dismissed in Utah and the case resumed in Colorado, where Manzanares had filed a paternity petition in January 2008, a month before his daughter’s premature birth on Feb. 17, 2008.”

      Further “Morelock [the mother] had denied in court papers filed in response to the paternity petition that she had any intention of giving birth in and pursuing an adoption in Utah.

      But days after making that claim, Morelock traveled to Utah on the pretense of visiting a sick relative. She contacted the Colorado court Feb. 20, 2008, three days after giving
      birth, and said she would not be at a hearing scheduled for that morning because she was out of town.”

      Then “Manzanares learned Feb. 25, 2008, from someone who worked with Morelock that the child had already been born. He filed an emergency motion with the Colorado court, which entered a paternity finding days later.”

      That is not a father who signed away his rights. That is father who consistently and persistently fought for his rights, despite the MOTHER lying to the courts in not one, but TWO, states.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      That’s what HE CLAIMS.

      And his claims aren’t enough reason to take a child away from her parents.

    • Kheldarson

      Courts seem to agree with him. The Utah Supreme Court overturned a lower judgement barring him from intervening in the adoption process as it occurred. Colorado agreed with his paternity rights. Just because the mother lied initially, the courts took that lie at face value and then used the law against him improperly, does not mean that his paternal rights were ever taken from him. This is a travesty of justice, in multiple ways, but saying that the father doesn’t have rights to his daughter is just cruel. Especially when she was taken from him fraudulently.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      So you want to traumatize this poor girl by tearing her away from HER FAMILY?

      Nope. The best interests of the child are served by leaving her with HER PARENTS, and telling this guy to deal with it.

    • Crusty Socks

      I just spoke with Liz, she says you’re embarrassing yourself and to stop

    • Kheldarson

      But he is her parent. He is every much her parent in the law as her adoptive parents are. He has been trying for six years to be part of her life and been denied because of piss poor rules that are set up against the father deliberately in Utah. So you’re basically saying that unless a non-married father gets a hold of his child immediately, he’s not allowed to raise that child or be part of his child’s life?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      You don’t get it.

      The people who took this child in and cared for her, the ones who wiped her ass, cleaned up her puke, stayed up nights when she was sick, taught her ABCs and 123s… THOSE are her parents!

      DNA ≠ “family”

    • Kheldarson

      But he was denied–again, quite illegally denied–his right to do those things. This is, again, by the same token, saying that if I were to, say, kidnap an infant from his mother’s buggy and raise him up for several years into childhood that I should have more rights than his mother or father because I was the one who wiped his ass, taught him his ABC’s, and cared for him?

      DNA may not equal family, but it sure is the start of it in the eyes of the law.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      He was not “denied”. The child was legally adopted, and this man has no claim.

    • Kheldarson

      He was denied because the adoption was held without his knowledge or consent. That’s generally considered illegal.

    • Alex

      But her claims were?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      She’s not the one trying to take the child away from her family, though. He’s trying to disrupt a family in the name of “father’s rights”.

    • Crusty Socks

      I just spoke with your mom. Terry says she wishes she gave you up for adoption abortion

    • Véronique Houde

      WMD, your reaction speaks more of countertransference than logic. You’re jumping through hoops to try and convince people of a position that makes no sense. Just quit now please. It’s really not worth it.

    • Alex

      “He wanted to force her to keep the child instead of giving it up”

      Source?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Don’t need one — it’s a common part of reproductive coercion.

    • Crusty Socks

      How the hell does Ian put up with you???

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      *yawn* Personal attacks? How… juvenile.

    • Crusty Socks
    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Pointing out a quality — “fucking idiot” — is far from a personal attack. You targeting my partner, on the other hand, WAS a personal attack, and quite juvenile, as he’s not part of this conversation.

    • Crusty Socks
    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Oh, you must be so proud of yourself right now, bullying someone for pointing out that a child shouldn’t be taken FROM HER FAMILY without damn good (i.e. they’re abusing her) reason.

    • Crusty Socks

      So tell me, is that the shed where you keep the bodies of your dead “boyfriends”?

    • Crusty Socks

      for a miserable time, should I call this number?

      (360) 756-168x

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      This kind of personal attack is totally inappropriate, and Eve really ought to be talking to you about it.

    • Crusty Socks

      You’ve been personally attacking everyone else in this thread

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      No I haven’t. I’ve pointed out faulty reasoning, and I’ve pointed out that the woman in this case must have had damn good reason to want to keep HER child away from the sperm-donor.

    • Kheldarson

      Or she could’ve been paid for her child, or she could be being a bitch to the bio dad, or she could be a druggie who was coerced or… We can all fill in the blanks of what caused her to make her decisions the way she did any way we want. So let’s just stick with the legality of it, shall we? As it stands, the adoption was illegal and dad is still trying to assert his legal rights.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      It was a LEGAL adoption, under Utah state law.

    • Kheldarson

      It’s generally held that any legal transaction begun under illegal premise is immediately illegal in and of itself even if everything else is legal. See stolen merchandise laws.

    • Alex

      I only have to wait three more months, then the car I hotwired is legally MINE, BITCHES!!!

    • Kheldarson

      Sweetness! Can I get a ride?

    • SarahJesness

      There’s a difference between what you feel is morally right and what is legal. However you feel about this case, the fact remains that the adoption was not legal.

