Too bad Baby Emma's father didn't see "Juno" first...
This, from the birth father’s perspective, is the strange story of “Baby Emma,” a newborn whisked out of Virginia by her mother to be adopted by a couple in Utah, which has unusual laws that seem to circumvent fathers’ rights in others states:
“My name is John Wyatt, the birth father of Baby Emma Wyatt, born February 10, 2009 in Woodbridge, Virginia. I have never held my daughter in my arms or even been allowed to see her in person. My daughter has never had her Daddy hold her and say “I love you” to her, or hug her and kiss her. Baby Emma and I have been denied those precious moments together.
“Imagine this happening to you: as a 20 year old, you have been friends with the mother since second grade and you have dated since middle school. You anxiously make preparations with the mother of your child, your childhood sweetheart, for the arrival of your new baby. You go to the doctor’s appointments, you rub the mother’s belly and feel your baby moving and kicking in the womb. Both of you pick out the name. It’s so exciting, you can hardly wait for the arrival of your new baby!! You look forward to what you expect to be the happiest moment of your life, to be with the mother and baby at birth…Both of you make plans on raising the baby together. “One cold evening in February, 13 days before the due date, you talk by telephone and you reconfirm your love for each other and discuss the baby’s future in your lives….The next day, you call your girlfriend and there is no answer. Throughout the day you call her getting more worried with each call. But, still no answer. The next morning you rush to the hospital to see if something went wrong…You ask at the reception desk for her room number and you are told to wait. About 15 minutes later, a hospital administrator tells you there is no patient by the mother’s name. And then, you find out that your baby was born 12 days early. My daughter, Emma, was born and taken out the “back door” of the hospital to be adopted without my knowledge or my consent. You were not allowed to be in the delivery room. You did not experience sitting in the waiting room waiting, and waiting and waiting for the nurse to come out and tell you, “Congratulations, Mr. Wyatt, you have a daughter” or “a son”. I was not allowed to even see my daughter in the hospital before she disappeared.
“I waited and waited to see her that night. She was hidden in a hotel in a room reserved with a stranger’s name. An attorney and a Utah adoption agency representative met with her that evening and had her sign away her rights to my daughter. I never did see her. Not that night, not ever.
“I was horrified to find out later that my daughter had been taken from the State of Virginia to Utah to be adopted. I soon learned about Utah’s adoption laws and the biased laws they have against biological fathers and father’s rights.”
[You can see the whole story on Wyatt’s website.]
Thus began a long legal battle in which John Wyatt tried to get his daughter back, or at least to have visiting rights. I have no comment on the legal issues; when states duke it out over conflicting laws and jurisdictions, matters of right and wrong are often an afterthought. The ethical issues are clearer.
Did Emily Fahland, Baby Emma’s mother, act unethically? Obviously, if John Wyatt’s account is anywhere close to the truth. She misled him, she deceived him, she lied to him; she was brutally unfair to him, and cowardly in the bargain. But John Wyatt’s blithe and idyllic description of his anticipated parenthood and his pain at his ultimate betrayal leave out a basic ethical principle: accountability. Wyatt’s plight arises entirely from the fact that he seems to have never heard of the concept of marriage, which would have served four important and culturally reinforced objectives:
- It would have established a binding commitment on his part to care for and be a parent to the child
- It would have given the mother security that she would not have to raise the child alone.
- It would have ensured that, at least at the beginning of her life, Emma would be part of a stable family unit.
- It would have guaranteed him legal rights.
It is irresponsible to intentionally or carelessly create a child outside of marriage. Dumb and reckless acts have consequences, and Wyatt’s failure to agree to (or perhaps insist upon) marriage as a condition precedent to conceiving was unfair to all concerned—his daughter, his girlfriend, and himself.
For reason’s unknown, Emily got cold feet. Maybe she realized she wasn’t ready for motherhood, since she wasn’t ready for marriage. Maybe she concluded, during all those long talks with John, that he was a deluded, naive man-child who she couldn’t trust. Maybe he’s a nutcase; maybe she’s a nutcase…maybe they both are nutcases, drawn together because of their mutual nuttiness. Whatever the reason, there is a prima facie argument that they are both irresponsible, and once Emily decided she wasn’t inclined to raise Emma, the options were reduced to John, raising the child by himself, or a stable couple in Utah.
As far as Baby Emma, now named something else, is concerned, Emily made the caring, responsible choice. Did she do it the right way? No. Hell no. Is John justifiably angry and understandable feeling betrayed? Sure. But my sympathy for him is limited by his continuing omission, as he writes about his plight, of the advisability of marriage anywhere on his website. If what happened to him serves as a cautionary tale for other long-time couples in their twenties who are tempted to “anxiously make preparations… for the arrival of [their] new baby” to remember that they have an ethical obligation—to their planned child, as well as society—to ensure that he or she will have a family to enter upon delivery, then the entire ugly episode will be well worth the trouble.
I believe a biological father who won’t commit—legally as well as emotionally—to a binding relationship with the biological mother before conception should have no more rights in his offspring’s care and parenting than a sperm donor, unless the mother chooses to grant him some. He should only have obligations, such as financial support. The fewer incentives society has for couples to be irresponsible, the better. The fewer out-of wedlock children the better. The fewer single parent households, the better. Emily’s resorting to the Utah adoption system accomplished all three. Brava.
Yes, I feel sorry for John Wyatt, but not that sorry. Love is wonderful, but love without responsibility is a ticking bomb. He had it within his power to prevent this whole mess, simply by having a baby the old-fashioned way, by saying “I do” before “Let’s do it.” Next time, John, get that license first.
______________
Clarification: The furious comments generated by this article require one further comment. I have nothing but admiration for single parents who, for whatever reason, find themselves raising a child without a partner and dedicate themselves to the task. They often do a spectacular job, and their courage and stamina is miraculous. I also believe it is reckless and irresponsible to seek single-parent status when one does not have the resources, support network and ability to meet that challenge, or when a two-parent arrangement is feasible.
[Much thanks to Clare Palmatier for suggesting the issue, and I hope she’s not too mad at me.]
Ethics Alarms 
boy am I sorry I brought this to your attention. Would it have been better if they had been married? of course. But they weren’t. The mother chose to surrender her rights to raise her daughter and of course that is her right. She had no right to surrender the father’s rights. The father has now been waiting seven months for the Utah Supreme Court which is in itsef a travesty. This child was kidnapped and kept a stranger to her Dad so that the people now holding her can argue (now and for however long this takes) that she is bonded to them. Of course she is, but only because they took her out of Virginia against her father’s will and continue to fight the father in court. I do appreciate that you took the time to write on this subject and that you linked to John’s site. But I am mortified that you will only recognise a child’s right to her parents if those parents are married. If John were my son or brother I would be thanking God that he isn’t married to this manipulative and controlling woman. And (please God) when Emma is returned to her father, she will at least not have to live with the woman who tried to trick John and Emma out of each other. And there is nothing “stable” about a couple who would deliberately keep a newborn from her father and pretend it has something to do with “adoption”. There is also no guarantee that this couple will never divorce. Obviously you are dealing with two people who think its fine to ignore the laws of Virginia and take a child from her father. That doesn’t sound like the makings for a terribly stable environment to me. Emma deserves to be much more that someone’s “cautionary tale”. She’s a human being in her own right and deserves to be with her father. Clearly we disagree on this. I guess there will be no way to know the right answer until Emma is grown up and can tell us what she thinks.
You say it would have been better if the they were married as if it was beyond their control. In Virginia, she could have had an abortion with John’s consent…why is it such an outrage that she chose to give up the child for adoption without his consent? We have to stop encouraging couples to be irresponsible like this, and the father is a good place to start.
Legally, if he has rights and Utah was wrong, fine. Rights are rights, but that has little to do with the ethical issues. The couple? Don’t blame them…they are acting under advice of counsel, with a mother willing to give up her baby. If they thought that there was a basis of a legal challenge, they would never have adopted the girl. I agree that John’s “sweetheart”—there’s a show of good judgment right there—is a viallan in this, but again, he could have avoided the problem by being a responsible adult.
I ‘m sorry that I couldn’t find a way to back John Wyatt’s position. I feel like Joe McGinnis.
You act as if the woman has no say in marriage. And if she hadn’t wanted to get married? Marriage is a cultural thing, not an ethical thing. Access to abortion and relinquishing for adoption are not even close to the same thing. Fetuses/Babies that cannot exist on their own and are basically parasites do not have rights. Only the person carrying said baby/fetus/parasite-like creature gets to say if said being continues to grow inside of zir. But once that baby’s born, it has a right to both parents, and both parents have the responsibility to raise the baby without abuse or neglect.
What Utah, the Mormon Church, and baby brokers (aka adoption agencies) do, have done, and will continue do is morally/ethically wrong.
It is the cultural thing BECAUSE it is the ethical thing, and if you can’t see how this mess proves it, you are beyond help. Sure, she is equally accountable…that doesn’t change his accountability. HIM: “I want to start a family.” HER: “I don’t want to get married.” Correct answer? HIM: “Gee I guess we can’t start a family until you do.”
“Fetuses/Babies that cannot exist on their own and are basically parasites do not have rights.”: utter nonsense. An unethical and intellectually indefensible argument of convenience. Let me know when you find a proudly expectant mother referring to her in utero child as “her parasite.”
“But once that baby’s born, it has a right to both parents, and both parents have the responsibility to raise the baby without abuse or neglect.”—I don’t know aht planet you are from, but this simply isn’t true. Who enforces that right? Not the law.
The fact is that the mother decided that she didn’t want to raise a child with this guy, and she did what was in the best interest of the baby that they were wrong to create in the first place–and it was wrong that she did so in a particularly mean, dishonest, deceptive way. But thanks for a full airing of the “baby/fetus/parasite-like creature” theory—I’m sure it creates more anti-abortion supporters every time it appears in print.
