Another Day, Another Single Dad Kept From His Child in Utah UPDATED and Lawsuit

Maybe we should just have a blog dedicated to this subject.

Jake Strickland says that his girlfriend secretly delivered their child and gave the boy up for adoption through LDS Services in December 2010. Jake’s mother helped him decorate the nursey in preparation for the child that he intended to raise. Just like John Wyatt .

“She delivered Jackson December 29. Jake texted her a few days later. “I asked her how did your doctors appointment go and she says good no change,” she said.

Actually, she had already signed his baby up for adoption and by the time Jake found out it was too late to get his son back.”

“Jake says he’s upset his girlfriend would deceive him and outraged the system will protect deception. “My son is 7 and a half months old. I’ve never met him that picture right there is one of the only ones I have of him,” said Jake.

He has spent $10,000 in legal fees to get his son back.”

Comments

“Any adoption agency that’s willing to stoop that low to destroy one family to create another should be should be shut down completely,” said Jake.

“Adoption attorney Wes Hutchins says Utah law supports deception. “She can lie. She can misrepresent. She can commit fraud. That’s expressly what the state permits the woman to do,” said Hutchins. He is also President of the Utah Adoption Council, but is speaking on behalf of himself and not the organization. ” Well, Wes, what are you going to do about it? How many separated families will it take?

“Utah’s Supreme Court Justice Christine Durham wrote, ” Utah risks becoming a magnet for those seeking to unfairly cut off opportunities for biological fathers to assert their rights to a connection with their children.” The statement was part of a dissenting opinion in the O’Dea v. Olea case.” I think you are there already.

Hats off to the local station for reporting this. Hope you don’t get fired or worse for it.

Father fighting adoption laws to get son
[ABC4 8/27/11 by Noah Bond]

REFORM Puzzle Piece

Update: Now a bill that may sanction agencies in Utah is being discussed and Jake’s case is the reason.

“On Wednesday, the Utah Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee, saw photographs of the man and an obviously pregnant woman who was carrying the man’s child, Hutchins said.

The woman is depicted in photographs touring Temple Square with the biological father and his family on Dec. 29, 2009. The following day, the baby was born, unbeknownst to the biological father, Jake Strickland. Just over 24 hours later, the birth mother signed documents relinquishing her parental rights.

Strickland had been told by the birth mother that the baby would be delivered by C-section on Jan. 12, 2010, Hutchins said.

On Jan. 5, 2010, however, the woman told Strickland in a cell phone conversation that she had placed the baby with an adoptive couple, he said.

Strickland initiated a paternity claim the following day. He had not, however, registered with Utah’s putative father registry during the pregnancy.

Strickland later learned that the woman was not legally divorced from her husband, according to press reports. Under the state Judicial Code, a married woman’s husband is presumed to be the father of her child.

Strickland and his family have been engaged in a legal fight over the adoption for more than two years. Second District Court Judge David Hamilton could rule on the case as early as Thursday, said Strickland’s mother, Jenny Graham.

Hutchins, a family law attorney now representing Strickland, told the legislative committee that many pregnant young women from other states come to Utah to place their babies for adoption because Utah law has weak protections for biological fathers.

Hutchins told lawmakers that some agencies even “coach” birth mothers what to tell biological fathers who inquire about the child’s birth or their rights.

Among western states, few have as many paternal rights cases that go up to appellate courts, which suggest problems with Utah’s laws, he said.

Rep. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, who is also an attorney, said it could also be construed that Utah’s higher courts are more amenable to hearing such cases.

To that end, Rep. Christine Watkins, D-Price, has developed a legislative proposal to further regulate the activities of adoption agencies.

A draft discussed by state lawmakers Wednesday contemplates sanctions for adoption agencies or employees of such agencies who make fraudulent representations in connection with adoptions.

Agency licenses could be suspended, even revoked, according to the proposal. The proposal also includes a provision in which a party that challenges a fraudulent representation in connection with an adoption and prevails, can be awarded attorney fees and costs.

Under the proposed legislation, notice of an adoption must be provided to an unmarried biological father of a child six months old or younger.

McCay said that portion of the draft legislation raised concerns because adoptive parents need to know that an adoption, when finalized, is final.

“I think there is some value to the finality and getting the kid out of the middle of a fight,” McCay said.

Hutchins, who told lawmakers that he has worked in family law for two decades, agreed that parents need that assurance.