    • Kay_Sue

      How do you know he wasn’t there for the mother? Even if he wasn’t there for her, how do you know he didn’t want to be there for her, but she didn’t allow it? I can’t agree with the idea that fathers have no rights just because they don’t actively carry their children.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      I’m inclined to believe her over the sperm-donor, as he has every motivation to lie. It’s documented fact that he’s trying to get revenge with the lawsuit.

    • Kay_Sue

      I’m legitimately curious to see the documentation on that.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      It’s in plain sight.

    • Crusty Socks

      So is your facebook profile

    • Kay_Sue

      That’s not really an answer, wmdkitty. In the dissolution of many relationships, that argument can be made for both sides. I really enjoy the downvote for asking you to support your position. I’d truly like to hear more about it. I don’t see the “documented fact” in “plain sight” that you do.

    • Crusty Socks

      HOLY SHIT! You wanna have nightmares?

      go read this shit

      http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/

    • Name

      I really hate to be the one tell you this, but women aren’t actually magical fairy princesses incapable of deceit or dishonest behavior, and men aren’t all lying monsters.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      No shit, sherlock, but there’s no evidence that this woman is lying or dishonest. (Yes, there are things people are twisting to look dishonest. However, the fact that she went to such great lengths to exclude him suggests that she had good reason to keep him away.)

    • Alex

      I didn’t think evidence was necessary to conclude lying or dishonest behavior.

    • Kheldarson

      No, there’s just the fact that she went to great lengths to exclude him.

      What if she wanted to keep him out of the loop because her brother was going to pay to keep up her drug habit? Or pay off her house? Or her car? Would those be good reasons for her to keep him out of the loop? Because that could be why she didn’t want him involved: she knew he wanted to keep the child (see the paternity claim), but wanted to get whatever benefit she was being offered by putting her child up for adoption.

    • SarahJesness

      Why would he have more motivation to lie than the mother?

    • elle

      Honestly all I’m going to say is according to report Robert DID support the mother, and even filed for custody of Kaia in Colorado but you have to file in Utah if the mom plans to adopt out there. According to reports the mom lied and said she wasn’t going to Utah to adopt out buy she did. You really don’t think the bio dad should have first rights to custody? Wow, okay. All I’m saying is look up problems with utah adoption laws. You pry won’t change your mind but Robert does have a case for custody here.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Then he should have made it six years ago.

      The child is in a safe, stable, loving home, and there is no good reason to disrupt that. If he wants supervised visitation, fine, he might have a case for that, but he is simply NOT the child’s parent — the couple that adopted her ARE her parents.

      The very notion that you would rip a child out of her home and away from her parents just because the sperm donor wants a say… BARBARIC!

    • elle

      OMFG he did 6 years ago by filing for paternity in Colorado BEFORE Kaia was born. It’s not his fault that Utah adoption law is fucked up. And he wouldn’t be “ripping a child from their arms” he has a relationship with her and has stated he want the adoptive parents in her life. Honestly at this point I think you are being willfully obtuse.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Then he should be fine with visitation instead of suing to gain custody.

    • Kel

      Uh, he DID make the case for custody six years ago. He’s been fighting since then.

      Gosh, you should do a bit of reading before you troll.

    • jan

      Sorry- are you saying he’s a rapist? Because I could not find allegations of that anywhere.

      Or a sperm donor? He sounds a lot more than that.

      Many ago my husband got a girl pregnant- she didn’t tell him she was pregnant- she just moved states (we live in Australia).

      He thought she was a little nuts- so didn’t bother keeping up to date with anything- until a few years later a friend mentioned she had a child – who looked a lot like him. The boy by that point had been in and out of foster care half a dozen times due to the mother’s various drug issues.

      He wasn’t there for her when the baby was born or while she was pregnant- but he sure as hell wanted to be part of that child’s life. We spent thousands with court cases, with DNA tests just to get VISITATION rights. His son now lives with us- he’s 15 now and it was his own choice. And to my husband it was completely and utterly worth it.

      Maybe in your little mind you can’t understand that some men do have that bond in which they desperately want to be part of their childrens’ lives. The fact he is fighting even this far makes him 1000 times the parent the birth vessel (“mother”) was.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      That’s nice, but that doesn’t mean he had any RIGHT to the child.

      Adults are not entitled to custody of children.

      Children are entitled to loving, supportive, safe families. Show me where, in the six years of her life, he has been a parent? You can’t, because HE HASN’T. The child is happy and healthy WITH HER PARENTS.

    • Alex

      You do realize that you’re now advocating for all newborns to be immediately removed from the homes of new parents and placed with couples who already provide loving and supportive and safe environments to their children?

      Because, you know, adults are not entitled to custody of children since they don’t have rights to their children, and brand-new parents clearly can’t show that they have been capable parents.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Let me repeat this slowly, just for you:

      THE CHILD IS IN A STABLE, LOVING HOME, AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE DISRUPTED.

      The child’s rights outweigh any right he might have to “his” child.

      This case, if it proceeds, will only serve to fuck over adopted children.

    • elle

      Really? You don’t think barring any legal issues (including rape, of which there is no evidence/suggestions that happened in this case) bio parents shouldn’t be entitled to custody of their child? I’m sorry that makes no sense. I repeat with the caveat that the bio parent has no legal issues.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Not after the child is given up. And, in this case, the child HAS been given up. HE SIGNED THE PAPERS HIMSELF. (Says so in the article!)

