LAWSUIT: A Act of Love Adoption Services UPDATED

John M. Wyatt has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Virginia for $22 Million in collective damages for himself, his mother and his daughter, Emma.

John “claims a Utah adoption agency, its attorney, the adoptive parents and their attorney used “improper, unethical and fraudulent means and methods” to deprive him of his parental rights and kidnap Baby Emma after her birth.”

“The complaint names A Act of Love Adoption Services, social worker Laraine Moon, adoption attorney Larry S. Jenkins, Thomas I. and Chandra Zarembinski, and attorney Mark T. McDermott, of Maryland.”

In part the claim is that “restrictive adoption laws, including a requirement that a putative father file with the state’s registry no later than 24 hours after a child’s birth” is part of a wider conspiracy that violates unmarried biological fathers’ rights and is “promoted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Utah Legislature, state agencies and the courts.”

“Wyatt’s federal lawsuit is believed to be the first to raise constitutional questions about Utah’s adoption laws, which at least half a dozen biological, unmarried fathers have unsuccessfully fought in state court. The lawsuit also seeks clarity on what happens when courts in different states make conflicting rulings regarding paternity and custody rights.”

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51349203-76/adoption-wyatt-utah-baby.html.csp
[Salt Lake Tribune 3/3/11 by Brooke Adams]

Attorney Larry S. Jenkins has a long history of being on the receiving end of father’s rights lawsuits. A history can be found at Pound Pup Legacy Larry S. Jenkins Files .

Update: “The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a Virginia father’s appeal to overturn the adoption of his daughter, a child known as “Baby Emma,” finding he did not meet required deadlines for asserting his parental rights.

Virginia father loses bid to overturn his daughter’s Utah adoption
[The Salt Lake Tribune 7/19/11 by Brooke Adams]

More information on the involvement of John and the coercion of the signature of adoption papers can be found at Pound Pup Legacy , excerpted below:

“He went to doctor appointments and spoke to the baby soothingly inside Fahland’s belly, with the belief that childhood connection to a father’s voice can begin before birth. Wyatt and Fahland, who have known each other since second grade and dated for about three years prior to the pregnancy, are still romantically involved, he says. While Fahland has declined all interviews with the news media, her attorney and Wyatt say she regrets her role in the adoption.

On the day of the Emma’s birth, Wyatt and his mother arrived at the hospital for the delivery, but the hospital would not let them in. So-called “silent patient” privacy policies allow patients to have no information released about them.

Wyatt knows what happened next only secondhand from Fahland and from court testimony. He says she was isolated in a hotel room and pressed by representatives of the adoption agency and her own mother to sign the relinquishment papers. “To me, it sounds like they took advantage of her,” Wyatt says.

It’s disputed whether Wyatt filed for custody of the child in Virginia court before the adoption papers were signed by Fahland, but both sides agree a Virginia court has granted temporary custody to Wyatt while the Utah court granted temporary custody to adoptive parents, Thomas and Chandra Zarembinski of Utah.”

Shame on you, adoptive parents! What are you going to tell your daughter when she asks why her biological parents aren’t raising her?She WILL find all the stories about what you have done some day.

For other Father’s Rights’ stories on REFORM Talk, click here.

Update 2 August 29, 2011: A Act of Love now has a statement posted on their website here and is pasted below:

“STATEMENT OF ACT OF LOVE ADOPTION AGENCY REGARDING “BABY EMMA” ADOPTION

In February, 2009, an unmarried Virginia birth mother legally and voluntarily relinquished her baby for adoption by a Utah couple. The birth mother freely waived Virginia law and consented to a Utah adoption. Meanwhile, even before the baby’s birth the biological father, John Wyatt, was told by the birth mother that she was working with a Utah agency about a possible adoption. The birth mother also told representatives of this agency that Mr. Wyatt had retained legal counsel, who we believed would help him protect his parental rights to the extent that he desired to do so. We repeatedly checked both the Virginia and Utah putative father registries over the following weeks, and when Mr. Wyatt failed to register within the time frames set out in Utah law, a formal petition for adoption was filed with the Utah courts.

That Mr. Wyatt failed to preserve his rights has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Utah. That the interstate transfer was conducted legally was confirmed by the Department of Health and Human Resources of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Nevertheless, Mr. Wyatt has sued for money damages in a Virginia court.

Because these issues are the subject of the Virginia litigation, we have refrained – unlike Mr. Wyatt – from taking this case to trial via the media. In addition, we steadfastly honor our legal and ethical obligations to protect the privacy and abide by the wishes of our clients. For these reasons, so far only Mr. Wyatt’s side of the story has been told. We are confident that when all of the facts are presented, Act of Love Adoptions and its employees will be fully vindicated. All we ask is that people keep an open mind until both sides of the story are known.

Meanwhile we will continue to help people in need of our services, as we have in the past, with skill, compassion and integrity.”

John Wyatt has a website here. Scroll down to see the NBC Dateline report on his case. It is divided into six short parts and is a MUST SEE. It shows how the agency moved the “birthmother” to multiple hotels to keep her whereabouts a secret from John. It shows that a text message was what caused the Utah clock ticking, again affirms that the “birthmother” deeply regrets what she has done and much more.

