John Wyatt, Father Fights For Custody Of Daughter Who Was Given Up For Adoption Without Consent

On February 10 2009, John Wyatt rushed to the hospital when his girlfriend went into labor, excited to meet his new baby girl. The couple was 19, but he says he couldn't wait to be a dad.

When Wyatt arrived at the hospital, though, his girlfriend was already gone. "Colleen was being snuck out the side exit maybe like 50 feet to my left," he told the 'Today' show. The young mom gave the baby up for adoption without his consent.

Almost three years later, Wyatt is still fighting to get his daughter back. Her nursery is set up and ready for the baby he calls Emma to come home.

Right after the baby was born, Wyatt hired a lawyer in Virginia to seek custody of his daughter. What Wyatt didn't know, was that the baby was already in Utah, 2,000 miles away. And although a Judge in Virginia granted him temporary custody of his daughter, Wyatt says he never got her back.

Under Utah law, he only had 20 days to file for custody -- a deadline that expired before he even was aware that his daughter was in Salt Lake City. In July, Utah's supreme court ruled against Wyatt, saying he failed to exercise his parental rights.

The Utah Attorney General said, "In a situation where the birth mother who carried that child for nine months and has made a decision that is in the best interest of her child to go to an adoptive family, that we ought to have the same interest in the father, he ought to have to step up and show the same type of commitment to that child to resolve that."

And, although his daughter is almost three, he says he is never going to give up trying to gain custody. He does not think it is in the best interest of the child to stay with the only family she has ever known.

Wyatt doubts the integrity of the adoptive family. "They have done so many wrong things to steal this child, like from me. They've known that I wanted -- who the father was and that I wanted to raise my child from the beginning because Colleen told them from the beginning that I wanted to raise the baby," he told 'Today.'

Quick Poll

Do you think John Wyatt should gain custody of his daughter?

Absolutely!

No, it's better for the child to stay with her adoptive family.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[Doug Paukert]

06:39 PM on 09/16/2011

John keep your head up, I'm going through the same situation with my son with Texas courts and I live in Ohio. I know you are taking your case to the Supreme Court and I was wondering who your attorney was I would like to contact him and see if he could help me too, or if we get enough people that maybe the Supreme Court could fix some laws to prevent this from happening to other men who want to have part in their children's life

[LivnTheDream85]

03:31 AM on 09/06/2011

I want to know what I can do to help. I wish I was allowed to leave personal information here to be contacted on what I can do. This sickens me. I am a father of two with one on the way. I could never dream of how I would react if I was in John's shoes. My wife is touched by this as well and we both want to start a drive to get this stopped. We are from Huntsville, Alabama. Please direct us in the right direction to help!

[Dana Seilhan]

07:38 PM on 08/31/2011

I am SO OVER a social issue only mattering when it affects (1) men or (2) middle-class people or (3) both at the same time. If you think women are truly consenting to the trafficking of our children, you. are. dreaming.

Everyone works against us keeping our kids. We must be (1)married, (2) possessing of a doctorate degree, and (3) independently wealthy before we are considered fully fit mothers. And EVERYONE is guilty of this mentality: right-wing Christians (well, maybe they'll concede about the doctorate-degree thing), conservatives, liberals, AND pro-choicers. Think about the rhetoric the pro-choice groups use to justify keeping abortion legal: very rarely is it ever about a woman's right to medical consent. It's always about her social and economic situation rendering her "unfit."

With all of society working against us, how can we consent? If you want fathers' rights upheld, here's a crazy idea: Quit violating the rights of mothers and children. Because at the end of the day we're treating family like a consumer product or a privilege, falsifying legal documents (birth certificates) and trafficking in children (even if the adoption agency says it's payment for services rendered, let's not be precious here). This has to stop. It's not my or any other woman's OR man's job to provide child-products to the infertile. Get a dog.

[Kristina Noetzelman]

10:27 PM on 09/14/2011

Dana I disagree, I'm a 28 year old single mother who choose to keep my child against her father, and his mothers wishes. They both wanted me to get an abortion or give my child up. They talked to me many times and each time I said you can choose not to be involved, but i'm keeping my baby. It's up to women to choose, to stand up for themselves and their children against opposition.

I'm a right wing christian pro choicer and I believe that society should uphold and support women wanting to keep their children rather than making it impossible to raise them on our own. The sad thing is some women, especially in this situation young girls who don't want to give up their lives to raising a child don't want the ties to an ex, and a child they didn't want. By giving it up they cut clear ties, by giving it to an ex they're giving him something he wants, and there's always gonna be that link to them.

And I don't think we need to say we're only going to uphold mens rights when we uphold womens. I don't think two wrongs are gonna make a right in this situation, and i'm sorry, but when a man has been involved in the pregnancy, shown the desire to support his child by buying baby clothes, and gear they're showing an interest, and these women knowing that have gone behind their backs and sold their children.

[Gaye Tannenbaum]

09:24 PM on 08/26/2011

According to the Baby Emma FaceBook page, the adoption has not been finalized. I've read the Utah Supreme Court opinion and it does not mention finalization of the adoption (which would be a key fact IMHO).