      He can’t go back on it six years later and decide now he wants “his” daughter.

    • Crusty Socks

      Quote that part. Because that’s not what any article says.

      Are you illiterate?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Nope, but you clearly are if you can’t find it.

    • Alex

      Obviously I’m slow and perhaps illiterate, so I’ll need someone (please let it be you) to point out to me the part in any article about this case that indicates he at any time signed adoption papers.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      He did, or the child wouldn’t have been put up. Anyway, it doesn’t matter — the child is healthy, happy, and shouldn’t be torn away from HER FAMILY just to make this guy happy.

    • elle

      What are you talking about? What article? I live in Utah and have been following this case. The adoption was done WITHOUT his consent/knowledge. Show me one source that cites he had knowledge/signed consent papers. And he has been fighting for 6 years.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      So he claims.

    • elle

      So it goes from you claiming he signed paperwork nd it says so in the article to you now just alleging he’s lying when people ask for a source? Ok, I’m not somebody who calls troll when people have an opposing view but in this case I’m calling you a troll and wiping my hands of any further discussion on this with you.

    • JAN

      Well, yes, my husband did have rights to his own son. The same rights his dead beat mother had when she kept trying to get him back from welfare drug overdose after drug overdose after drug overdose.

      By saying that- you’re saying that Manzanares’s ex girlfriend shouldn’t have had the right to give the child up to begin with. Or you’re saying that only one parent has the right- and it is JUST the parent that carries the child?

      Your logic is making my head hurt.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      The mother should have more of a say precisely because she’s the one who put her health, her body, and her life on the line to bring the child into the world. He put in, like five minutes and a grunt.

    • Kheldarson

      Wow. So now you’re making presumptions about their relationship too? Wow.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      No, I’m stating biological fact. SHE put herself through hell. SHE is the one who suffered through the pregnancy. SHE is the one who gave birth. And therefore SHE should have a greater say.

      Now, if he’d been the one to gestate and give birth, he’d have a claim.

    • Kheldarson

      And? I gave birth to my child too, and my husband has EQUAL say in what should be done to our child.

      Which is the key: it takes two to make a child. Therefore, two equal says. Further, the article makes no statement as to how long they were together. Maybe they were together until right before he applied for paternity; maybe their breakup is what caused him to start that legal proceeding. Maybe he’s the one who paid for every appointment. Maybe they had been planning to get married until he found out she’d been cheating on him.

      That’s why the law grants EQUAL say in parental rights, you don’t know who the instigator is in any relationship.

    • jan

      The “mother” didn’t want the child. She should have passed on the right to the person who wanted (and applied for) rights for custody next.
      That person makes up 1/2 of the genetics of the child.
      IE The father!

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Where was he when the child was born? Where was he when the child was put up for adoption? Oh… wait… HE WASN’T THERE.

    • Kheldarson

      Because the mother did not inform him. Again, his legal rights were illegally withheld from him. Don’t pin the blame on him for that.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Tell me, if I had become pregnant by my abuser and carried to term, should I have been required to notify him of the birth? Should I have been required to even consider his rights? Or should I do everything in my power — even if it means doing some questionably legal things — to keep him away from us for our safety?

      Likewise, why should she have been obligated to tell him that she’d given birth?

    • Kheldarson

      Because there is NO PROOF or ALLEGATIONS that he was an abuser. In fact, she provided the Colorado courts a signed document saying she had no intention of giving birth or pursuing an adoption in Utah. She then further lied to the court about her status.

      If there was an issue about his suitability, it should have come up then. There are legal avenues that she could have, and should have, pursued. As it stands, legally, unless you have a court order against the abuser, yes, you have to inform a father of his parental rights.

    • JAN

      In Wmdkitty’s mind- no men have parental rights because they are all abusers.
      Therefore no women need to tell men they’re giving their child up for adoption. Because they all are abusers. The end.
      End of story.
      LIKE A BRICK WALL OF STUPID

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Personal attacks such as this one are uncalled for.

    • Jan

      Because the birth vessel purposely mislead him and the courts that she wasn’t going to Utah to adopt out the child… and oh wait- she did! HENCE THA T IS WHY HE WASN’T THERE
      FUCK YOU ARE STUPID. Like head bang on the wall stupid.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Sorry, but she was under no obligation to inform him of anything, and was well within her rights to give the child up.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      And no, I wasn’t saying HE was a rapist, I’m saying that, in light of the fact that rapists can get visitation rights in 31 US states, your argument in favor of the sperm donor is also an argument in favor of rapists further terrorising their victims with 18 years of court mandated contact.

    • Rachel Sea

      You are out of your mind if you think birth is is the only bond that counts.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      It’s not the “only” bond that counts, of course, but this man has no relationship with the child beyond his DNA. Her PARENTS, with whom she has bonded, have a greater claim than he does based on the fact that they have cared for the child, met her needs, and clearly love her.

      Or should men who donate sperm be able to contact their donor-babies…

    • Rachel Sea

      So should kidnappers be able to keep the kids they steal if they get ‘em young, and keep them for 6 years?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Uhm, this wasn’t a kidnapping, it was an adoption — 100% legal under Utah law. Or are you going to accuse my parents of kidnapping, now, too?