He said he believes the attorney fees provision of the draft legislation would persuade any party against making false representations that could disrupt a placement.

Watkins asked the committee to take time to study the proposal and allow her to make further refinements before the interim committee takes any action.”

Proposed bill would penalize adoption agencies for fraudulent representations

[Deseret News 8/15/12 by Marjorie Cortez]

Update 2:“A West Jordan attorney and his Arizona-based client are suing for $130 million over an adoption that they say was unlawful, citing a federal act typically used to prosecute gang members and others involved in organized crime.

In the complaint filed Friday, attorney Wesley Hutchins and his client, Jake Strickland, accuse a Utah woman who had Strickland’s child, LDS Family Services, an LDS Family Services employee, the child’s adoptive parents and attorneys from the law firm Kirton McKonkie who aided in the adoption of “racketeering” and “kidnapping.” They also allege that the parties are guilty of wire fraud, human trafficking and selling a child.

 

Hutchins admits the allegations are attention-grabbing and the suit is intended, in part, to bring attention to the rights of birth fathers. But a lawmaker familiar with the case says the lawsuit is unnecessary.

 

The lawsuit hinges on the story of Strickland, who claims the woman with whom he fathered a child lied to him about her plans for the child until the day before the boy was born. But Hutchins said he pointed to other cases of alleged fraud in the lawsuit as well to demonstrate that the birth mother’s fraud was part of what he claims is a larger pattern found among adoption agencies and attorneys in the state.

 

“It’s really an issue of accountability,” Hutchins said. “With these fraudulent adoption schemes you find that they are fraudulent, there are co-conspirators involved — most notably adoption attorneys, adoption agencies and adoptive mothers that are engaged in an enterprise,” he said. “We’ve cited those other cases as a necessary element to RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) to show a pattern of unlawful conduct.”

 

Strickland fathered a child with a woman who was married but estranged from her husband. The woman said she was considering an adoption, but Strickland stated numerous times that he wanted the child and would care for it by himself if necessary, the lawsuit states.

 

The baby was born, unbeknownst to Strickland, on Dec. 29, 2010. Just over 24 hours later, the birth mother signed documents relinquishing her parental rights.

 

Strickland had been told by the birth mother that the baby would be delivered by C-section on Jan. 12, 2010. But on Jan. 5, 2010, the birth mother told Strickland in a cellphone conversation that she had placed the baby with an adoptive couple, according to the lawsuit.

 

Strickland initiated a paternity claim the following day. He had not, however, registered with Utah’s putative father registry during the pregnancy.

 

Strickland later learned that the woman was not legally divorced from her husband, according to press reports. Under the state Judicial Code, a married woman’s husband is presumed to be the father of her child.

 

According to the lawsuit, a social worker pressured the woman’s husband to relinquish his parental rights and allow the adoption to proceed. Hutchins said she even threatened the man after he mentioned Strickland, telling him that if he didn’t keep quiet he would be stuck with child support payments.

 

He also alleges that attorneys David Hardy and Larry Jenkins failed to inform the adoption court about a stipulation in a paternity case recognizing Strickland as the biological father and left the man in the dark about proceedings as they “rushed” the adoption. He said he and Strickland are seeking $30 million for what Strickland lost in being able to raise and enjoy his child.

 

The $100 million is “an amount specifically designed to serve as a deterrent to this kind of conduct,” Hutchins said. “Under the Utah Adoption Act you can commit fraud and it is not a basis to overturn an otherwise illegal adoption, you can sue for damages. … So you can’t get your child back if there’s a fraudulent adoption, but you can get money.”

 

The attorneys in the suit with Kirton McKonkie declined to comment, as did LDS Family Services. But Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said Strickland had an attorney who told him to follow Utah law and register as the father.

 

Weiler said he knows of the Strickland family and is sympathetic. He has heard Strickland’s mother testify at the Utah Legislature and has met with her.

 

“It’s a tragic story and she feels that she lost her grandchild and my heart goes out to her, but the protections there in the law were there and they weren’t followed,” Weiler said, emphasizing the ease of registering for paternity in the state.

 

“His rights would have been protected if he would have just followed the advice of his own attorney,” Weiler said. “The lawsuit takes a shotgun approach against a lot of good people and a lot of good entities that are doing lot of good. … It appears to me that they’re trying to blame everyone except for the responsible party.”