This case is being discussed on some adoption yahoo groups. Beware of yahoo groups that are being run by adoption agency personnel as the whole story is likely not being discussed and comments are being moderated out. Shame on adoption industry personnel who back up these despicable, unethical and immoral practices or suppress open discussion.

Also see a comparison of this case with the Guatemala Anyeli case here.

Update 3: John is taking his case to the US Supreme Court. His website has the 145-page pdf of his filing at http://www.babyemmawyatt.com/No_11-__Pet_AppOktoPrint_Crowell_Moring_-c.pdf

It is very costly to bring this case to the US Supreme Court….in the tens of thousands of dollars. There is a donate button on his website, if you would like to assist: http://www.babyemmawyatt.com/Donate.html

We are routing for you, John!

“The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), a federal law that sets a “first in time” rule for interstate custody disputes, is designed to prevent both problems but was “undermined” by the Utah Supreme Court’s July 2011 ruling against John Wyatt, he argues in a petition to the justices.

Virginia man asks U.S. high court to hear adoption case
[The Salt Lake Tribune 1/1/12 by Brooke Adams]

Update 4: “The Supreme Court of Virginia on Friday gave new life to the legal battle over a child known as Baby Emma by ruling her father was “purposefully kept in the dark” about her Utah adoption and could argue in federal court that the proceedings interfered with his parental rights.

In a split decision, the justices said John Wyatt could pursue monetary damages in federal court for loss of companionship, mental anguish, loss of services and expenses incurred in his fight to recover his now 3-year-old daughter. Wyatt has a lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Mark McDermott, a Virginia attorney; A Act of Love, a Utah adoption agency; Lorraine Moon, the agency employee who  facilitated the adoption; Larry Jenkins, a Utah attorney; and the adoptive  parents.

The federal court had asked the Virginia Supreme Court to settle two questions: whether the commonwealth recognized the right to pursue a tort action for interference with paternal rights and, if so, what burden of proof must be met and what elements constitute a cause of action.

The decision is the first to address such questions in Virginia, the high court noted.

The majority found that while Virginia statutes do not specifically recognize “tortious interference with parental rights,” such a cause of action has existed in common law since 1607 and “continues to exist today.”

Failure to recognize that claim would “leave a substantial gap in the legal protection afforded to the parent-child relationship,” the majority wrote. It said an “overwhelming majority” of courts in “sister states” have reached similar conclusions.

“It is both astonishing and profoundly disturbing that in this case, a biological mother and her parents, with the aid of two licensed attorneys and an adoption agency, could intentionally act to prevent a biological father — who is in no way alleged to be an unfit parent — from legally establishing his parental rights and gaining custody of a child whom the mother did not want to keep, and that this father would have no recourse in the law,” the majority said.

It said the facts of the case showed that the defendants went to “great lengths to disguise their agenda from the biological father, including preventing notice of his daughter’s birth and hiding their intent to have an immediate out-of-state adoption, in order to prevent the legal establishment of his own parental rights.”

The court also found that Wyatt must meet a preponderance of the evidence standard, a less rigorous standard, in proving “tangible and intangible damages” caused by the “unauthorized” adoption.

However, under a tort action, Wyatt is not entitled to seek an injunction or new custody orders involving his child.

There were two dissenting opinions in the 4-3 decision. In one dissent, a justice said that while “the facts as pled by Wyatt are unquestionably disturbing,” there was no cause of action under Virginia law and the majority was engaging in “legislating public policy in Virginia through judicial
pronouncement.”

The majority, however, said it hoped that threat of civil action would help “deter third parties such as attorneys and adoption agencies from engaging in the sort of actions alleged to have taken place.”

“It means that if third parties interfere with a person’s normal parental rights, you can sue and hold them liable,” said Philip Hirschkop, Wyatt’s attorney. He said the federal case is set for trial in mid-July.

Wyatt and his then-girlfriend Emily Colleen Fahland were dating when she became pregnant. He accompanied Fahland to doctor appointments, and she repeatedly assured him they would raise the child together.

However, at the behest of her parents, Fahland also met with McDermott, an adoption attorney. He instructed Fahland to falsely indicate on adoption paperwork that she did not know Wyatt’s address, according to the court opinion. At McDermott’s urging, she also made other false statements to Wyatt
so that he “would not take steps to secure his parental rights and prevent  the adoption.”

Fahland gave birth in Virginia on Feb. 10, 2009, and two days later relinquished her rights and custody of the baby to the adoptive couple, who traveled to Virginia to pick up the infant. On Feb. 18, Wyatt initiated a paternity action in Virginia and was ultimately awarded custody of his daughter.

However, a Utah court subsequently found he had no standing to intervene and approved the adoption.

The Utah Supreme Court upheld that finding in July 2011, holding that Wyatt did not meet required deadlines for asserting his parental rights under Utah law. Also, the court found that he was barred from arguing that the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act required Utah to follow a Virginia
judge’s order granting him custody because he failed to raise that argument in the lower court.  ”

Virginia father gets green light to seek damages in Utah adoption
[The Salt Lake Tribune 4/20/12 by Brooke Adams]

REFORM Puzzle Piece