    • Kheldarson

      It is effectively a kidnapping as it was done under false pretenses. The bio dad didn’t know of the birth of his child. He was given no legal opportunity to assert his parental rights. Therefore, any actions done to override his parental rights (such as adoption) are done without legal sanction. It was only legal under Utah law because of deceit. That’s not a good basis for a legal ruling.

    • jan

      Ah.
      Ah. I get it now.
      This is what Freud calls “projecting”.
      Were you the child of a case who was ripped away from her adoptive parents and placed into her sperm donor’s home?
      Maybe you felt that you were better off.
      WMDKitty – face the facts.
      This man did not give up his paternal rights- he has been fighting for custody from the moment he could- BEFORE his daughter was even born. Yes- it would be different if he signed papers that gave away his rights and then changed his mind- because too bad -so sad.
      However- he has ALWAYS wanted to be a part of his daughters life. He has never turned his back on her.
      Therefore- the law was used falsely against him- his daughter was given to his ex-gf’s family- and he was suddenly left without a daughter.
      From the costs it takes to go to court (and trust me I know how much it costs) I would say that if he would give up that much financially and in time (it took us 2 years just to get DNA testing because the BIRTH VESSEL wouldn’t coperate) – he would be more than willing to give his daughter a stable and loving home.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      So what? He still doesn’t have the RIGHT to disrupt that child’s life with her PARENTS.

      DNA doesn’t mean shit — he may have contributed his, but that doesn’t make him a father.

      As for your speculations, yes, I’m adopted, no, nothing to do whatsoever with my unknown sperm-donor, yes, I’ve met my birthmother, and yes, I completely understand how a scared teenager would react to having a premature baby that she wasn’t ready to care for.

      My stake in this is the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.

      It’s clear that, while this man may care a great deal for this child, he simply is not her father. The man who adopted her IS.

    • Kheldarson

      He does have the right because his right to his child was never terminated. Just because he was never given the chance to be her father in the entire time he’s been fighting for the chance does not make him less her father than the man who is currently raising her.

      Let’s compare here shall we? Your case: no paternal rights claimed, maternal rights signed over. Full custody goes to adoptive parents.

      This case: paternal rights claimed and NOT signed over, maternal rights signed over, adoptive parents now take ILLEGAL custody of the child. They do not have paternal rights.

      There’s a world of difference.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      They have legal custody, because the adoption was legal. His case is frivolous and will only serve to traumatize the child. I hope he has enough money to cover a lifetime of therapy for her…

    • Kheldarson

      They do not have legal custody, because the premise of the adoption was illegal, i.e. paternal consent was not given. Information was withheld from the father to ensure that his consent could not be obtained or officially withheld. That calls the entire proceedings into question.

    • Rachel Sea

      Your argument is that the illegally adoptive parents (just because a judge ruled in their favor doesn’t mean it was legal) have greater claim because they’ve raised her from infancy. By your argument, a kidnapper who raised a stolen infant until the child was 6 would likewise have greater claim to custody than the actual parents.

  • http://www.gypsyforlife.blogspot.com/ Trista Crass

    Whelp, this sounds like a horrific nightmare for all those involved.

  • Abbe

    He at least deserves partial custody

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Visitation. No more unless her PARENTS consent to it.

    • Kheldarson

      He’s her parent too…

    • Abbe

      You must be related to the ‘parents’ who aren’t actually her parents. The mom was an EGG DONOR and INCUBATOR who wrongfully denied a dad his rights. Go ahead and post as many comments as you want, no one here is buying your bs.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      You really don’t understand adoption, do you?

      The child is with her parents. End of.

      If this guy wants contact with the child, it will have to be either court-mandated, or with the consent of the child’s parents.

      I’m disturbed at the number of people who think it’s okay to reverse an adoption.

    • Kheldarson

      It’s not that we think it’s okay to reverse an adoption that’s been legally obtained.

      We’re saying that this was never a legal adoption to begin with, therefore there is nothing to legally reverse. The father needs to be given proper legal custody. Because he’s the only one who has proper legal custody.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      But you haven’t proven it was an illegal adoption. It was legal under state law, and wasn’t in violation of any federal laws regarding adoption.

      You don’t understand a whole lot of things, least of all the reasons a woman might want to keep the baby-daddy the hell away from their child.

    • Kheldarson

      Huh, then explain why the Utah Supreme Court just overturned a lower court’s ruling that the father couldn’t intervene in the adoption. Oh wait, could it be because the adoption was illegally obtained or at the very least questionable?

      And you’re right, I don’t understand a lot of things, least of all why we have to assume why a father is automatically suspect no matter what.

    • Abbe

      Adoptive parents can have their rights terminated just the same as any parent, especially if the child was obtained under sketchy circumstances.
      That child is going to resent the HELL out of the adoptive parents when she’s old enough to know the truth, and they’re blind if they think otherwise. If you’re such an expert on adoption you would know that adopted children do better when they have contact with their bio parents. How is this kid going to feel when she finds out they cut him out of her life?
      And you obviously have some serious daddy issues, I recommend counseling, and not trolling comments sections.