I had the opportunity to speak in person with John Wyatt while he was in court in Utah last September. He told me his story and made it clear that his intention was to marry Colleen even before she became pregnant. Your argument about the benefits of marriage and John’s ignorance of it’s value are intolerable. Learn all of the facts before you post. You have only contributed to the anti-father hate so rampant in our country, maybe you weren’t aware and maybe you were too lazy to research the case before writing about it, I don’t care. But please, do what you can to help fathers not destroy them.
What? You know, if it’s my intention to marry someone before they become pregnant, I marry her before she becomes pregnant. If I miscalculate, then I marry her the second I know she is pregnant. It’s not that hard to avoid getting a woman pregnant before she is married—I’ll explain it to you if you are unclear. He is accountable, and he is responsible. I never said that I wasn’t sympathetic with his plight; I said he was responsible for it, and could have avoided it. HE chose to impregnate a woman who didn’t trust him to be a father. HE chose to bring another baby into the world without a stable family to support it. Don’t call my position intolerable; it’s based on what happened, not on “intentions.” “Intentions” that don’t lead to constructive conduct are worth exactly nothing, in ethics, and in life generally.
And by the way—what he says now, in the middle of litigation, isn’t probative of anything at all. Sure he’d say that. Is it true? We’ll never know.
You are saying he should’ve drug ‘er down to that there court house and made a woman out of her? Okay. I refuse to argue morals. What I will point out to you is that yes, they are in the middle of litigation and he must constantly be aware of what he says and what he does. That goes without saying. He more than welcomed the responsibility and accountability that was his child. Is that not why we are even discussing this issue? You think he is trying to avoid responsibility in ANY WAY? You are anything but sympathetic to fathers like John and his “plight” otherwise known as theft of his child!
Double what?
1)I presume you mean “an honest woman of her”—that’s the cliche.
2) Well, she apparently did not want to marry him after all, now did she? So he picked the wrong love of his life to impregnate.
3) It’s not “his” child according to some state laws, and I’m saying that I’m not at all sure it should be his choice whether it’s “his” or not.
4) If you refuse the ague morals, you are in the wrong place, this being an ethics blog.
5) He can be as responsible as he likes now. He was irresponsible to create a child with a woman who was not prepared to form a stable family unit with him. He’s [aying a big price for that, and its too bad. I never said he deserved this—I said that he was responsible for it.
Nothing you say changes the basic truth—you want to make sure you have custody of the child that shares your genes? Get married before you have a kid. It’s a pretty well-established principle. Works too. Best for the child, all in all. People have been saying this for, oh,what, centuries? But these two knew better, and now I’m supposed to regard John as an innocent victim? The adoptive parents are innocent victims. The child is a victim.
1) the cliche is draconian and stupid.
2) can’t choose who you love sometimes and for you to judge him based on that premise…well, whatever. Sometimes accidents happen and men shouldn’t go around marrying every girl they want to have sex with. I’m sure that you wouldn’t consider that maybe she wanted to have sex as well, but I don’t want to overload you here.
3) Biology determines your parents not state laws.
4) As far as the ethic/moral comments, big difference between what you have the right to do and what you should do.
5) like I said before, this man is trying to step up and be RESPONSIBLE by raising his child. He is going beyond what most unwed or accidental fathers would do wouldn’t you say?
Lastly, your comment about the adoptive parents being victims really is the epitome of your ignorance in this case. What you read on line and in the paper and hear on television is only 60% of the story. You are not aware that the adoptive couple agreed to pursuing what is called a “high risk” adoption. There are children in this world, in our own cities and towns that have NO family. What is unethical here is the fact that this adoption agency allowed a family to get involved when CLEARLY adoption was not an option, and father’s rights were stomped on yet again. THIS WAS THEFT. Please do not reply. I prefer not to hear your opinion on morals.
Sorry, kid, you don’t get to write in, call me stupid, and tell me not to respond. Talk about arrogance! THAT’s a convenient debate strategy–state your position and tell the other guy that you don’t want to hear a reply. Who, may I ask, the hell to you think you are?
1) the cliche is draconian and stupid. Two words that I don’t see linked often. I think it’s appropriate, since the father’s website is full of drippy romantic drivel about his true love-soul mate who obviously didn’t feel the same way. Love is not a justification for irresponsible conduct. A reason, yes. Not a justification.
2) can’t choose who you love sometimes and for you to judge him based on that premise…well, whatever. Sometimes accidents happen and men shouldn’t go around marrying every girl they want to have sex with. I’m sure that you wouldn’t consider that maybe she wanted to have sex as well, but I don’t want to overload you here. Beside the point, snottiness not appreciated in the absence of particular wit, articulateness or brilliance. Yes–people make mistakes, and they should pay for their mistakes. When people’s mistakes gets kids born, often the kids end up paying for the mistake. Your comment is asinine. Men shouldn’t have sex with every woman they want to have sex with, but if they do, they better wear a condom, “love” or not.
3) Biology determines your parents not state laws. Most fatuous comment that I have read in months. Congratulations!
4) As far as the ethic/moral comments, big difference between what you have the right to do and what you should do. That’s MY line. What’s your point? I wrote that the mother’s comment was wrong as well. Did you actually read the post?
5) like I said before, this man is trying to step up and be RESPONSIBLE by raising his child. He is going beyond what most unwed or accidental fathers would do wouldn’t you say? See above. I don’t criticize his efforts to get custody. I don’t question his sincerity. I even agree that he is, to some extent, a victim. He is still responsible for his own plight. Sure, he’s more admirable than a deadbeat dad, and the Boston Strangler. So what? Other people’s conduct don’t make his any better or worse.
Lastly, your comment about the adoptive parents being victims really is the epitome of your ignorance in this case. What you read on line and in the paper and hear on television is only 60% of the story. You are not aware that the adoptive couple agreed to pursuing what is called a “high risk” adoption. There are children in this world, in our own cities and towns that have NO family. What is unethical here is the fact that this adoption agency allowed a family to get involved when CLEARLY adoption was not an option, and father’s rights were stomped on yet again. THIS WAS THEFT. The law defines what is theft, and this isn’t it. There is nothing per se wrong with a high risk. abortion. If they were deceived by the mother, they are victims. If they knew that the father would contest the abortion, and I have seen no evidence of that, they are idiots.
Please do not reply. I prefer not to hear your opinion on morals. Where I came in. Good—then stay off Ethics Alarms. I’ll help you by banning your comments from here on. You’re welcome. Glad to oblige.
Heather are you addressing this to Jack or to me? I have supported John and baby Emma since I first heard about this case before she was a year old. I’ve already been in touch with John’s mother and apologized for ever bringing this to Jack’s attention. She was very gracious and yes told me the same thing, that he asked Colleen to marry him several times.
She was talking to me, Clare.
Mr. Marshall is a b.s. vomiting artist. He’s an adoptive parent which clearly defines his agenda here. Clare, yesterday we heard that John lost his case. What exactly took almost eleven months for the justices to rule unanimously against John is anyone’s guess. I suppose this was a well planned move to drag out the ruling so that those arguing the case can say that Emma shouldn’t be ripped out of the only home she knows and that they are heros for that poor baby. I’m sick, disgusted on a level that only a family member of a stolen child can feel. People were outraged by the Casey Anthony verdict, now I wonder who will speak out for John and Colleen. Glad to know some people still have compassion, thanks for posting here.
How nice! It is SO helpful when commenters reveal their true colors in comments such as yours—uninterested in discussing facts, varying ethical principles or alternate analysis, just rabid for an agenda, and prepared to resort to invective and hate when they can’t bully awayopposing views with personal attacks and characterizations.
The father lost in Utah because he missed a bunch of deadlines that could have improved his legal position—again, his own fault, though it is a complex set of requirements. Pursuing the case to this extent, making the adoptive parents expend resources that could have benefited Baby Emma, not allowing the girl closure and to have an undisrupted life after 4 years with the only parents she has ever known—dubious values and motives all the way.
But thanks for calling me an artist. I try.
The child was not “stolen.’ and repeating it doesn’t make it true, or less of a misrepresentation. I’m glad you have given a shout-out to the Casey Anthony mob, for they are your soul-mates—the heck with law and due process, you say—feelings are what matters. I’m trying to think of any job you could be trusted to perform.
Compassion and emotion and empathy and caring are wonderful traits, but divorced from common sense and responsibility they are worse than useless.
And, of course, my status as an adoptive parent has absolutely nothing to do with my analysis. I would never adopt a child under the conditions that Zarembinskis did. But it is neither kidnapping or theft, and when a man father’s a child out of wedlock, he is responsible for making himself legally responsible for the child under a state’s laws. He missed his deadline. If I miss my drivers license renewal, I can’t drive. Whose fault is that?
If you live in New York and you renew your licence in New York then you can drive. I’m sure it would never occour to you to contact the state of Alaska when you are renewing your New York drivers licence. They’d think you were paranoid; wasting their time and yours. Since John lived in Virginia and the child’s mother lived in Virginia and the baby was born in Virginia he made sure the state of Virginia recognized him as her only legal parent (which they did and still do). For all of these reasons he didn’t register in time as a punitive father in Utah. If I understand correctly this is the arguement raised in the case with the Utah Supreme Court but (and I think this is the technicality that took eleven months for the justices in Utah to find) that arguement was not raised (or not raised as the principal arguement) in the case that had been presented to the lower court. Also, Emma isn’t four; she’s almost two and a half and of course the only reason that these “people” (obviously I use the word loosely) are able to call themselves “the only parents she has ever known” is because they pulled every immoral, underhanded trick they could to keep her away from her father and got the full support of the State of Utah in doing so. They have not only stolen Emma from her father they have stolen from Emma her father, her family, her home, her heritage, her name and her religion. This isn’t a child who had already lost everything and needed to be adopted. She had it, all of it and they took it away. Since you have a son, Jack, more than likely you will eventually be a grandparent one day. Certainly you would not want your only grandchild stolen away from your only son. What happened to John could happen to any American. You’ll say “well, not if they’re married”. Obviously the poor baby can’t help it if they’re not but judging from the way this case was handled I wouldn’t be surprised to see Utah trying this with married parents as well eventually. The tiny silver lining in this tragedy is that Dateline has finally given a tentative date to air their story nationally. Up until now this has mainly been a local news story in Utah. The tentative air date is August 19.
