Does this seem unusual?

Question

A friend sent this to me...(scroll down and look at the video)

Does it seem odd that a jury is deciding the fate of a child when contesting an adoption?

Does this happen normally?

Michael Hunter lost child in LDS adoption.

http://exposingmormonism.blogspot.com/search/label/LDS%20Adoptions

Answer 1

is this a trick question?

Answer 2

It seems like I should answer this question for this has torn my son to pieces. For he is the father of Hunter.

  What people don't understand is how he wouldn't have known about the baby, it's simple. B Mom and Shawn lived  together for  3 years. They had a child together, which he adores his little girl. The b-mom got caught cheating and left both him and his daughter after a week she came back and got the daughter. They still tried to work things out but within 2 months she moved in with another man and kept hid and even moved around alot The couple are family members of this man.  Shawn found out 2 days before the birth and started contesting the child being put up for adoption ,LDS knew this. They said father had moved to another state when in fact he lived in the same house that the birth mother had left from ,and cont to live there, for over a year,  with the same cell phone.

      This is what happened, in and out of court the father begged to know where his son was and they kept that fact hid from him to use "best interest",  which worked.  The father did timely  file  his intent  to claim paternity with the state   registry,  but what good did that do.

    The couple are  managing  conservators.Why did the jury do this you ask? Because after they, with the help of the agancy ( the agency even put in papers not to take the child for dna but a social worker do that to keep the child hid longer) That's why I called it kidnapping because that is exactly what happened. The jury couldn't take the father's rights because he had proved that the pregancy was hid from him.

   Now understand this. The court where this took place see's everyday what good they think this agency does. The lawyer for the baby works alot with the lawyer for the couple in his adoptuion agency which the lawyer owns in Texas.

  The father get visitaion with his son but his daughter has to wait intil Hunter is 3 so he can travel back and forth until that time the father has the whole month of july with his son and his daughter. The father travels 1,500 miles one way a month to see his son at his expense. This is all until the appeal.

    You will start seeing this alot with this adoption agency they will stop at nothing. They even go as far as send the mother out of state to have the baby so the father won't know where his child is going to be born .

   Look I don't really blame the jury this couple said they couldn't have children and that they have bonded with him and what damage it would do to him. LIES she is expecting right now and this wonderful child knows the Shawn as dad but this couple don't want him to call him dad just by his first name. They had the nerve to tell  shawn that God gave them this blond hair blue eyed baby that looks alot like them. GOD gave them nothing.

Shawn had even asked  the judge to change his name, the one on the birth record to michael Hunter and she didn't so his name is on record baby boy. Sick isn't it.

  Shawn has his daughter everyweekend and most all hoiladays, not because the courts let him, because the mother lets her see him anytime he wants, and he gets her when she doesn't want her, or has something she wants to do.

To elodie

  You can't just blame the social worker either.  LDS Family service has lawyers to do their fighting for the social worker and their agency, at any pont from birth on they could have gave Mr McDonald his son back instead of hiding the child

from him. . As far as the social worker if  LDS FS still  allows this social worker to contuine to work in adoptions then they are responsable for his past and future actions.  LDSFS exist because of their church. But your right the court will find the wrong doing in this case.

      I'm not against adoptions. My youngest can't have children she was born with tunner syrdrome. But i will tell you this no one from this family  will ever  adopt a child where both natural parents are not involved in this decision.

Answer 3

If this isn't a religious issue why do you include a link to an Anti-Mormon website?

It is a legal issue and yeah, it sounds like this particular office and this particular social worker did not follow the law.

That DOES not mean that the LDS Church condones the actions of this man.

This website is completely biased against the LDS Church, who is admittedly pro-adoption, and there is nothing wrong with that. They also believe is obeying the law.

Adoption law is sticky, I think everyone can admit to that, which is why there are so many people here in favor of reform.

But condemning the entire LDS Church for the actions of one worker, and one agency is wrong.

What happened to Mr. Hunter is wrong. I am sorry for him, and his family who have had to deal with this. I imagine the courts are just trying to figure out the best way to handle this mess. No matter what their final decision is, someone is going to be hurt.

EDIT: While I understand that you used the link that was provided to you, the site is still very Anti-Mormon. The information about the case is available from other sources.

Answer 4

You seem to not be familiar with the courts, juries and the adoption process. This sort of thing, unfortunately, happens all of the time all across the country.  When a biological father, who has been missing in action for most of the adoption process, suddenly comes forward and contests the adoption, it is decided in the courts. And the jury can be used to assist the judge in making a tough decision.

Answer 5

You don't like Mormons....but this isn't a Mormon issue....It's a legal one.

Happens all the time in adoption cases.  Family adopts a baby and later the birth mom wants the baby back.  

Periodically there are cases that fall into gray ares.  The family thought the adoption was temporary, or they thought they had more time, whatever.

This is a legal question, not a Mormon question.

You clearly don't like Mormons, but this is a stretch.

Answer 6

A jury deciding hte fate of a child?? Yep that seems weird, and frankly unethical.

Answer 7

You seem to be unaware that in the USA and Canada fathers have NO reproductive rights.

No way to prevent their child from being aborted and if the mother chooses to put the child up for adoption he has no right to fight that decision.

He can go to court to try to fight it but the laws will not give him the right to raise the child.  Micheal was even lucky to be given visitation rights.  Religion has nothing to do with these laws.  A mother does not even have to inform the father that a child was born and he was the father.

Answer 8

Wow. How sad.

Answer 9

Not at all...   juries are often used to decide points of law.  I think it's generally up to the parties involved whether they want a judge or jury to decide the case.  Since adoption is a point of law, it's not at all unusual for a jury to be used.

Answer 10

I have always been currious of mormanism, there is a link on that page, wow now im simply afraid of it....

Answer 11

I think its unusual...and horrible.

((((Sam))))) please let your son know that he and his son are on my heart.

I'm taking this link and adding it to my collection, thank you.