Does anyone know for sure? Don't point to the media because I've seen them get it wrong in other cases.

[rebeccamherman]

01:03 AM on 08/27/2011

The Baby Emma page is run by a relative of the father's (I think his mother? not 100% sure) so I would think they would know.

[Kristina Noetzelman]

09:35 PM on 08/24/2011

Had John Wyatt walked into his daughters hospital room and taken her without her mothers consent, taken her across state lines, and sold her to an adoption agency he'd be in federal custody and the child would be ripped from the adoptive family and returned. But because she was adopted before he had a chance to establish his parental rights his rights have been practically terminated. This is AMERICA the land of the free, where we fight child abductors and make laws to protect our countries children and families. So why are we allowing Utah to make a mockery of adoption and continue in immoral practices denying fathers their rights to raise their children?

[caltwin79]

04:05 PM on 08/24/2011

Child Adoption laws should be changed. The laws of the state where the child was born should be enforced not where the mom decided to give her baby up. The father did not want to give up his child and it is written on that paperwork. He should have had to consent to the adoption since the father was known. It is ridiculous. The child will know the truth one day. I don't understand why the adoptive parents don't reach out to him and offer him a place in his child's life. If he looses in the supreme court then they should do this as it would probably be the onyl way the child will not resent her adoptive parents. I'm wondering if religion has anything to do with this?

[FortuneKoochie]

01:44 PM on 08/23/2011

I'll never forget what my father said to me before he kicked the bucket. He said, "RYAN, how far do you think I can kick this bucket."

[Candice Ann Gibbons]

09:31 AM on 08/23/2011

The conclusion in this situation will be very interesting, there are quite a few cases similar to this and the outcomes are all basically the same. The US Supreme Court has always ruled in favor of the biological father. I just hope and pray that the US Supreme Court also inquires an Investigation into the state of Utah about their adoption proceedures. I also hope and pray that a civil action lawsuite is filed within the federal governement and the men sue Utah for harboring women who are intentionally hiding there in order to place their children up for adoption. I still can not understand how an out of state adoption is being processed outside of the state the child was born. I do not understand how Utah has Jurisdiction over Virginia, I do not understand how this is not considered kidnapping under state and federal law, and I do not understand how an adoption could be approved when John filed papers for visitation, custody or whatever five days prior to the adoptive parents recieving a consent of adoption in Utah. Utah needs to be investigated and sued.

[Chrissy Poole]

05:38 PM on 08/23/2011

Amen! This is a complete outrage, & makes me so angry!

[Yamagatagirl]

12:24 AM on 08/23/2011

Now, I understand why people are afraid to adopt babies in this country......

[Ashlee Casey]

01:20 AM on 08/24/2011

Well when people adopt KNOWINGLY take a child whose father has NOT given up his paternal rights they need to be afraid, they KNOWINGLY broke the law and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law after the child is removed from their care. Why leave an innocent child with a couple of criminals?

[Yamagatagirl]

12:50 PM on 08/24/2011

I love Hershey Almond bars, do you? I really like chocolate covered almonds, especially at the Movies with popcorn. The salty and the sweet appears to me. When I buy an almond bar, I only eat the chocolate around the almond. My husband says I waste most of the bar but that's the only part I want......

[enfanta non grata]

02:27 PM on 08/29/2011

From your inane ramblings throughout this thread, it's obvious you're a shrill hired by the adoption agency or an adoptive parent threatened by the thought of honesty and justice. Either way, no one appreciates your ridiculous point of view here. It's so far from rational, no one gives it a second thought. Really, if your young child were taken and hidden for a few years, you'd be fine with letting the abductors adopt him or her because taking them back would be so upsetting, right? Right. I guess we can only hope that happens...
Save your time and post with like-minded individuals, wherever that is.

[Yamagatagirl]

05:52 PM on 08/29/2011

No, I won't shut-up, just because you and others disagree. I have given my sincere opinion on this subject. I believe in what I have said and no one can make me believe any different. My point of view is not ridiculous just different from yours. She should stay with her family, period......

[Gaye Tannenbaum]

05:24 PM on 08/22/2011

Justice James Heiple, Illinois Supreme Court in the "Baby Richard" case (1991-1995):

"If ... the best interests of the child is to be the determining factor in child custody cases ... persons seeking babies to adopt might profitably frequent grocery stores and snatch babies from carts when the parent is looking the other way. Then, if custody proceedings can be delayed long enough, they can assert that they have a nicer home, a superior education, a better job or whatever, and that the best interests of the child are with the baby snatchers. Children of parents living in public housing or other conditions deemed less affluent and children of single parents might be considered particularly fair game."

[FaceTheTruth00]

04:16 PM on 08/22/2011

Oh, and the adoption agency KNEW, as did the adoptive couple. They were complicit in the kidnapping, as according to this article, an employee from the agency and the adoptive mother were with the birth mother in the hotel for 2 days after she took off with the baby.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041302445_3.html

"Fahland and the baby spent Feb. 11 and 12 at the Fairfield Inn in Woodbridge along with an employee of A Act of Love, the Utah adoption agency, court documents show. Fahland signed the adoption consent forms Feb. 12 in the presence of that employee, Laraine Moon. The agency did not return telephone calls, and it is unclear how or when the agency got involved with Fahland.