  • keelhaulrose

    The more I read this, the more I’m sure that this was an effort to keep the child from a man who wanted it.
    Before you come at me, wmdkitty, look at the facts:
    The mother announced her intentions in Colorado to adopt the child out. The father, upon hearing this, filed for paternity (which would allow him to contest the adoption)a full month before the child was born (the child was born prematurely, so he did this two months prior to the due date).
    The mother then left for Utah, a state notorious for denying birth fathers their rights, and gives notice she won’t be able to make a hearing regarding said paternity suit.
    Knowing this suit is ongoing she gives birth in Utah, and doesn’t tell the father. Three days later she does the paperwork for adoption to get own family members, still not telling father of the birth. He finds out when the child is eight days old, and immediately goes to court, gets declared father, and sues for custody (in Colorado).
    Utah doesn’t care what Colorado says, and procedes with the adoption, setting up six years of custody fights.
    Does a man really fight this long and this hard for a child he doesn’t care about?
    The mother shady here, and as much as I feel sorry for the adoptive parents it’s not right that she used Utah’s anti-father system to give her child to her brother and SIL. She knew he wanted the child, and she went out of her way to make sure she was adopted before the father knew she was born. It’s not fair for a biological father to lose his child because the egg donor/surrogate did everything she could to screw him.

    • Abbe

      Everyone needs to pretend wmdkitty isn’t here, and maybe the troll will find others to annoy!

    • Not enough Popcorn, need more

      But this is so much fun! I asked Mommyish yesterday to post an article that elicited this sort of crazy-ranting and they totally delivered! Sit back and enjoy it!

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      *steals popcorn*

      Sorry, I just love popcorn…

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      If he cares about the child he should be fighting NOT for himself, but for the best interests of the child.

    • Kheldarson

      He is fighting for her best interest. He believes that it is in her best interest to be with her family: her biological one. He’s believed this since before she was born. He has had to fight for legal rights which were illegally taken away from him since day one. He is doing what every parent has the right to do: stand up for what they believe is in their child’s best interest.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      I agree that her best interests are being with her family — her REAL family. (Hint: He isn’t)

    • Kheldarson

      He is. He still legally, morally, and biologically is. He never signed away his rights, he’s been fighting for her from day one, and he’s half her genetic code. That’s a pretty good case for family in my book.

    • Alex

      As I learned in middle school, possession is apparently nine tenths of the law.

    • oywiththepoodlesalready

      he’s very much so her real family. Bet you’d change your tune really fast if this was happening to you or someone in your family.

    • keelhaulrose

      Best interest of the child would have been the mother not trying to pull an end run around his paternity case and setting up years of legal battles. All this is her fault. He should not give up on wanting to be a father to his daughter because the legal system is abysmally slow in this country. He’s been fighting since before the girl was born. Why should he be the one to give up the fight?

    • moonie27

      Wait, you don’t know that.

      That could absolutely have been in the best interests of the child. It could also be that there are legitimate reasons to keep him out of the child’s life and the mother was trying to avoid them.

      Both of them are equally likely in this scenario, knowing nothing else about the people involved.

    • keelhaulrose

      I might be inclined to agree with you if she had raised those kind of objections in court. But it’s been six years, and there hasn’t been a peep of why he shouldn’t be allowed to have a child in his custody, only that the child is already adopted, and therefore he shouldn’t have her because of that. And I’ll mention that the adoptive family is currently suing for joint custody, not full custody, so they think he’s fit to be the girl’s father at least part of the time.

    • moonie27

      I read a study not too long back (I’m too lazy to link to it but I think the agency that did it was a US government) but fathers that fought the hardest to keep their children also had the highest rates of abuse – maybe 25% of them? Really high.

    • Kheldarson

      I’d like to see that study, first of all, but second, 25% is not even a majority of people.

    • moonie27

      It’s still uncomfortably high. 25% is way too high for me to be comfortable.

      I’m *not* saying he was abusive. I’m just saying it is a possibility that is worth considering. It is also likely that she is a hateful person or unbalanced and only wanted to screw him over.

    • Kheldarson

      But saying that just because a minority (which 25% is) is abusive is not reason to automatically act like all men are going to end up being abusive in this type of case (which is what another poster is presuming). That type of thought just makes it harder for men who are legitimately interested in their child’s future and well-being and helps cause more of the dead-beat dad phenomenon (who wants to go through a court case where their entire character is called into question?)

    • moonie27

      I actually think the investigation needs to start with her; with a very clear but unthreatening explanation that she needs to submit her objections to his parental involvement (in some way shape or form) or her child will continue to see him, do a background check on him as a matter of course, maybe call a few people who knew him/her when they were dating – and then if anything sends up a red flag, to bring him into the investigation and really start to look.

      I understand how hard it is for a father to get custody than most people, even when the mother is grossly unfit, – and I don’t agree, at all – but there are a lot of warning signs in this case.

    • Kheldarson

      Actually, I found some info (yay archives) on all of this, but let me post it as a main post so it doesn’t get all scattered.

    • keelhaulrose

      The possibility of abuse should not preclude his ability to have custody.
      By that logic we should take away kids from the “pray the sickness away” crowd because some of their kids die from not being treated, even though many grow up fine.

    • moonie27

      It should not preclude his ability to have custody but it should warrant a thorough investigation as to why the birth mother didn’t want to include him in the process.