1) No, he didn’t register in time for VIRGINIA. That was what did him in. I’m not saying this is especially fair—I’m sure he didn’t know. But “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
2)
a. “This isn’t a child who had already lost everything and needed to be adopted. She had it, all of it and they took it away.” That’s hardly correct. She had a mother and a father who apparently didn’t want to be a family with HER. If she had everything, this issue wouldn’t have arisen.
b. “Since you have a son, Jack, more than likely you will eventually be a grandparent one day. Certainly you would not want your only grandchild stolen away from your only son.” Yes, and I wouldn’t be happen if my son went tp prison for vehicular manslaughter, either, and if my daughter was raped and wanted an abortion, I might well suddenly decide that abortion was all right. Appealing to bias isn’t an argument. This is why John’s case isn’t being decided by HIS parents.
c.”What happened to John could happen to any American.” What? It absolutely could NOT happen to anyone. It can only happen to someone who allows a child he fathers to be born without marrying the mother….a situation that shouldn’t occur in the first place. I know you like to pretend that little detail doesn’t matter, but it does.
d. “You’ll say “well, not if they’re married”.” See? You were right!
e. “Obviously the poor baby can’t help it if they’re not…” That’s acompletely different argument, and one that I reject. First of all, you assume that the baby is worse off with a mother and a father just because they aren’t the birth parents. I don’t. Children suffer for the cats of their parents…that’s not an argument for letting parents get away with being irresponsible.
f. “….but judging from the way this case was handled I wouldn’t be surprised to see Utah trying this with married parents as well eventually.” That’s the weakest slippery slope argument I’ve ever heard.
g. “The tiny silver lining in this tragedy is that Dateline has finally given a tentative date to air their story nationally. Up until now this has mainly been a local news story in Utah. The tentative air date is August 19.” Because the media always covers such things in a completely fair, unbiased and unslanted way.
I genuinely admire your dedication and passion on this topic, Clare. If I were in trouble or a controversy, I’d want you on my side. I think you are dead wrong, but you are wonderful, and a terrific role model.
Hi Jack,
I know we are on different sides of this issue, but I wanted to take the time to address point #1 that you had. John did file in time in Virginia. I have pasted the pdf of the Virginia’s court ruling. He preserved his rights to Emma and everyone else trampled them.
http://www.babyemmawyatt.com/Wyatt_Custody.pdf it’s #5.
Thanks, Dana—I’ll check it out.
Update on Baby Emma. Has anyone seen “The Loving Story”? Here’s the link from HBO http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/the-loving-story/index.html#/documentaries/the-loving-story/synopsis.html One of the lawyers who represented Mr. and Mrs. Loving and argued their case before the U.S. Supreme Court was Philip J. Hirschkop. He and the other lawyer, Bernard Cohen not only argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court but won a unanimous decision in the Loving’s favor. Today, Philip Hirschkop is representing John Wyatt. http://www.babyemmawyatt.com/wyatt.ReplyToZarembinskiOpposition_Dkt.202_.pdf The Lovings were not welcome to raise their children in Virginia because of bias against interracial marriage. John is being prevented from raising his daughter in Virginia because (aside from the kidnapping) there are bias against his as a single parent. This lawyer has been at the forefront of the civil rights battle for fifty years and remains there. I am very optimistic that if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case Emma will be going home. The sad part of the story is that by the time she actually gets there she is likely to be at least four years old.
Here’s a side issue: Do you support cautious premarital sex (as in, taking precautions not to have children)?
I am of the opinion that children should never be created, no matter what. Nobody agrees with me on this, but since I know this shall never be made the standard policy, I see no problem with the extreme opinion.
I disapprove strongly of having children out of wedlock, but I also think that the notion of saving yourself for your wife could lead to disaster. I wouldn’t have sex with anyone I didn’t fully intend on marrying, but on the other hand, if we’re COMPLETELY sexually incompatible, that could be a problem, and I’d rather know that before I end up giving up half my stuff or 15 years of bitterness.
I think marriages should be entered into just as cautiously as pregnancies. Personally, I fully intend to get married once or less.
I think responsible non-adulterous pre-marital sex with birth control is ethical, a couple’s choice, and still a risk that assumes willingness to accept accountability if there is an unexpected pregnancy.
Surely you don’t mean you are against creating children in ALL circumstances. Because, you know, that won’t turn out well…
Drawing from my exposure to children, I have hypothesized that reproduction is a good idea, at most, one percent of the time. I think it’s somewhere between 0% and 1% percent. Since I don’t have a more precise measure, and since I know there’s absolutely no chance of adherence to this strict principle, I see no problem simplifying my statement down to none, since it has the same likelihood of success.
Remember the religious sect The Shakers (more than good furniture, you know). They had your attitude, and guess what? They’re GONE. No more Shakers. Too bad.
If you are implying that most parents are bad ones (and it sure soounds like yours were), you’re wrong. If you are citing the fact that healthy, intelligent people are limiting the number of their progeny while the poor, unhealthy, ignorant portions of the world population are reproducing like flies with resultant overall damage to the human genome, then maybe you have a point.
Regardless, if we took your advice, then maybe when there are one or two film makers left, they’ll tell the story of the extinction of humankind and at the end have a big banner float down that says, “When humans ruled the world!” Too bad no one will be around to see it, except perhaps orangutans and other semi-sentient mammals.
It is not against the law to have a sex before marriage, nor is it against the law to have a child out of wedlock. What this child’s mother did was wrong. Period. NO ONE has the right to give away someone’s child, and that child is just as much his at she is her Mother’s. Fathers have rights to their children, but the adoption industry makes sure they get around those rights, in order to make a profit off the child. What that child’s Mother and Utah has done to this child and her father is wrong, immoral and possibly illegal. Just like it was in the Grayson Vaughn case. The child was never LEGALLY available for adoption.
Utah has the WORST record in the country when it comes to sneaking around and leaving the child’s natural father out of the loop. LDSFS (Utah’s “premiere adoption agency’) is notorious for their underhanded methods of coercing women into leaving their child’s father in the dust.
As an adoptee, this behavior disgusts me. I would have much rather been raised by my natural father than strangers, aka “a stable couple in Ohio”. Children belong with their NATURAL FAMILY, unless there is neglect or abuse. Even in those cases, a child should ONLY be adopted if there is no one in their NATURAL family to raise them.
Adoptive parents divorce. Adoptive parents have substance abuse problems. Adoptive parents lose their jobs, have affairs and even abuse their children. Adoption does not guarantee a child a better life, only a different one. Newborn adoption is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Most women are coerced into surrendering their children simply because they are young or unmarried.
Adoption is full of corruption and fraud and it serious reform is needed. NO ONE has the right to give someone’s child away. Not the child’s Mother, and not the child’s father.
Linda: the blog is called Ethics Alarms. I didn’t say that what John Wyatt did was illegal; nobody’s saying that. There are may irresponsible, selfish, stupid things one can do within the law, and having a baby out of wedlock is one of them. That’s all I was saying, and it is obviously true.
If the child had been conceived by accident, would you still say that he had a right to the child? It varies fro state to state…personally, as I said, I think he’s responsible for the pre-natal care, hospital bills and support, but the mother should be able to decide on an adoption if that’s her choice.
I’m not talking about the Grayson Vaughn case. I’m talking about this case.
I’m sorry you had a bad experience with an adotive family (my son is adopted), but that is a bias. Sure, the Utah couple might get divorced; the birth couple is already divorced—worse, they were never married to begin with. The mother obviously decided that she wasn’t ready, that she didn’t want to stay with the father, and that for some reasons we don’t know, the child would be better off with a married couple from Utah than him by himself.
Sound reasonable to me. She knows him, apparently since the second grade. I think we should trust her judgment. What I do know of John is that he is young, that he was willing to risk the security of his child by not bothering to get married, and that he completely, totally, misjudged the so-called “love of his life,” who had so little regard for him that she betrayed him horribly.
Is Baby Emma better off with the Utah couple than with either of these two losers? Most likely.
If the courts find that John can keep custody, that’s that. But he, along with “Sweetheart”, set the stage for this by his own irresponsible actions.
It is only “obviously true” that having a baby out of wedlock is “irresponsible, selfish and stupid” to people who are completely out of tune with reality. Oh, and those who gained a child from one of those “irresponsible” people. How convenient. Im sure this entitled, holier-than-thou attitude was not missed by your adopted son.
You have answered as a typical adoptive parent by saying, “I’m sorry you had a bad experience with an adoptive family (my son is adopted), but that is a bias.”
Adoption is itself is a “bad experience”. I was adopted by perfectly “nice” people. But they were not and will never be MY people. Adoptees lost their first parents, cultures, heritage, brothers, sisters, grandparents, cousins and in the case of international adoption, they lose their country and language. Gaining a “forever family” does not replace those things. YOU are clearly biased. You need to educate yourself as to how adoption NEGATIVELY affects the adoptee. THAT is what an “ethical” adopter would do. And an ethical adopter would NEVER try to obtain a child who is not free for adoption, or who, like the Vaughns, play the court game for 3 years.. It’s sick, and will be deemed unforgivable to that adoptee when they find out the truth…and they always do.
