Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

adoption without the fathers consent.....

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 7 template Next
  • #1

    adoption without the fathers consent.....

    What do you guys think about this? I saw this blog today:

    http://getbabyjackback.blogspot.com/...1_archive.html

    Not sure if its the same person but the woman in this case has the same name (and its fairly unique) as this girl: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6...eath.html?pg=1



    Jake is FIGHTING 100% to get his son rightfully back. Baby Jackson was essentially STOLEN from his father. He had no say in what happened with his child. He was decetful lied and maniuplated too. Now, we have a heartbreaking situation for two families. Jake is devastated that he doesn't have his son to hold in his arms right now.

    Jake is willing to do whatever it takes to get his son back. He has begun the process of reversing the adoption with the assistance of his attorney. This is going to be a long and expensive legal battle. In order to get his son back, he NEEDS an attorney. This is going to cost thousands of dollars.

    Jake has set up an account at AMERICA FIRST CREDIT UNION, under the name Jake Michael Strickland, to help with the legal costs. If anyone would like to donate that would be greatly appreciated. Everything will help with this legal battle.

    We will be doing fundraisers to try to help raise money for Jake. If anyone would like to contribute financial, volunteering/organinzing fundraisers, or has any useful legal advice please contact us.

    In the meantime, if anyone that has or knows any thing about Jake Strickland about his character would you please write a letter and email this over to bsouthjordan@msn.com. These will be great in court.

    Please keep Jake, his family, and the adoptive family in your thoughts and prayers. There will be no happy outcome for one family.

    I will be updating this whenever we get new information! Please check daily.


    We love you baby Jack and can't wait to meet you!
    Last edited by cougjunkie; 02-24-2011, 08:01 PM.
    *Banned*
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Interesting and tragic. I have no idea on the legalities, but my gut instinct tells me that, assuming the story he's giving is 100% true, and assuming he can establish that story with credible evidence, he's going to get the baby back (which absolutely sucks for the adoptive parents).

    I'm a skeptic by nature, (and by trade, really) so I have some doubts as to the veracity of his version of the facts. This is speculation based upon the website and the pictures, but it seems like it might be the grandparents (Jake's parents) who want the child back moreso than Jake. But that is purely speculation, and this may well be driven 100% by Jake.
    Last edited by Donuthole; 02-24-2011, 08:07 PM.
    Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

    There's three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who's got the same first name as a city; and never go near a lady's got a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by Donuthole View Post
      Interesting and tragic. I have no idea on the legalities, but my gut instinct tells me that, assuming the story he's giving is 100% true, and assuming he can establish that story with credible evidence, he's going to get the baby back (which absolutely sucks for the adoptive parents).

      I'm a skeptic by nature, (and by trade, really) so I have some doubts as to the veracity of his version of the facts. This is speculation based upon the website and the pictures, but it seems like it might be the grandparents (Jake's parents) who want the child back moreso than Jake. But that is purely speculation, and this may well be driven 100% by Jake.

      I felt the exact same way and wondered who the real driving force behind all this was.
      *Banned*

      Comment

      • #4
        A quick search of Utah code reveals that an unmarried father has to assert his paternal rights in order to preserve his right to receive notice of an adoption. If Jake wants his son back, he's going to have to convince the court that the mother's intentional deception as to her intentions merits circumvention of the law. It's an interesting argument to make, and, assuming there isn't case law already on point, I think it's a pretty compelling one.
        Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

        There's three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who's got the same first name as a city; and never go near a lady's got a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by Donuthole View Post
          A quick search of Utah code reveals that an unmarried father has to assert his paternal rights in order to preserve his right to receive notice of an adoption. If Jake wants his son back, he's going to have to convince the court that the mother's intentional deception as to her intentions merits circumvention of the law. It's an interesting argument to make, and, assuming there isn't case law already on point, I think it's a pretty compelling one.
          I have dealt with similar situations and he isn't going to win this battle. It is not difficult for unwed mothers to get their kids adopted in this manner.



          Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
          As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
          --Kendrick Lamar

          Comment

          • #6
            I'll stay out of this one.

            Comment

            • #7
              The laws are certainly flawed but put yourself in the courts position here. Mom has terminated her rights. Legally she isn't mom and that isn't changing. So the choice is dad with no mom for the child or the two people who are legally mom and dad. The best decision for the child is the adoption. Sucks for dad and changing the law makes sense but the right decision is to not disturb the adoption.

              Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
              As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
              --Kendrick Lamar

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by mpfunk View Post
                The laws are certainly flawed but put yourself in the courts position here. Mom has terminated her rights. Legally she isn't mom and that isn't changing. So the choice is dad with no mom for the child or the two people who are legally mom and dad. The best decision for the child is the adoption. Sucks for dad and changing the law makes sense but the right decision is to not disturb the adoption.

                Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
                I don't know. Does the best interests of the child come into play when there's really no threat of harm to the child? You wouldn't give the kid to the adoptive parents just because they could afford to send the kid to a better school.

                Sent from my Sprint EVO 4G
                Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                Dig your own grave, and save!

                "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                "I know that you are one of the cool and 'edgy' BYU fans" -- Wally

                GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by falafel View Post
                  I don't know. Does the best interests of the child come into play when there's really no threat of harm to the child? You wouldn't give the kid to the adoptive parents just because they could afford to send the kid to a better school.

                  Sent from my Sprint EVO 4G
                  In this case you won't even get to best interests because legally he isn't dad. I'm not going to say he is wasting his money because he probably has to fight for his own mental health an hed when his son looks into his roots he can see dad fought for him. But he has almost no shot at winning and given the circumstances I agree he should lose to adoptive parents.

                  Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
                  As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
                  --Kendrick Lamar

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mpfunk View Post
                    In this case you won't even get to best interests because legally he isn't dad. I'm not going to say he is wasting his money because he probably has to fight for his own mental health an hed when his son looks into his roots he can see dad fought for him. But he has almost no shot at winning and given the circumstances I agree he should lose to adoptive parents.

                    Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
                    Well, I shouldn't have said best interests, since thats a term of art. I only asked because you said the kid was better off with the adoptive parents. Maybe you were just talking in general, but I don't think out should really be a consideration here unless the father is really unable to provide a decent home for the kid. I don't think I can agree that the adoptive parents should get to keep the child in this situation.

                    Sent from my Sprint EVO 4G
                    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                    Dig your own grave, and save!

                    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                    "I know that you are one of the cool and 'edgy' BYU fans" -- Wally

                    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      MP: I have friends who adopted in Utah and there's a waiting period of 6 months or 1 year where the bio mom can change her mind and get the kid back. (They didn't seal the child to them until this day passed.)

                      With this provision, it doesn't sound like the State of UT sees an adoption as the firm cessation of parental rights- at least for the mother. And if the mother is given 1 year to change her mind, doesn't it follow that during that 1 year the fathers can come out of the woodwork?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Katy Lied View Post
                        MP: I have friends who adopted in Utah and there's a waiting period of 6 months or 1 year where the bio mom can change her mind and get the kid back. (They didn't seal the child to them until this day passed.)

                        With this provision, it doesn't sound like the State of UT sees an adoption as the firm cessation of parental rights- at least for the mother. And if the mother is given 1 year to change her mind, doesn't it follow that during that 1 year the fathers can come out of the woodwork?
                        Unequivocally false. She has 24 hours. The adoption is not finalized until 6 months but the birth parents rights are non existent at that time and the child is in care of the state.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Coach McGuirk View Post
                          Unequivocally false. She has 24 hours. The adoption is not finalized until 6 months but the birth parents rights are non existent at that time and the child is in care of the state.
                          Coach is right. A good friend of mine just flew back to Utah last week to adopt a baby girl. This is what they told me.

                          Btw, the agency's adoption fee wad $35,000.
                          "Sure, I fought. I had to fight all my life just to survive. They were all against me. Tried every dirty trick to cut me down, but I beat the bastards and left them in the ditch."

                          - Ty Cobb

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Coach McGuirk View Post
                            Unequivocally false. She has 24 hours. The adoption is not finalized until 6 months but the birth parents rights are non existent at that time and the child is in care of the state.
                            Coach would know better than anyone. Also my sister in law gave her baby up for adoption it was an open adoption and she is crazy to begin with after about 6 months of her harrassing the family spending nights on their couch trying to mooch money off them, etc. They cut off her contact she kept claiming she had a year to take the baby back and she was going too. I was concerned as the adoptive parents were great people (I actually knew them previously) and my SIL is not so I called them myself and they have adopted 5 other children and told me the same exact thing that Coach just said.
                            *Banned*

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              I also believe Coach is correct. My sister has adopted two - full siblings, four years apart.

                              EDIT

                              The kids are the grandkids of one of my cousins. My sister has more problems with my cousin, the natural grandmother, than with the birth parents. The relationship has made for some interesting family reunions.
                              Last edited by happyone; 02-25-2011, 07:03 AM.

                              I may be small, but I'm slow.

                              A veteran - whether active duty, retired, or national guard or reserve is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to, "The United States of America ", for an amount of "up to and including my life - it's an honor."

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 7 template Next
                              Working...
                              X