      If she’s an awful person, fine. She’s out of the child’s life, I presume. If he’s an awful person, not so fine.

      Somebody here is a pretty rotten person.

    • keelhaulrose

      If it warranted such an investigation it should have been brought up at some point prior to the child’s six birthday. You’d think that if there was a reason for the child to not be in his custody they would have brought it up at some point, but so far they admit he should have partial custody, so they don’t think he’s unfit to be his father part of the time.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Actually, we SHOULD take those children away because they are in clear immediate danger from their parents and “faith” leaders. Endangering a child (and taking away a child’s rights to proper medical care and a science-based education) shouldn’t get a pass just because the parents are religious.

    • keelhaulrose

      Okay, how about this analogy:
      30% of black men go to prison at some point in their lives. We should take all black male babies away from their parents because that number is more than the 25% moonie’s study (of which we have no proof) cites, and obviously the parents of those 30% are raising their children wrong, so as a precaution no black male children should stay with their biological parents.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Black children aren’t placed in inherent danger due to their parents’ beliefs.

      The children of “faith healing” cults, on the other hand, ARE, by virtue of medical neglect.

    • keelhaulrose

      Okay, but the point of moonie’s statistic (that we can’t find proof of) was that this child is at increased risk because of the situation. If that’s a valid argument, than so is the black baby one.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Enough to make reasonable people look askance at men who seek custody.

    • moonie27

      Which is a shame, because sometimes the dad is the best choice for custody. It’s just such a social norm to give mom custody that you have to have some strong motivations to break it – men are conditioned to think that the female is what’s best for their child.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      I’m not gonna dispute that, some dads are fucking awesome! But it does show a seriously disturbing trend among men who seek custody, and it’s why I’m having some serious doubts about this guy.

      People keep saying “she didn’t notify him”, but aren’t asking WHY — they’re just assuming she had some kind of nefarious plan to “deliberately screw him over”. There is more to this story than just “dad seeks custody”, I’m sure of it, but I’m afraid we won’t know until it’s too late for this little girl.

    • moonie27

      It is a disturbing trend and I definitely agree that there are some questionable aspects to this case that warrant further investigation.

      I don’t think we can assume that the father is an abuser any more than we can assume the mother is vindictive, however. I certainly think the former is more likely than the latter (and I think it’s being underrepresented in this thread) – but I don’t this is a “quacks like a duck, looks like a duck” case.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      The utter lack of scrutiny of the “father’s” motives is disturbing, too.

    • Angela

      I hadn’t heard that but I can believe it as abusers love to use kids as leverage to control their partners and that moms would be more likely to fight tooth and nail if they believed their kids to be in danger. And I have wondered if that’s a factor in this case but I still don’t agree with laws that give unwed father practically no rights at all simply because some of them might be abusive. Also you can read my comment below where I highlight some of the cultural problems that are unique to Utah adoption culture which could just as easily be a factor.

    • http://fairlyoddmedia.com/ Frances Locke

      I get your point and I would genuinely love to see the study (no sarcasm, I am an info junkie) but my dad fought for me and won and I ended up with a loving dad. I didn’t have the best childhood, but I know it would have been worse without my father there. Obviously this is useless anecdata (hence legitimately wanting to see the study you mention) but here we are.

      Honestly, I’m not saying I don’t believe you. I just don’t know how I would feel knowing I was on the “better” end of a statistic.

    • moonie27

      Some fathers definitely fight for their kids because it’s in their best interest! Statistics don’t define individual instances at all. They should just help inform us how and where to look for warning signs.

      If it makes you feel better, a certain percentage of children in America are abused, kidnapped, killed, grow up in abject poverty, end up in the juvie, and die from neglect. Others develop cancer, have terminal illnesses, or disabilities. Probably you were also at higher risk than others for some of those things for whatever reasons but also ended up on the better end of a statistic.

      I’ll dig around for the study.

  • brebay

    I’m not going to try to figure out what happened in this particular case, but one thing is clear. Utah has a huge adoption industry and much of it is shady. It has the highest newborn adoption rate (most from out-of state) and one of the lowest populations. Some oversight is needed.

  • Allen

    Though this situation is unfair to the child, keeping her with the adoptive parents isn’t the answer, IMO. And I have little sympathy for the adoptive parents in cases like this where they knew early on that there was a dispute about the legality of the adoption. They could have given this child back to her father six years ago, and spared her a lot of anguish. And I find the fact that they’re related to the birth mother very suspicious. They aren’t an innocent third party who just happened to get caught up in an illegal adoption even though they tried to do everything right.

    In cases where someone kidnaps a child and raises them for years, should they be allowed to keep the child just because the child is used to living with them? No. Of course not. And an illegal adoption, especially one done intentionally, is akin to kidnapping. And if there’s any reason why this man isn’t a suitable father, they’ve had six years to make a case.

  • moonie27

    I’m not going to agree with wmdkitty, but I am going to point out that the woman’s actions are either the actions of a) a very hateful/immoral person or b) an abuse victim. (and the latter is more likely, though you can’t determine what happened by just looking at stats.)

    Also, like I said, abusers are more likely to fight harder and longer to keep custody of their kids, at least in divorce cases (they’re also more likely to get custody of their kids.)

    So while there’s no way of knowing what’s happening here, I also think it’s not unreasonable to keep an open mind about why the biological mother did what she did.