There is no such thing as an “ethical” adoption. And contrary to your antiquated views on child rearing, married couples are NOT superior parents- especially not married couples who are strangers to that child.
It is NOT up to the mother of a child to decide that her child is “better off” with strangers. The law doesn’t work like that. Which is precisely why I mentioned the Vaughn case. An ethical adoption agency (an oxymoron) would make sure the child’s father did not wish to parent the child in question. And in the grand state of Utah, there are NO ethics in adoption. There are very few ethical adoption agencies, because there is too much money to be made.
Now I understand. You’re an anti-adoption zealot, who would prefer to see unwanted children aborted, abused or treated as life-ruining plagues than to allow them to be raised by a loving couple. I have no idea how people get this way. I suppose if one was sold as an infant to a Russian mafia boss.
Your position on single parenthood has no basis in statistics, research or fact. Your position that all adoption is unethical is just bizarre. Your position that “reality” and “”modern’ are synonymous with “wise”, “responsible” or “ethical” is indefensible.
Good Lord, you really are clueless. The only zealot is YOU, Mr. Marshall.
Baby Emma was not unwanted…especially not unwanted by her father. She does not need to be with a “loving couple” consisting of 2 strangers, when she has a natural father who is perfectly capable of loving her and raising her…whether he is single, or married.
“I have no idea how people get this way.”
I got this way because I was the prize! A healthy, white infant from good stock. I am product, Mr. Marshall, just like your son. Just like baby Emma. I got this way because I educated myself about the unethical business of human trafficking. I suggest you do the same.
THAT is the point of this, right? “Ethics”? Oh, I see…it’s only ethical if it fits YOUR agenda.
Do your homework, Mr. Marshall. Very few baby brokers are ethical- domestic, or international. Especially the “faith based” brokers such as Utah’s LSDFS.
http://www.china.org.cn/china/news/2009-07/02/content_18054652.htm
http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/meet-parents-dark-side-overseas-adoption
http://sites.google.com/site/internationaladoptionfacts/
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/47072
http://www.exiledmothers.com/adoption_facts/
Pardon me—you are a guest here. Don’t presume to call me clueless. I am a lawyer, I have worked in the field of adoption ethics, and I am quite aware of the problems in the adoption world, which I have researched considerably. “Clueless” is treating a shared commitment, reinforced by law and oath, to maintain a family unit as part of one’s commitment to one’s child, as trivial and outdated.
My son is not “product,” but a healthy, happy, talented and loved kid who would be rotting in a crumbling orphanage had we not found him and identified him as the child our family was lacking. You have no business labeling him, or suggesting that our conduct was illicit in any way.
I have no “agenda. ” You may have an agenda, and welcome to it. My job is to balance competing ethical interests and non-ethical considerations to arrive at a conclusion regarding what is the best and most ethical result based on independent, and not emotional, analysis.
Utah is not very accommodating to unmarried biological fathers, and I agree with that as an ethical policy. Unmarried biological fathers, as a group, contribute to crime, social expense and the mistreatment of children. The way to avoid the consequences of Utah’s refusal to cater to irresponsible men is simple and healthy—don’t be one. Mr. Wyatt’s refusal to yield to the obvious best interests of his daughter simply show that his irresponsible parenthood was not an aberration.
Wait, are you against letting people adopt kids whom both their biological parents actually gave away or abandoned?
I had a moment of stupid; disregard the above question. On the other hand, while there are certainly problems with adoption agencies that should be addressed, you’re falling a bit into the naturalistic fallacy here; while adoptive parents may not be on average better than “natural” parents, they’re not worse either, and there are plenty of children who are born to families who realize that they are not fit to take care of them, period (in the case of an old classmate from Chinese school, she was apparently saved from potential infanticide). I appreciate your concern about changing the adoption system, but accusing all adoptive parents of being evil is not the way you’re going to win support for your cause.
No one has accused adoptive parents of being “evil”. As I stated in an earlier post, there are times when adoption is necessary. But a child should not have to grow up with strangers if there are people in his or her natural family who can raise him or her. But- because of the money involved in adoption, brokers and even CPS will overlook the rights of the CHILD and place them with strangers, and it is not always in the best interest of the child.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-16/justice/florida.body.bag.twins_1_guardian-ad-litem-adoptive-parents-dcf-official?_s=PM:CRIME
Being single or young does not guarantee bad parenting, neglect or abuse, just as being married and older does not guarantee good parenting , no neglect and no abuse.
It is not the responsibility of fertile women to supply children for the barren. And as far as internationally adopted children being “saved” from rotting in orphanages goes, there are plenty of organizations that help children stay in there country of origin. And each time a foreigner pays to “adopt” a child, they are contributing to the corrupt and barbaric regime that orders Mothers to abandon their children.
Adoption works on a supply and demand basis. When people stop purchasing children, governments will stop their crimes against women and children.
There are millions of children in the US available for adoption through the foster care system. Those are the ONLY children who need loving parents- not the baby Emmas, or Grayson Vaughns, who have perfectly capable and loving fathers.
And sorry, Mr. Marshall, but I have been involved with adoption reform for over 20 years….I do not listen to ap’s who speak for their children. We (adoptees) are notorious for never telling our ap’s how we really feel about being adopted. You know, because we will be smacked with the grateful hammer, oh, and because our adoptive parents & society have no problems trying to speak FOR us.
How do you know there was nothing illicit in your son’s procurement? Most ap’s have no idea as to how their child was obtained. Is he in reunion with his first family? Does HE know his personal situation? Most adoptees never know the real story until they have heard it from their first parents. More importantly, does your son have his original birth certificate? Probably not.
You might want to do a piece about the ethics of not having an original birth certificate. Over 6 million adoptees in the states do not have the right to their own personal information due to state sanctioned discrimination. I am one of them. And, because of my adoption being finalized almost 2 years AFTER I was born & the post 911 Homeland Security rules, I cannot obtain a passport.
No one has accused adoptive parents of being “evil”. As I stated in an earlier post, there are times when adoption is necessary. But a child should not have to grow up with strangers if there are people in his or her natural family who can raise him or her. But- because of the money involved in adoption, brokers and even CPS will overlook the rights of the CHILD and place them with strangers, and it is not always in the best interest of the child.
I have no disagreement with any of that.
Being single or young does not guarantee bad parenting, neglect or abuse, just as being married and older does not guarantee good parenting , no neglect and no abuse.
Nobody is talking about “guarantees.” Single parents have a tougher time than two party couples, as a group. Couples do a better job at parenting than single parents, as a general proposition. Not necessarily. My father was raised by a single mother, and she was apparently the kind of mother people write books about.
It is not the responsibility of fertile women to supply children for the barren.
Nobody said it was, Linda.
And as far as internationally adopted children being “saved” from rotting in orphanages goes, there are plenty of organizations that help children stay in there country of origin. And each time a foreigner pays to “adopt” a child, they are contributing to the corrupt and barbaric regime that orders Mothers to abandon their children.
Please save your talking points for someone who doesn’t know the facts. In poor countries, many single mothers can’t afford to raise unplanned children, and the country lacks sufficient parents with the resources to adopt them. Orphanages are stuffed, and after about two years, the children are damaged emotionally and psychologically. You would leave them to that fate based on an abstract principle that is impossible in practice.
Adoption works on a supply and demand basis. When people stop purchasing children, governments will stop their crimes against women and children.
No, the solution will come when people stop having children they can’t or don’t want to take proper care of….in other words, never. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t minimize the instances of that condition.
There are millions of children in the US available for adoption through the foster care system. Those are the ONLY children who need loving parents- not the baby Emmas, or Grayson Vaughns, who have perfectly capable and loving fathers.
You have no idea whether John Wyatt is capable or not. He flunked the key test #1: getting married before knocking his girlfriend up. The foster child system is a mess, as anyone who’s dealt with it will tell you at the drop of a hat. This is an ideological agenda, not an argument.
And sorry, Mr. Marshall, but I have been involved with adoption reform for over 20 years….I do not listen to ap’s who speak for their children. We (adoptees) are notorious for never telling our ap’s how we really feel about being adopted. You know, because we will be smacked with the grateful hammer, oh, and because our adoptive parents & society have no problems trying to speak FOR us.
Speak for yourself, then. Your unfortunate experience is not universal in any way.
How do you know there was nothing illicit in your son’s procurement? Most ap’s have no idea as to how their child was obtained. Is he in reunion with his first family? Does HE know his personal situation? Most adoptees never know the real story until they have heard it from their first parents. More importantly, does your son have his original birth certificate? Probably not.
Wong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Also none of your business.
You might want to do a piece about the ethics of not having an original birth certificate. Over 6 million adoptees in the states do not have the right to their own personal information due to state sanctioned discrimination. I am one of them. And, because of my adoption being finalized almost 2 years AFTER I was born & the post 911 Homeland Security rules, I cannot obtain a passport.
Excellent suggestion. Thanks. I’ll research it. I am somewhat aware of the problem, and it is a bad one.
I just gotta add here that as an adult adoptee I have never felt horrible about my situation. I’ve always known I was adopted (my parents called me and my brother their “chosen babies”) and felt grateful to my birthmother who had the sense to give me to a Catholic Social Services agency when she determined that the situation she was in was not going to be the best one in which to raise me.
I will admit to not reading the whole message string between you and Linda, Jack, but I do know that I was able to obtain a passport with a birth certificate that was sent to me by the state in which I was born. No one questioned it at all. Of course this was pre- 9/11, so again, my apologies if this is moot since I’m skimming this at work.
I have my real one now because I have been reunited for my birth mother since 2006. I am grateful that while I had a lot of questions during my life, I never felt the pain, anger and frustration that Linda feels. Just makes me realize how lucky I really am and how varied each person’s experience can be.