Court records show that the Zarembinskis cared for Emma at a hotel in Woodbridge before flying her to Utah. "

[FaceTheTruth00]

04:00 PM on 08/22/2011

I wonder if some people's opinions would be different if it was the other way around?

What if the father had taken the baby from the hospital, crossed state lines, disappeared, and handed the baby off to strangers to adopt?

I bet you would be calling the father a kidnapper; and rightfully so.

The fact that this woman went to Utah, from Virginia, means she had this planned. She didn't walk into her local adoption center. She went clear across the country. And she did this all behind the father's back, all the while telling him they would raise the baby together.

Supposedly a few months after she did it, she started to regret her decision.

I find it interesting that when the mother wants the child (and the child support) , the father is a father. When she doesn't, then he's simply a "sperm donor" with no rights.

[hredenbaugh]

10:45 AM on 08/23/2011

Neither birth parent had ever been to Utah, the adoption agency and adoptive couple came to Virginia.

[Bring Baby Emma Home]

12:16 PM on 08/22/2011

I have created a facebook page to help prevent kidnapping!!! http://www.facebook.com/groups/204107206315162/ go there and show your support. You can also support John Wyatt at www.babyemmawyatt.com

[Candice Ann Gibbons]

08:21 AM on 08/22/2011

Utah needs to be brought up on federal charges due to the fact they harbor un-wed mothers, allows them to place a child up for adoption without the biological father's permission. Utah should have a federal investigation into the fact their laws violate the Constitution of Amercia when it comes to mens rights. Utah should reinburse every father that lost his child due to their unconstitutional laws towards men. My change of heart is based on laws not religion, not based on anyone's way of life. my change of heart is based on knowing Utah should be investigated for crimes against men. I have read the adoption laws, and women are allowed to go to Utah in order to avoid their own state laws when placing a child up for adoption. This is deceitful and wrong.

[hredenbaugh]

06:39 PM on 08/22/2011

I am not sure if this is true or not, but I was told that being in Utah 24 hours means you are a resident, apparently this law was used for a recent thef of a child from a willing father.

[Candice Ann Gibbons]

10:31 PM on 08/22/2011

hredenbaugh,

I looked it up because my understanding has always been that every state in America had to live in the state for at least one year, you have to own or rent a property for one year, use it as your main residence, and this was the only way you could be considered a resident of the state. Here is the residency requirments for Utah; http://www.slcc.edu/enrollmentservices/docs/Residency_Pamphlet.pdf

[rebeccamherman]

06:41 PM on 08/22/2011

Even for fathers who live in Utah the laws can be difficult. I've been following the blog of a man who lives in Utah and was able to file in time since he could quickly hire a local lawyer to help him. And yet despite that he still does not have his child and has to go to court to prove he deserves to raise his child.

[Gaye Tannenbaum]

07:25 PM on 08/22/2011

In a recent case, the father won EVERY case in EVERY court but it still took him 3 years to have his son returned to him. Why didn't he marry the mother? She was already married to someone else.

In another case, the father won in the state's appellate court and the state's supreme court. The problem was that the lower court, even though they couldn't approve the pending adoption, allowed the prospective parents to take the child to another state, change his name and required the father to pay them CHILD SUPPORT! He had visitation but that stopped when he was involved in an auto accident (not his fault, the other car crossed the divider), and the prospective parents felt it was "not in the child's best interest" to see him during the months it took him to fully recover. His child was returned to him at five years of age.

[Candice Ann Gibbons]

10:39 PM on 08/22/2011

This is why the people who have lost their children in this state should file a class action suite against Utah. I have never heard of a state having jurisdiction of a minor over the state in which the child was born. When a state has jurisdiction over a case it is based on the residency of the birth parents and the where a child is born. In many cases an adoption proceeding is not even granted until at least 6 months from the child's birth. This is based on giving the mother time to change her mind. I have never heard of a baby being adopted within twenty four hours after birth. The paperwork alone in Virgina would have taken at least a week to file. This is why this case is very fishy, how did the adopted family process their case without Virginia giving the adoptive parents the right to remove the child out of the state. Why does Utah have such laws that can prevent men or maternal and pertneral granparents from preventing an adoption? This is why the men should file a class action suite against Utah for no upholding The Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

[Candice Ann Gibbons]

08:14 AM on 08/22/2011

I have looked further in this case of John, he lost his father at the age of 10, he never signed his rights away, he filed legally in Virginia for custody, and after reading about Baby Jessica and how her biological parents gained custody back, I agree with those who have written about the fact the child will be distrissed initionally after her removal from her adoptive parents, but in time she will adapt and adjust to being with her biological parent. The case of Baby Jessica is very similar to this case, the US Supreme Court in the end gave sole custody to the biological father. The biological parents married and divorced after their case was over and the father won. According to the updates, Anna (Jessica) supposedly feels her adopted family should have returned her five days after her birth when her mother changed her mind.