    (And I agree with the author that she should stay with her adoptive parents – it’s been six years! But the dad should continue to be part of her life as long as there’s nothing indicating he’s not good for the child.)

    • Kheldarson

      It’s not that it’s not unreasonable; it’s just that there’s no proof. One would think that it would have come up in any of the court cases that he was abusive. Instead, there’s nothing. Nada. Zip. In fact, he has another child, and there’s no claim of abuse there either. So why do we have to automatically assume that she was an abuse victim?

      Why not just leave it at they obviously had different ideas of what was best for the child, but the mother took a decidedly underhanded way of getting what she wanted?

    • moonie27

      There’s often no proof that someone is abusive. Domestic violence is not taken very seriously by a lot of jurisdictions/cops and, especially if the hypothetical abuse wasn’t physical violence or she never reported/told anyone (which is depressingly common), there would be no proof.

      Or, worse, if the hypothetical victim thought that no one would believe her (also common) and so never bothered telling anyone.

      I’m not automatically assuming anything. I’m saying that this does fit into the pattern of both an abuse victim and someone who really has it in for the father of their child and thus both are possibilities that need to be considered.

    • Kheldarson

      Fair enough then :)

    • elle

      You’re right DV is taken way too lightly. And I guess we can’t presuppose th at he wasn’t/isn’t abusive. I just honestly think it would have been brought up before by the adoptive parents and if he is abusive I hope the adoptive parents WILL fight for full custody. But I also can’t discount that there is a ton of shadiness in Utah adoptions- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/23/12-men-sue-utah-over-adoption-laws/….and I just don’t have it in me to believe all these men are abusive. Is it possible? Yes, of course.

    • moonie27

      The adoptive parents may not know. Or he may not be abusive. It’s very likely and I hope that is the case, because he’s still in the child’s life.
      Or he may be a shitty boyfriend but a good dad.

      I’m just disturbed that it’s not really being talked about as a possibility, or given equal weight to the “she’s hateful” theory. Both should be considered.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      I can confirm all three paragraphs of that post.

      My case was brushed off by the cops. Repeatedly. Because Jackass could turn his emotions off and present as scary-calm and “reasonable”. Keep in mind that my abuser hit the fucking trifecta: Sexual, Physical, and Emotional/Mental abuse.

      This guy? Sure, he might just be a guy who wants his daughter. But the more likely scenario is that he’s trying to screw over his ex because she got away from him.

    • SarahJesness

      Yeah, abuse is possible, buuuut I don’t want to accuse this guy of being abusive when there has been no evidence OR accusations. It is, of course, still a possibility, but it’s not really fair to assume someone is guilty of such a crime just because.

    • Véronique Houde

      I think that if this were the case, we would be hearing about it loud and clear.

    • moonie27

      As I said below, violence against women is both shockingly underreported and under-prosecuted, for a lot of sadly compelling reasons. It is not fair to assume that abuse will just come out when it’s relevant, especially if it’s not physically violent abuse.

  • Kheldarson

    Tracking back articles, I found some relevant information:

    1) The adoption was apparently never finalized. I’m not entirely sure, but I do believe that means that it’s not fully legal. ( http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865553006/Courtroom-scuffle-leads-to-civil-suit-in-Utah-adoption-case.html?pg=all )

    2) This is not the only case where fathers are suing for the breach of their parental rights ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-usa-utah-adoption-idUSBREA0M1RR20140123 )

    3) Even if point 1 mattered, as of January 2012, it seems the adoption was technically overturned anyway. What the fight is about now is custody ( http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57240573-78/manzanares-utah-daughter-child.html.csp and http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=19246211&itype=storyID )

    4) After the father’s and mother’s relationship ended, Dad made known that he did not want the child placed for adoption and would raise the child on his own if need be. He financially supported the mother throughout the pregnancy. In January 2008, the mother sent an e-mail stating she was heading to Utah to visit a sick relative and wanted to reopen discussions about placing their child up for adoption in April (baby due in March). Dad proceeded to file for paternity out of fear that she might go behind his back. Which she did. He didn’t find out until she returned to Colorado four days after the fact. It was at that point that he expedited his paternity suit and filed for an intervention in the adoption proceeding ( http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=19246211&itype=storyID ).

    5) The lower court found that the mother had engaged in “multiple efforts to keep [the father] in the dark” but ruled against his intervention anyway (I guess you have to be a mind reader in Utah?). It was this ruling that the Utah Supreme Court overruled. (Same article as point 4).

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      If it wasn’t finalized, that DOES change things, and he just might have a case. He’d still have to prove deliberate deception on the mother’s part, though.

    • Kheldarson

      Read point 5. The lower court proved that she had performed “multiple efforts to keep Manzanares in the dark”. The reason why the lower court ruled against his intervention was because the judge said he had been given enough clues to know this was going to happen: why else get a court statement that she wouldn’t do this and start a paternity suit? (I want to know how the court thinks he could know she would do this in February when the baby was due in March).

      However, the Supreme Court ruled that belief and knowledge could not be conflated, and that the lower court needed to go back and revisit the case and see if he had performed all reasonable actions in Colorado. Seeing as articles after that refer to the adoptive parents as “prospective adopted parents” and they’re discussing custody, not adoption, at this point, it’s safe to assume the secondary finding was probably in his favor.