Sorry, you’ve got some of your facts wrong. There may be millions of children in the US available for adoption through the foster care system, but the system stinks. I engaged in an international adoption because all US adoption agencies told me it would take FIVE years to complete an adoption.
For my international adoption I was investigated by the adoptive agency, the local Child Protection Service, the police, the FBI and Interpol. It took one year. Our adoption was sanctioned by our Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Federal government of the country from which he was adopted. That was 16 years ago (the best 16 years of my life), and my son has an original birth certificate with my and my husband’s name on it, a social security number, and a passport. Sorry times have changed so much. But I was not “in the market” as you accuse so many of us as being.
Sure there are baby markets out there (we were not allowed to go to the country and “shop” for one), but you act as if it is ALL criminal. They’re not. They save babies. Private adoptions can be scary and criminal, yes; but public US adoptions are so complicated, the rules so abstruse, and the time line so long that I’m surprised anyone uses the US system at all.
PS Have you looked for any websites that are POSITIVE toward adoption?
PPS I have in my possession the moving letter written by my son’s poor, unwed birth mother who gave her son up in the hopes that he could find loving parents in America and have a good life instead of living poor and unhealthy in a third world country. “Contributing to the corrupt and barbaric regime that orders Mothers to abandon their children?” Bull.
Elizabeth wrote: “That was 16 years ago (the best 16 years of my life), and my son has an original birth certificate with my and my husband’s name on it”
So, where’s the original one with his real parents names on it?
That’s great that his mother sent a letter – he knows who she is and can connect with her. Wonderful! She obviously loves her child more than anything and probably lives for the day she will see her son again.
I don’t think the baby was conceived on purpose. I can’t imagine any reason why the girl would deliberately get pregnant so she can give her away. I would be stunned if I heard that this pregnancy was planned. It seems pretty clear that it wasn’t but (even though the couple knew marriage wasn’t going to work out) they were both going to be very involved in raising this baby. More importantly you say “regarding the couple, don’t blame them.. they are acting under the advice of counsel, with a mother willing to give up her baby. If they thought there was a basis for a legal challenge they would never have adopted the girl”… Jack, are you high? These people are not robots, they are not slaves to their lawyers. Just because they have found lawyers unethical enough to pretend this child is available for adoption doesn’t make it true. It certainly doesn’t excuse their vicious exploitation of this child. She has a right to her father and family. She lost her mother but that is due to the mother’s decision. If she loses her father it will be because these people drove him away, selfishly, illegally and totally without the least regard for anything approaching ethics. They know there is a legal challenge. They’ve always known that. There’s more than a legal challenge. There’s a father who has full custody according to everyone but possibly themselves and maybe the state of Utah. Utah is famous for this. The most disturbing part of all this is that (unlike the people holding Emma) you are an adoptive parent. If my child was adopted I would be furious (more than I already am) that these people were stealing a child from her father and calling it “adoption”. They are blurring the line between kidnapping and adoption. Those are supposed to be two radically different things. Why on earth would you (especially as an adoptive parent) want those lines blurred? I really liked your “ethics rationalizations and misinterpertations”. In fact it immediatly brought to mind John Wyatt’s arguement. Now, your calling him a “loser” because he got a girl pregnant? Jesus! The poor guy has done everything imaginable to be a good father. I cannot begin to understand your rationalizations. Maybe you are so perfect that you never took a chance with pregnancy before marriage. I (like a lot of humans) was stupid once or twice (and lucky). If my relationship had resulted in pregnancy and not marriage would I deserve to lose my child for being a loser? According to you arguement, apparently so. I strongly suggest you check out this website… it was begun by adoptive parents and their concern is ethics. http://www.ethicanet.org/
Clare (sorry for the earlier misspelling…): Nothing in the “Baby Emma” story gives any hint that the baby wasn’t planned. Why do you assume this? Lots of couples choose to have children before they are married.
Its is clearly not kidnapping. Nobody in law enforcement has made any such allegations. Who is the kidnapper? The adoptive couple? Nobody stole a baby from the parent(s), when the birthmother gave away the child voluntarily. Utah has as much right to have its laws respected as Virginia…the fact that it views paternal rights differently doesn’t make them “wrong” or, for that matter, right. The courts will decide.
Do you have any idea what John Wyatt does for a living? Does he have a college degree? Has he fathered other children? Perhaps “loser” is harsh—how about hapless? By your analysis, he completely misjudged a woman he had known for decades, blundered into a pregnancy, and is now using a self-serving website (Like Enzo’s mother, like Octomom) to build public support so he can provide for a daughter he didn’t intend to have and assumed he would raise with her mother. What are his daughter’s prospects with him? His ego is bruised. If he were thinking about the best interests of his daughter he would write his ex a nasty letter, or even sue her, and let Baby Emma go.
The lawyers in this case undoubtedly advised the couple that they could legally adopt the child—and they may yet be proven right. If the lawyers told the couple that the adoption might be challenged, then the lawyers were not unethical in any way.
He did not do ” everything imaginable to be a good father.” Why do you keep saying this? He could have married the mother. That would have been “ggod.” Oh, she’s a poor mother, you say? Then he failed the first duty of a father: pick a competent mother.
I said: The mother was unethical. I said: his legal rights may well have been violated. I said: he brought this on himself. I said: the daughter will probably be better off adopted than being raised by this naive, irresponsible young man.
I think all of these are obviously true. Which is not, may I ask?
“I am a lawyer, I have worked in the field of adoption ethics, and I am quite aware of the problems in the adoption world, which I have researched considerably. ”
You do not seem the slightest bit aware of adoption corruption.
Do you know how John’s partner ended up at an adoption agency? Which adoption agency was it – is it well-known for coercing women into surrendering their babies? Did the Mother have fair/non-biased legal representation? Do you know who was involved in the “choice” to surrender her child? There are many unanswered questions here, yet you make decisions about ‘ethics” based on second or third-hand information. Did the adoption agency convince her to leave the father’s name off the birth registration? How soon after birth did she sign the adoption papers? Did the adoption agency (if they knew who the father was) try to contact John Wyatt before the baby was placed with non-family? How hard did the adoption agency try to learn who the father was? Was the Mom still sure of her decision within the revocation period?
John was probably unaware of adoption laws, so your list of ‘ethical’ suggestions was pointless. Should he father another child, he will be the first one at the chapel door. Not because it’s the ‘ethical’ thing to do, but to save his child from the adoption vultures.
I feel very sorry for the baby, she is now forced into a lifetime of adoption secrecy laws with no connection to her true identity and no love given to her by her real parents and families. This is a very very sad story.
I agree that it is sad story. I never said it wasn’t.
I expect a post to be discussed based on what it asserts, not what other people’s agenda would have it assert. My objective was to point out that the catalyst for the whole fiasco was withing Wyatt’s power to prevent, and as such he is accountable for much of what transpired. I also stated my considered opinion that we should not be encouraging unmarried parenthood by endowing careless sperm-donors with special rights.
Emily contacted the adoption people, not the other way around. We know that. Presumably nobody held a gun to her head. When I have facts that indicate unscrupulous conduct by another party—other than Emily, who behaved badly in may respects—I’d be happy to consider it.
For decades and decades, centuries, really, adopted children fared just fine without a burning need to discover their “identity,” unless they had been robbed of an inheritance. Some time around the Era of Oprah, the fad idea that a perfectly healthy and happy individual had to track down his or her birth parent, whether or not that parent wanted to be tracked down, took hold. I’m sure there are situations where it can be a good thing; your excessive and wild generalities, however, show the fanaticism behind the fad.
Baby Emma will have plenty of love from her adoptive parents, in all likelihood. An adoptive parent’s love is no different from a natural parent’s love, and the child won’t feel any difference either.
I was kind of confused by the reasoning in this article. If you believe in the case of an child born to unwed parents, that the father should have no rights to that child, why should the mother? She wasn’t forced into this, he didn’t rape her, and she was just as irresponsible as he was. Likewise, if the father should have no rights to the child, should the father have any financial responsibility for the child? If you believe that the fathers should have no rights, but should have financial responsibility, then why do they have to be fathers at all. In the case of an unwed mother, we can just randomly choose a financially stable man and tell him that he owes child support for the child for the next 18 years, but he has no other rights to the child. This is only slightly similar to the system in many states currently.
Don’t be silly. The woman bore the child for nine months; that confers rights to make the decision. Of course the father should have fiscal responsibilities. Ideally,and ethically, they should make the decision together, but that is ethics, not law.
The law should discourage the unethical practice of having babies before there is a family. Fathers should have a strong motivation to be responsible if they are not so inclined, and irresponsible fathers should not have babies. Yes, the mother is also irresponsible, but somebody in the non-family has to have authority to decide what is in the best interest of the child.
Your last two sentences make little sense, although I am paying for the children of unmarried fathers, and so are you, though tax-supported programs that are necessary because there are so many fathers like John Wyatt.
Get married first, and it all works out. Marriage before kids. What a radical concept.
The state doesn’t really care about father’s rights. Fathers are just bank accounts that the state can use to support a woman’s child. The state (and you in this article) have basically said that only the mother of a child has the rights to make decisions for the child. The father has no real meaningful rights, but only has responsibilities. Your reasoning for this is that it would be too complicated if both parents had a say in the child’s life, so the father’s rights must be sacrificed for simplicity. If this is the case, then I would say that involuntary child support is unethical. It takes both the father and the mother to create the child, although deception on the part of the mother may be involved (don’t say that is sexist, it is much harder for a man to be deceptive in this case). For all decisions about the child to then only belong to the mother and making the father financially responsible for decisions made by someone else would take some mental gymnastics to rationalize.