 

He said he is aware of pending lawsuits alleging injustices for unwed fathers in Utah, but said they don’t justify a serious change in the law. He noted that he is an attorney who has personally handled more than 100 adoptions.

 

“I’m not convinced that a dramatic change needs to take place, because when we make a change it affects tens of thousands of adoptions and what we’re looking at in this lawsuit and a few other high-profile lawsuits are one or two bad examples out of 10,000,” he said. “I don’t think it’s good policy for the state to look at one or two exceptions and say, ‘Let’s change the laws for everyone.'””

Unwed father alleges racketeering in adoption lawsuit[Deseret News 12/30/13 By Emiley Morgan]

Update 3:”Jake Strickland thought the mother of his child was going to keep their baby, not give the boy up for adoption.

Three years ago, the day before Whitney Vivian Pettersson Demke gave birth to their son, they were strolling Temple Square together, looking at the Christmas lights.

But the baby was swiftly placed with adoptive parents, as Strickland had not signed up with Utah’s putative father registry to retain his parental rights.

Strickland is now embroiled in a legal battle to gain custody of his child, a struggle that reached the Utah Supreme Court on Wednesday morning.

Strickland’s attorney, Wes Hutchins, argued that Demke deceived Strickland into thinking he had no reason to file and thus did not have a “meaningful opportunity to protect his rights.”

“She intended all along [to put the child up for adoption] — little known to Jake, because her conduct was exactly the contrary,” Hutchins said following the hearing. “She had every intent all along to place the child for adoption without disclosing that to Jake.”

Attorney Larry Jenkins — representing the adoptive parents, who are identified in court documents only by their initials — countered that Strickland was aware of what he needed to do to secure his rights, but didn’t.

Justice Christine Durham seemed to share that sentiment, telling Hutchins that his client “knew of those rights and had plenty of time to exercise them.”

The high court took the matter under advisement.

Strickland is among dozens of men who have waged similar fights in Utah, which arguably has the nation’s strictest laws governing unwed father’s rights.

“[Demke] told me that if I filed, she’d freak out,” Strickland said after Wednesday’s hearing. To sign up can cost $3,000 to $4,000 in attorney’s fees, and Strickland said he would have rather spent that money on providing for his son.

Demke gave birth on Dec. 29 and a day later placed the baby for adoption. Strickland did not learn until Jan. 5 that Demke had already given birth and relinquished her rights to the child.

He learned in November 2011 that his son’s adoption had been completed, but a 2nd District judge denied Strickland’s efforts to challenge the adoption. Strickland filed a notice appeal last January.

Strickland also has a $130 million federal lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court against Demke, LDS Family Services, the adoptive parents and attorneys, alleging they conspired in an “illegal deceit-ridden infant adoption.”

Hutchins clarified Wednesday that the adoptive parents are named as defendants so that he can find out what they did or did not know about the fraud.

Strickland added that the large sum of money is meant to deter adoption agencies from engaging in this sort of practice in the future.”

Utah Supreme Court hears father’s adoption appeal[The Salt Lake Tribune 10/8/14 by Michael McFall]

 Update 4: Jake loses!Boo!

https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/In%20re%20B.Y.20150811.pdf UT Courts]

“This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to intervene in an adoption proceeding. The motion was filed by Jake Strickland, the putative father of the child in question. The district court denied the motion on the ground that Strickland had failed to IN RE B.Y. Opinion of the Court 2 strictly comply with the statutory requirements in the Adoption Act for an unmarried putative father to preserve his right to contest an adoption. ¶2 In so doing, the district court also rejected Strickland‘s attempt to excuse his failure to fulfill the requirements of the Act based on representations made to him by the mother— specifically, her promise not to place the child for adoption if Strickland agreed not to file a paternity action. The court‘s rejection of Strickland‘s reliance on the mother‘s representations was based on a provision of the Adoption Act providing that a parent of a child conceived outside of marriage ―is responsible for his or her own actions and is not excused from strict compliance with the provisions of this chapter based upon any action, statement, or omission of the other parent or third parties.‖ UTAH CODE § 78B-6- 106(1). Strickland also challenged the constitutionality of this provision on various grounds rejected by the district court. ¶3 We affirm. Strickland forfeited his parental rights as a result of a private bargain he struck with W.P., not because of any unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful state action. We accordingly hold that Strickland has no viable interest in the child in question and therefore affirm the denial of his motion to intervene. “