    • keelhaulrose

      She did, though.

      The father told the Colorado court, when filing for paternity, that he feared the mother was going to go to Utah to have the baby and adopt it out to someone else, which is why he sued to establish paternity.
      The mother told the Colorado court she was not going to do such a thing… and then went ahead and did it anyways, so there’s a court record of her lying. Maybe this would be forgivable if she told him about the birth, but she didn’t. She kept that little piece of info from him, he found out from a third party more than a week later.

  • tk88

    Utah’s adoption laws are despicable. How could you say a father’s consent is not even needed? This situation is wildly unethical and flat out wrong. It’s very clear this woman went there to cut this poor man out of the equation. It’s not even like the adoptive parents’ hands are clean because they KNEW going into this. They’re related to the woman for God’s sake! It’s not like they were some poor, unsuspecting couple wanting a baby who were blindsided. Father and daughter seem to have a a healthy relationship, so it’s not like they would be handing her over to a stranger. If it’s judged by mental health professionals that it wouldn’t be damaging to the child to be returned to her father, it should be done immediately.

  • SarahJesness

    I agree that keeping the child in the home of the adoptive parents is in her best interests. At the same time, having her stay could set a nasty precedent for future similar cases. Lose-lose scenario and we don’t have Captain Kirk to help us. Glad I don’t have to make these decisions.

  • JLH1986

    It’s horrendous that the mother, apparently based on circumstantial evidence, stole this kid. And I can appreciate that he has been working his ass off to get her, but, I’m going to have to go with Carrie on this. This little girl has been with this family for 6 years, apparently there are no issues in the home. This little girl can’t win either way, her father can’t have her, but living with him would result in being away from the people she knows as family. If they can prove that the bio-mom did this maliciously…I hope she is punished because that little girl is the one who suffers the most.

    • keelhaulrose

      I can’t agree the should stay with the adoptive family just because the amount of time that has passed. The courts have ruled what the mother did was illegal. At the very least she committed perjury and custodial interference.
      Let me give you this scenario; A nurse takes a newborn infant from a hospital. She takes it across state lines and gives it to an adoption broker, who passes it to a couple who adopts it with no knowledge the baby was kidnapped. Six years later the child is somehow discovered to be the kidnapped infant. According to your standards the child should stay with the adoptive parents because that’s the family it knows.
      Under your logic all it takes destroy someone’s parental rights is taking their long enough for them to become accustomed to another family.

    • JLH1986

      I don’t disagree with you. But taking a child from the family they’ve known, no matter how she got there is going to be extremely painful and difficult. I just feel for the girl because she can’t win in this situation, she lives with dad she misses out on the family she does know, she lives with them she doesn’t get to be with dad. Seems like mom is the only one who wins. Do I think moving her from that family to dad right? yea. But I’m also realistic, a 6 year old girl is going to tell her dad she wants to live with him. I’m sure she would say the same thing to the adoptive parents. There needs to be an adjustment period not just a packing up and moving out. And in the situation you described I still think there should be an adjustment period, where there is a transition from one family to another. Not just showing up at home and taking the kid away. The kid should be the concern. Kids are resilient little things, but taking a kid from what they know, can and does some serious damage. Even if it’s for a good reason.

  • Crusty Socks

    OK, so the nutjobs in this comments section has turned the father into a Sperm Donor, Domestic Abuser and a Deadbeat Dad based on their own personal experience.

  • SA

    So in effect you are saying that if someone kidnaps an infant, and that infant is found 3 years later, the kidnappers should get to keep the baby because they’ve had her longer.

  • Clarepl

    I’m not sure the adoptive parents should get off so easy. Keep in mind, it’s not as if Rob just showed up when Kaia was six, stunned them by telling them she had a father and then stunned them further by telling them he would have liked to have been asked if it was OK to adopt his child, then astounded everyone by stating that he actually wanted to raise his own daughter (just as he had been saying since before she was born). These people knew that Rob was deliberately being defrauded of his child. They probably knew before he did and they certainly knew within days of him learning that they wanted to adopt Kaia, at which point she was maybe two weeks old. They fought him every step of the way, including court ordered visitation, guarenteing that he WAS a stranger to Kaia until they were threatened by the courts for contempt and Ron was finally introduced to his daughter. Also, this is not about either party disappearing from Kaia’s life (dispite the aunt and uncle’s efforts to keep Kaia’s father a stranger to her for so many years). At this point, they are all very much in her life. She knows Rob is her father and has had extensive visitation. This most recent decision was about who was going to have primary custody and who was going to have to be happy with “visitation”. Rob lost because the judge decidered that Kaia’s aunt and uncle were her “psychological parents”, but let’s keep in mind why they are…. only because they deliberately kept her from her fit and loving father. Should they really be rewarded for what they did? If the Son of Sam law prevents criminals from profitting financially from their crimes, then why should they be rewarded by the much more important custody of Rob’s desperately loved and wanted daughter? Even if we focus just on Kaia and her welfare, doesn’t she deserve better than to be raised by people who would do this to her and her father? At the very least she deserves to be in the primary custody of a truely loving parent. This couple have already shown us what kind of people they are and what they consider to be ethical behavior. Kaia deserves much more from those who serve as her “primary” parents.