Let me clarify with an outrageous ‘hypothetical’ situation. Assume a woman realizes that she and her long-time boyfriend want a child, but can’t afford one. So she dates a man who makes a lot of money. She gets pregnant by the old boyfriend while convincing the new one the child is his. He wants to get married, but she wants a ‘proper’ wedding which will need to be after the baby is born (wedding reception locations require at least 18 months advance). The child is born, she waits until the 3-month period of time for him to contest paternity is over, and leaves. She gets to live with her old boyfriend (and get married) and the sucker she dated for his money is now stuck paying child support for a child that is not his and that will be raised to know that he is not the father. The state supports and holds such activity legal, but how can it be ethical?
Mr. Marshall –
As I read your post, I could not quite find the reason why are so vested in portraying John Wyatt as the “unethical” bad guy in this situation. Was it for religious reasons? Political? I could not understand how you, as a man, could condemn him for wanting to be a part of his daughter’s life. I simply could not understand how anyone in their right mind cannot see this is an egregious violation of parental rights, plain and simple.
Then I read the comment in which you revealed you are an adoptive parent.
That explains everything.
Thank God, literally, that I know many adoptive parents who are more enlightened, educated, and understanding than you. I am grateful to adoptive parents who have done the difficult work of learning how the loss of their adopted child’s first family (and in your case, language, culture, and people) affects that individual for the rest of his life. Believe it or not Mr. Marshall, there are adoptive parents who fully understand that family preservation is the ideal whenever possible (i.e., the child is safe and cared for), and adoption is always second best. There are adoptive parents who have enough ethics to see that this is a case where the parents rights have been violated and would have enough moral decency to return baby Emma to her rightful father.
The short answer is that you didn’t read the post. I did not say that John was the villain. I said that his girlfriend was. I said that I sympathized with him…sympathy means that I understand his desire to have contact with his daughter. I would hope that he could have contact with his daughter; the adoptive couple shouldn’t object to that, for it is both kind and appropriate. I am not defending the girlfriend’s betrayal of John, though I am curious about what sparked it.
Don’t put words in my mouth, please.
I did say that he was responsible for this fiasco for his role in having a child out of wedlock.
Obviously the birth parents of a child should be able to raise the child, absent abuse or inability, if they want to. But an unmarried mother should be able to give up a child for adoption to a stable couple in the interest of the child, and it is in the interest of the child. The magic benefits you seem to attach to “family preservation” is the logic behind neglected children being left with unfit parents i every city in America, often with tragic results.
“I said that I sympathized with him…sympathy means that I understand his desire to have contact with his daughter. I would hope that he could have contact with his daughter; the adoptive couple shouldn’t object to that, for it is both kind and appropriate. ”
Why not have the child with her father and allow the people who took the baby to visit? Why should John and Emma be legally separated from each other? Because he wasn’t aware the mother surrendered the child? He became aware after the fact and now he wants to raise his child. Why should his daughter be raised by people he doesn’t even know (because it’s adoption does not make a difference, the child is with non-family strangers) John is her father and he wants his daughter. Unless he deemed unfit by child welfare folk, there’s no reason why he should be denied his daughter. Terminate the adoption and give his daughter back to him.
Correction: there is only one family, the adoptive one. John had a chance to form a family and didn’t. He’s a genetic donor without family status. The couple are no more strangers to Emma than he is…less, actually, because she’s actually met them. On one side we have a couple, a mother, a father, a family…on the other, an irresponsible nightclub worker who Emma’s mother evidently felt wasn’t fit to be a parent, and she knows him well. Why would we ever assume that the couple was not the best option for Emma?
I’m not assuming adoption isn’t the best option Emma and I’m not assuming it is. I don’t know who adopted her, do you? Maybe it wasn’t a mother and a father, could have been two gay men for all you know. Maybe even one of them is a nightclub worker:)
Nothing wrong with two gay men (or women) as a parenting couple. It’s still a family. Nothing against nightclub workers either. They can be as good parents as Nobel Prize winners.
By all means, let’s believe every single word John Wyatt has to say. “Oh poor me” websites are notoriously self-serving, and where is there any proof that what he says is true? Where’s Emily Fahland’s “oh poor me” website?
Wyatt’s website smacks of the website on baby Enzo and the Make A Wish Foundation. “See what’s happening to me! My baby’s dying and he can’t go on a cooking show!” Turns out baby Enzo was NOT DYING… just sick. The website was full of lies and half-truths. This is the danger of the Internet, is it not?
So by all means, take all of John Wyatt’s verbiage as absolute truth, and damn Emily Fahland. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE REAL SITUATION WAS. Maybe old Wyatt wanted to hold his newborn in his loving arms in between bouts of beating the mother? We will not know, will we? And Emily has no obligation to respond to his Internet call for sympathy.
Private adoptions are complex, and it seems to me that Emily Fahland had some good reason to make her decision. Let’s just wait for her website, if indeed she’s the type to create one to defend herself. Frankly, I found Wyatt’s website to be suspect. Something else is going on here.
Absolutely, Elizabeth. When a woman goes to such lengths to keep a child away from a father, especially one who claims that they two had an idyllic relationship, there is a rebuttable presumption that she possesses knowledge that led to the decision. Using only his website as the source, I have to conclude that she treated him terribly. But I do wonder why.
I’m with you, Elizabeth!
my God Elizabeth that has to be the most hateful thing I have heard or read in weeks. “Maybe old Wyatt wanted to hold his newborn in his loving arms between bouts of beating the mother”. You sound like a absolute sociopath who can’t imagine honest, decent feelings or behavior in anyone. I don’t know why you assume parenting and relationships are inately twisted, deceitful and violent, but they are not. Get help.
Uh, well, you have to admit, Clare,this is hardly the case to support your statement! Lifetime sweethearts seed a love child, supposedly plan for blissful parenthood, and the mother secretly arranges to have the child adopted without telling the “love of her life”? Wouldn’t you call that “twisted”and “deceitful”? How do you explain her actions? Fear sounds plausible. Distrust, certainly. Do you think she woke up suddenly and decided to betray a lifetime friend and lover? SOMETHING happened to turn love and trust to betrayal and hate. What’s your theory?
Oh, Clare, Clare, you are a total naif. You read one website — a fund raising website, I might add — and immediately demonize the mother and lionize the father???
What research have you done on either the father or the mother? What do you know except Dad’s sad tale with no supporting knowledge of your own about the entire situation? A heart-wrenching fund raiser website is enough for you? Do you ever take the time to check your facts?
Sorry you think I am a sociopath –though you used the word incorrectly (look it up). All I’m saying is that you don’t know the whole story, apparently didn’t bother to find it out, attack me personally because I admit I don’t know the whole story and used a purposefully extreme example of a possible “back story” to make a point.
Start doing some research once in a while. Find out both sides of each issue. (And do us all a favor and don’t v9te in the next election: you will clearly vote for the last charlatan you hear on television, because you: (1) clearly don’t know how to research information; (2) can’t or refuse to analyze any data you find; (3) believe anything complete strangers with their own agendas have to say; and (4) are a sap.
Second rely to you, Clare. Doesn’t dear old Dad’s website have a bit of a dichotomy in it? First he says all he wanted to do was hold his baby girl in his arms, then LATER on the website he says he “did everything imaginable to be a good father.” When EXACTLY did he have time to do this, if the baby was adopted right out of the hospital… A little problem with these two statements, don’t you think? Again, read thoroughly and do some research.
I would assume he considered himself a father as soon as he found out his child had been conceived. Nothing unusual about that.
That seems reasonable.
The laws in Utah are specifically set up to facilitate this type of fraud on behalf of the adoption industry and prospective adoptive parents against biological relatives. The story told here is merely one example of thousands. A lot of money is at stake, as well as the human and civil rights of the adoptee in question. How this could ever be perceived as “ethical” I cannot fathom.
1. Show me the “fraud” in this story.
2. Quote me anything in the original post that says anyone in this matter was “ethical.” It is critical of Emily, and critical of John. (Hint: such a quote isn’t there.)
3. I expect comments to relate to what the post is actually written about—in this case, the irresponsibility of planning for parenthood without marriage, and the consequences of same. i don’t think that is an unreasonable expectation.
“Baby Emma will have plenty of love from her adoptive parents, in all likelihood. An adoptive parent’s love is no different from a natural parent’s love, and the child won’t feel any difference either.”
Oh. You’ve just proven that you haven’t done any real research into adoption issues. Reading what the adoption industry puts out is not sufficient.
The differences are real. They’re not insurmountable, but they’re real. Pretending they don’t exist causes real pain to adoptees. Most are able to hide their difficulties, at least while children, but the results become more evident as they get older.
Truly caring about an adoptee means educating yourself.
Nonsense. You have read too many Grimm’s Fairy Tales, and apparently lived in one. That’s too bad, but it doesn’t change the nature of parental love Sure, some adoptive parents have affection deficiencies. So do natural parents. It’s an offensive, slanderous, absolutely unsupportable position. But I’m sure a sincere one.
I also find it strange that you would defend the people who adopted Emma when you have no idea who they are or what type of situation Emma has been placed in. What’s that about?
Who is defending them, and on what basis to you presume they need defending for adopting a child that the birth mother wanted to give up? I presume people have good intentions until I know otherwise.
“I presume people have good intentions until I know otherwise.”
Then why write this article? You’ve presumed quite a bit based on your moral expectations of humans. Marriage before baby is a judgment on your part and has nothing to do with the decisions made by these people. You weren’t there, you don’t know the folks involved and you haven’t interviewed John or the Mother or the adoption agency, so you are simply writing what you feel, not what you know.
Nonsense. Analysis requires presumptions from known facts, applying experience and knowledge. John has a whole website devoted to a selective account of his side of the story, and I reached my opinions based on that. I hear this bogus argument all the time. It is a formula for learning nothing, because we can never know “everything.” It’s a copout.
you said it better than I could have Corrine I feel so guilty about bringing this subject here. I was so impressed by the “Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions” (on the left) that I foolishly assumed that Jack would only list them if he believed in and followed them. The ironic thing with this argument is that anyone with a son, grandson or nephew (biological or adopted) could very easily find his family on John’s side of this story. And I think its safe to say none of those young men (or their parents) deserve to lose their children…. and that’s true whether the young father in question is my son, your son or Jack’s! There’s a reason children are only placed for adoption if their families are unwilling or unable to take care of them. (thank God!)…. sadder but wiser I am about humanity after this article…. but again many thanks for bringing up such excellent points..
You’ve said this twice, which leads me to think you don’t really understand the rationalizations. What part of this post is inconsistent with the “Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions”? Here are the 18…while your support for John’s conduct embodies several of them, my criticism falls into none:
1. The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it”: This is essentially your argument why having children out of wedlock is OK—it is common. Yes, it’s common, and it’s destructive very frequently, and an unstable “family” leads to just this kind of disaster.
2. Consequentialism, or “It Worked Out for the Best”: N/A
3. Marion Barry’s Misdirection “If it isn’t illegal, it’s ethical.”
And the converse—it it’s legal, it IS ethical, which is the same fallacy. Courts may well back John. It still doesn’t mean he was responsible.
4. The Compliance Dodge. N/A
5. The Biblical Rationalizations: Used against me in this debate, not used BY me: As in “Have you ever made a mistake?” Sure. And I’m accountable for them too, just like John Wyatt.
6. The “Tit for Tat” Excuse: Not necessarily applicable, unless John is trying to get the adoption overturned to get revenge on the adoptive couple.
7. The Trivial Trap (Also known as “The Slippery Slope.”) John’s core mistake; don’t sweat the small stuff, like a marriage license. And do I think irresponsible creators of children are more likely to be irresponsible parents? Yes, I do.
8. The King’s Pass N/A
9. The Dissonance Drag Much of the support of John here is driven by an anti-adoption bias, making him seem more virtuous because his adversary is seen as “bad”…as in low on the dissonance scale.
10. The Saint’s Excuse N/A
11. The Futility Illusion: “If I don’t do it, somebody else will.” N/A
12. The Consistency Obsession N/A
13. Ethical Vigilantism N/A
14. Hamm’s Excuse: “It wasn’t my fault.” N/A
15. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things.” N/A
16. Woody’s Excuse: “The heart wants what the heart wants” No comment….
17. The Free Speech Confusion N/A
18. “The Favorite Child” Excuse N/A
That’s the whole list. It does not obligate me to endorse John’s actions or to agree with you. Your indictment of me is false. I have no problem with your criticism, but if you are going to impugn my integrity, you better be able to back it up.
Let me just point out that there was no answer to this, at least so far. The commenter who said that my post violated my own standards was asked to specify, and passed. It was an accusation with no basis in fact.
Jack, I’ve been watching this for a few days now.
First of all, yes. You’re right. John Wyatt, in a way, brought this upon himself by not marrying Emily Colleen Fahland and having pre-marital sex that resulted in a pregnancy.
If that’s the point you want to make, you made it, and you made it well. That said, if one were to become familiar with Virginia laws regarding birth, adoption, parental rights, maternal rights, paternal rights, etc… John Wyatt would have had a reasonable expectation to custody of his biological daughter. Through the use of deception, delays, avoidance, and clear violation of laws were the adoptive parents Thomas and Chandra Zarembinski able to fly to Virginia, take custody of a child they had no right to, and take that child across state lines.
I know you might object to the “they had no right to” bit, but here’s my logic. It was a Virginia mother, a Virginia father, a Virginia child and the transaction occurred in person with the adoptive parents present, in Virginia. Using Virginia laws, because that seems reasonable, Fahland relinquished her parental rights prior to the mandated 3 day waiting period after the birth of the baby. A law was broken and the adoptive parents lacked a legal right to the baby.
If John Wyatt was a reasonable person, not that I have evidence to the contrary, he would think that he would have 3 days to show Fahland that he is responsible, outline his plans, and even propose marriage. Those 3 days were taken from him and they proved to be “critical”. Even the 2 days that Baby Emma stayed in Virginia in her mother’s custody, she was withheld from her father as a delay tactic. Knowing that he was looking for his baby, they made him an offer to see the baby if he signed an adoption release. He refused and feeling the pressure of the rightful law, the agency and the adoptive parents fled the state and took custody before the waiting period had been fulfilled.
So my question to you is this:
If the rights he had were not enough to prevent an illegal adoption, what rights would he have gained if he had successfully married Emily Fahland that would have prevented this situation? It sounds like anyone can take a baby to Utah and file adoption papers with only a mother’s hasty drug-induced signature, other states’ laws be damned and certainly without the consent of the father.
For the record, I found an article from sometime in 2010 that stated Emily and John were back together, she regretted the decisions she made, and she wanted her baby back. John has said he’s always been ready, willing, and able to provide for baby Emma.
Using that information, what would prevent any mother, married or not, from sending her child to Utah for an adoption when there is a biological father who can provide for, love, care for that child?
I know you might try to pull up the “night club worker” bit again, but please give me a break. Perhaps John is a night club worker because he’s working on getting his daughter back in the day time. There are stripper mothers out there and they are deemed fit. Virginia courts have deemed John fit. Virginia courts have ordered Utah to return the child years ago.
These were my top 2 sources for my post:
http://www.ethicanet.org/utah-virginia-father-asks-federal-court-to-decide-adoption-case?wwparam=1302629478
http://test.dadsdivorce.com/father_divorce_forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35120&start=0
I guess I don’t understand your point. Utah’s laws are very hard on unmarried fathers. No state permits a mother to put her child up for adoption without the consent of her legal husband. So the short answer is: the law would stop it.
I said, though nobody seems to be listening, that I am not commenting on the legalities here—that’s the court’s job. If it is found that the Virginia law holds, then the Utah couple is screwed. If the courts ultimately back Utah, then John is screwed.
All the post ever said was that the whole mess could have been prevented if the two parents were responsible—e.g. ethical—to begin with. “John Wyatt, in a way, brought this upon himself by not marrying Emily Colleen Fahland and having pre-marital sex that resulted in a pregnancy.” Good summary. I also said that what Emily did to him was a betrayal.
I’m not making any call about John’s fitness…and nobody else should either. The legal standards for fitness are dismally low, as you know. I am more worried about Emily’s, frankly. You give your child away and then say “Oops!”…not a good sign.
I’m under attack here by anti-adoption zealots who refuse to concede that two parents in a marriage are better than one, and that there actually might have been a reason why Emily decided 1) to give up the child and 2) not to tell her “love.” I’m not out to get into leagl controversies. It’s a mess. The court’s will settle it. Personally, for the baby’s sake, I’m rooting for the adoptive couple, but if the adoption was illegal, it was illegal, and John and Emily will get a chance to a) marry or b) raise the child together until the next time Emily flips out.
No, I do not expect this to end well.
I guess I don’t understand your point. Utah’s laws are very hard on unmarried fathers.
Oh, so if John were married to an entirely different woman, and Emily was his mistress, Utah would have required the return of his daughter?
No. They want the father to be married to the mother for any rights to attach. It’s tough…I’m not outraged by it, though. Its a disincentive to knock up women if you’re interested in the kid at all….which a lot of men are not.
No state permits a mother to put her child up for adoption without the consent of her legal husband. So the short answer is: the law would stop it.
Just like the law stopped the adoption parents from circumventing a 3 day waiting period?
Again, if the law was illegally circumvented, there will be remedies for that…in other words, if the law applies, yes, it will stop them. It may just take a while. Lawyers and litigants have a right to argue that a law doesn’t apply or is wrongly burdensome.
I’m not going to assume how the legal controversy will be resolved one way or the other, and have no opinion in the matter.
I could define the ethical issue as this: When the mother of the child an unmarried father c0-created with her decides that she doesn’t want to/ can’t raise the child and doesn’t trust the father to raise her, is it ethical to put said child up for adoption without notifying or consulting the father?
In fact, I think I will.
I could define the ethical issue as this: When the mother of the child an unmarried father c0-created with her decides that she doesn’t want to/ can’t raise the child and doesn’t trust the father to raise her, is it ethical to put said child up for adoption without notifying or consulting the father?
Nearly superb. So, is it “Yes”, “No”, or “Depends”
“Depends,” I’m afraid.
Your ethical argument has two serious flaws.
1. You blast John Wyatt but last time I checked it takes two to have sex. Emily Fahland is just as quilty ethically unles you want to admit your ethical reasoning is hypocritical.
2. Marriage is a two way agreement. Just because he may ask her doesn;t mean she will say yes. If she says no then by your ethical logic he is also not entitled to raise his daughter.
Now I quote “I believe a biological father who won’t commit—legally as well as emotionally—to a binding relationship with the biological mother before conception should have no more rights in his offspring’s care and parenting than a sperm donor”
So no marriage no matter the reason then no being a father? If she kept the baby I guess he can’t be made to pay child support either in your “ethical” world.
I commented on Wyatt because he is the one with the “pity poor me” web site. I didn’t absolve Emily in any way. Either and both of them should have been responsible. If he had been responsible, it wouldn’t matter if she wasn’t, and vice-versa. That’s not “a flaw.”
No, if she says no, then they shouldn’t HAVE a daughter. You do comprehend that marriage first concept, right? After conception, the harm is done.
Your last section confuses rights and responsibilities.
So the crux of your entire ethical argument is that he should have married her first and by doing so there is ethically no dilemma here regardless of what happens after said marriage?
No confusion at all. According to your argument in order to have rights one must be responsible. Failure to be responsible causes one to lose rights – in this case John Wyatt.
I’ll stop here and no longer waste my time. Never argue with a crazy man – you’ll never win. I suggest everyone else stop arguing with him as well and move on to more productive use of your time.
Oh, what brain dead silliness. I am not talking about legal rights. I did not say he doesn’t have rights. That’s not the issue here; in court, it’s the issue. Ethics commentary is lost on people who can’t comprehend the distinction. As a policy matter, I believe a father who can’t be bothered to get married before conceiving should have fewer rights than a married father, because I don’t think society benefits from giving incentives for irresponsible conduct. All I said is that it is irresponsible conduct, and it is.
And I have no idea what your first sentence is trying to say. I have read nothing but wild conspiracy theories and unhinged emotion from you and your gang; the insults are no surprise. Part of the syndrome.
“I’m under attack here by anti-abortion zealots who refuse to concede that two parents in a marriage are better than one”
Attack? Uh-Ok.
I’m guessing you meant adoption, not abortion?
What about when a spouse dies? Should the child be adopted out? What about divorce, when one parent walks? What about single women adopting? There’s thousands of them. I ask because you throw ‘ethics’ into it. I actually agree that John would be in a better position if he were married to the mother, not that I care one bit about marriage, but legally it would perhaps give him an advantage.
I apologized to John and his family about this whole ugly online mess because I am responsible. They were very gracious and understand that I really was trying to help. Apparently he did ask the baby’s mother several times to marry him but she declined. She stated that she was willing to raise the child with him (multiple times) but not ready to get married yet. So, yes (for what its worth) in addition to everything else he did offer to marry Colleen. As a parent (and probably one day a grandparent) this story really frightens me because what this agency did to Emma could be done to absolutely any baby in the U.S. Back in the 20’s (in certain states) mothers lost their children in this country because only the father’s permission was required for an adoption. This is equally horrible. Keeping John and Emma in prayer and hoping she will soon be reunited with her family.
Clare, you are hysterical. You are wrong. And you owe nobody any apologies…I could have found the story a dozen ways, and would have sooner or later
Yes…typo fixed.I have yet to be attacked by anti-abortion zealots.It’s hard jumping from post to post.
Why should you care about marriage? After all, the figures show that the children of married couples have higher drop-out rates, crime rates, underage birth rates, poverty rates…wait…that would be the children of UN married couples, wouldn’t it? My error.
Anyone who doesn’t care about marriage is a fool.
What is the ethical dilemma you’re tackling here? More than anything, it seems like you’re making the case that pre-marital sex without accountability is unethical and immoral. Which is fine, I guess.
Except that this case, as presented in the public, is much more about the ethics of adoption and adoption policy than the ethics of conceiving babies prior to marriage.
I’m a little confused as to why you turned it into an entirely different discussion…
After re-reading, I also think it’d help if you clearly stated what the ethical dilemma(s) is/are, as there seem to be a few you addressed. Considering the case as one big entity and presenting one large, blended argument seems to only incite confusion.
The post is clear, unless one approaches it convinced it’s about something else. It’s also pretty obvious. Having a child out of wedlock demonstrates irresponsibility and engenders a lack of trust, since there are fewer legal obligations committed to by the father. His blissful musings about anticipated parenthood are at best naive and at worst did ingenuous. Sure enough, the woman who was carrying his baby demonstrated that she did not trust him to raise the child alone, and didn’t want to raise the child with him. I said 1) She was wrong to deceive him and secretly have the child adopted while keeping him in the dark, and 2) his own irresponsibility laid the foundation for the entire incident.
I researched the story and identified the ethical (as opposed to LEGAL) issues as I saw them. Individual interested in making another point entirely chose to turn the discussion to their agenda. I don’t see, frankly, an ethical problem with voluntary adoption when a mother of an infant feels incapable of caring for it, there is no marriage, and a committed, responsible couple is eager to take on the responsibility. (Again, the complete cutting the father out of the process is a different matter.) The commenters who seem to feel adoption itself is inherently unethical—a fanatical view, I believe— do so by claiming diabolical motives and methods that I have no reason to assume were present in this case—if they were, again, that changes the discussion. i have no obligation to discuss non-ethical, non-rational, and ideological issues—that’s not waht the blog is about.
Your statement that “…it seems like you’re making the case that pre-marital sex without accountability is unethical and immoral” is false. For one thing, I never, or almost never, discuss morals. This is about what is right or wrong, not what some authority has decreed is right or wrong. Second, the post was about having children out of wedlock, not having unmarried sex. There was nothing in John Wyatt’s account that led me to believe that this wasn’t an intentional pregnancy. Unmarried sex is a couple’s business, as long as they are responsible about it. If it is done in such a way that it creates children the couple can’t or won’t cope with, that’s unethical, and there is no “I guess” about it.
“This is about what is right or wrong, not what some authority has decreed is right or wrong. Second, the post was about having children out of wedlock, not having unmarried sex. There was nothing in John Wyatt’s account that led me to believe that this wasn’t an intentional pregnancy. Unmarried sex is a couple’s business, as long as they are responsible about it. If it is done in such a way that it creates children the couple can’t or won’t cope with, that’s unethical, and there is no “I guess” about it.”
If I have to, I’ll go find a source, but as the story goes, John consoled his girlfriend when she found out she was pregnant, reinforced his support and love for her and encouraged her throughout the pregnancy, vowing to be there for her and talking of plans to marry her.
While you can’t find evidence that says it wasn’t an intentional pregnancy, I look at the above and think that the only way to reconcile your post and the facts available, is to conclude that your post was about “pre-marital sex”.
Certainly, you aren’t labeling John as unethical because he emotionally supported his girlfriend. And you aren’t labeling him unethical because he talked with her about marriage. You’re label of unethical was because he got a girl pregnant. Well, what does moral luck have to say about this situation? Two guys have sex with their respective girlfriends. They both take precautions and those precautions both hit the fan. Who is more unethical, the one who got his girlfriend pregnant or the one who didn’t get his girlfriend pregnant?
Since moral luck will tell us that both of these guys are unethical, then the issue can’t be related to the pregnancy, but to the act that lead to pregnancy – pre-marital sex.
Does any of that add up? Am I close? Or is it way left field?
If I have to, I’ll go find a source, but as the story goes, John consoled his girlfriend when she found out she was pregnant, reinforced his support and love for her and encouraged her throughout the pregnancy, vowing to be there for her and talking of plans to marry her.
This and the fact that they were 19. I don’t know too many teenagers with planned or intentional pregnancies.
You don’t know them, but there are a lot of them, culturally and peer reinforced. Surely you recall the infamous “pregnancy pact” where 16 girls at Glouchester High in Mass. got pregnant by design?
Looks like some recent comments are missing…
Virginia absolutely recognizes John’s right to raise his daughter having awarded him (and only him) temporary custody on 8/24/09 and permanent custody on 12/11/09. Both times the Virginia court directed Utah to return the baby (at that time she still was a baby). Utah just didn’t care. The Today show interviewed John Wyatt this morning and the Dateline program will finally air tonight.
I don’t know why you say that about recent comments. I haven’t removed any, and I’m the only one who can. I believe I banned one commenter on this post for being uncivil and repetitive, but but I erased those mental taps. If a comment was deleted, it was because of language and tone, not content.
Utah takes the position that the child is in its jurisdiction legally, not Virginia’s. These inter-state disputes can end up in the Supreme Court. It isn’t fair to say Utah doesn’t care—it goes by its own laws, not Virginia’s.
So you’re saying that since a woman doesn’t have sex by herself to impregnate herself, an actual person is involved, or at least a man I’m some way, and that woman becomes pregnant, the father has no rights? How does this make sense? In that case, why is the fathers name needed on the birth certificate? The country is practically in an uproar due to “deadbeat” dads, and when one finallly wants to step up, Utah puts a stop to it. And you encourage that? You can’t get married just because someone is pregnant. What year is this, 1953?
I’d be happy to respond to your comment if you would state it in English. I honestly have no clue as to why you think you are trying to say.
I didn’t write that the father has no rights, or should have no rights. I wrote that the father in this case was partially culpable for his own predicament because he irresponsibly brought a child into the world without a stable family unit to bring it into. This is inarguably true. That was the responsible and ethical way to have a child in 1953, and is now. Your incoherent question suggests that you aren’t really analyzing the issue, but just reacting viscerally to John’s plight. Go ahead—I don’t have that luxury.
This is my first time hearing of this story & I was sadden & shocked by the whole thing. I watched it on Dateline tonight & I couldn’t believe it. I thought for sure he’d win custody at the end of the show. I’m sad my heart is heavy. I pray for all involved. I stubbled across this website seeking more information & Mr. Marshalls comments stunned me but we are all entitled to our opinions. I pray Gods will be done, that she grows up happy, healthy, loved & protected. If she’s not reunited with her birth father now maybe she’ll seek him out when she’s old enough and they can build a relationship.
I don’t agree with him fighting. I understand him wanting the baby and maybe until she was a year old that was fine but that she’s 3yrs old it’s been too long and the child would be more damaged having to move into a family she doesn’t know.
Rachel: This is an ethics trainwreck, and thus nobody has clean hands.
Encouraged by the same voices represented by commenters here, John Wyatt is now fighting for his idea of principle and the welfare of his daughter has become secondary. Did the adoptive parents exploit a situation where they should have checked to see what the attitude and desires of the father was? Yes—and they are paying for that now. Was Wyatt naive, irresponsible, juvenile and reckless to father a child and not make the necessary legal and social commitments to ensure a stable family? Yes. Did he display traits that his supposed love felt would endanger their child? Well, it sure seems likely to me—why else would she do what she did? Was her conduct a rank betrayal? Yes—unless she justly and reasonably believed that she was doing what was in the child’s best interest, in which case she was courageous. Was John right to seek custody of the child? Once upon a time, sure. But now, after she has a stable home and the only parents she has ever known?
Absolutely not.