Adoption gets riskier in New Mexico
Categories: Just for dads, Adoption
In sharp contrast to what went on in Michigan, a New Mexico lawsuit has the potential to significantly affect future adoptions in that state. The Michigan case centered around a man who wanted no responsibility towards the child he fathered; this case centers around a man who wants full custody of the son he fathered. The problem is, he did nothing for the mother during her pregnancy; it was only after she had given up the baby for adoption that he decided he wanted to be a part of the child's life.
A state district judge found that Mark Huddleston, the biological father, had abandoned the child through his lack of action and terminated his parental rights. Now, a state court of appeals judge reversed that decision, saying that the lower court judge "improperly focused on Mark's pre-birth conduct" and that "the court's finding that Mark presumptively abandoned the child is not supported by substantial evidence." This would be wholly uninteresting except that for the first two years of his life, the child has been living with his adoptive parents. Suddenly, this man he's never known wants to come and take him away from that?
Hal Atencio, the attorney for the adoptive parents, "It's a weak position for a man to say `I was there for the fun part, I was there for the sex, but I'm not going to be there for the responsible part. And yet I want equal rights as the mother and the right to veto an adoption even on the last day.'" Lisa Olewine, president of the Adoption and Foster Care Alliance of New Mexico, noted that the ruling "makes every adoption very risky. It's going to have a chilling and rippling effect on adoptions." Olewine added, "If a father knows there's a baby out there, they really don't have to do anything during the pregnancy. They can just show up later and claim the child. There's no permanency in this child's life."
Huddleston dismissed the possible harm that might come to the boy saying, "It's unfortunate, but we cannot as a society say we're sorry this happened but we need to leave him where he is, and we need to circumvent the natural parent's rights." I'm afraid I have to disagree with Mr. Huddleston and, based on that statement, call into question his fitness to be a parent. Raising a child is nothing more than a couple of decades of the parents giving up what they want in favor of what's best for the child. If he can't see that the ultimate sacrifice is, indeed, to let the boy stay with the only parents he's ever known, what's to keep him from being unwilling to give up other things?
Further, I think the lower court was entirely correct in its ruling. Nine months of pregnancy, alone and with neither financial nor emotional support from the father sure sounds to me like abandonment. Remember that story about the hen who found a grain of wheat and none of the other farm animals would help her make it into bread? They didn't help so they didn't get any bread; neither should this guy get a son. What do you think? Would you side with the adoptive parents or the biological father?
A state district judge found that Mark Huddleston, the biological father, had abandoned the child through his lack of action and terminated his parental rights. Now, a state court of appeals judge reversed that decision, saying that the lower court judge "improperly focused on Mark's pre-birth conduct" and that "the court's finding that Mark presumptively abandoned the child is not supported by substantial evidence." This would be wholly uninteresting except that for the first two years of his life, the child has been living with his adoptive parents. Suddenly, this man he's never known wants to come and take him away from that?
Hal Atencio, the attorney for the adoptive parents, "It's a weak position for a man to say `I was there for the fun part, I was there for the sex, but I'm not going to be there for the responsible part. And yet I want equal rights as the mother and the right to veto an adoption even on the last day.'" Lisa Olewine, president of the Adoption and Foster Care Alliance of New Mexico, noted that the ruling "makes every adoption very risky. It's going to have a chilling and rippling effect on adoptions." Olewine added, "If a father knows there's a baby out there, they really don't have to do anything during the pregnancy. They can just show up later and claim the child. There's no permanency in this child's life."
Huddleston dismissed the possible harm that might come to the boy saying, "It's unfortunate, but we cannot as a society say we're sorry this happened but we need to leave him where he is, and we need to circumvent the natural parent's rights." I'm afraid I have to disagree with Mr. Huddleston and, based on that statement, call into question his fitness to be a parent. Raising a child is nothing more than a couple of decades of the parents giving up what they want in favor of what's best for the child. If he can't see that the ultimate sacrifice is, indeed, to let the boy stay with the only parents he's ever known, what's to keep him from being unwilling to give up other things?
Further, I think the lower court was entirely correct in its ruling. Nine months of pregnancy, alone and with neither financial nor emotional support from the father sure sounds to me like abandonment. Remember that story about the hen who found a grain of wheat and none of the other farm animals would help her make it into bread? They didn't help so they didn't get any bread; neither should this guy get a son. What do you think? Would you side with the adoptive parents or the biological father?
Recent Posts
- Weekend Fun and Games (7/03/2009)
- Kids and Extracurriculars - When Do You Let Them Quit? (7/03/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (7/03/2009)
- Lush Lashes (7/03/2009)
- Abigail Breslin Makes $13 a Week (7/03/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Brenda 8-07-2006 @ 4:40PM
A foetus is not a person under the law so how could he abandon it? From a legal standpoint I see his point, so long as he has been fighting for custody since birth. However, I am going to assume that he was notified of the birth or at least of the pending adoption and the court date when they were deciding whether to terminate his rights. He should have been there and it should have been resolved there.
If a biological parent wanted the baby and was not deemed unfit(for a real reason, not that he wasn't there with the mother during her pregnancy we do not know what the situation was between them, and he probably didn't realise how he would feel about a baby until the baby was born and hence more "real") then the adoption should not have gone through.
Assuming he has been fighting it for two years it should never have taken this long. This is exactly why child custody cases should have a speedy resolution.
I feel awful for the boy, he doesn't deserve the trauma of being taken away from the only parents he has ever known, however he also deserves to know his father (even if the man does sound like a jackass). I wish they could start out with a joint custody agreement where the dad takes the child gradually. Say one day a week for 6 months, and then two days a week and after a year the courts could determine what would be best for the boy: to live with his dad or continue joint custody, or have limited contact with his father.
However in battles like this it is an all or nothing court decision, either the bio dad has custody or the adoptive parents have custody.
No matter how this ends it will not be optimum for the boy. I wish him well.
Brenda
Reply
Ginny 8-07-2006 @ 4:43PM
"Raising a child is nothing more than a couple of decades of the parents giving up what they want in favor of what's best for the child. If he can't see that the ultimate sacrifice is, indeed, to let the boy stay with the only parents he's ever known".
I wholeheartedly agree. Think back to when your children were two. Now think of having to let them go live with some damn stranger. It's unthinkable.
Reply
S.M.Mehdi Hassan 8-08-2006 @ 7:33AM
“Think back to when your children were two. Now think of having to let them go live with some damn stranger. It's unthinkable.” I agree with you Ginny. This guy does not deserve the child. He should not be allowed to approach within hundred yards of the child.
Reply
Monica 8-08-2006 @ 9:16AM
From the article:
Court records indicate that after receiving the adoption notice Huddleston met with the adoption agency to seek information on how he could obtain custody of the boy.
When the agency told him he could not, he hired an attorney that day and signed up with the state putative father registry the day after that.
Whether he knew she was pregnant was in dispute, but there is no question about his actions after he was informed of the baby's existance. The adoptive parents knew this was going on for the last two years, they've just been hoping never to have to face it. If we can say that he is a bad parent for not being willing to give his child up to the people who have been acting as his parents for two years - can't we also say they are bad parents for not being willing to give their child to a biological parent who obviously wanted him when he was young enough to accept the switch with less trauma?
Reply
Bonny 8-09-2006 @ 9:57AM
Okey is he gonna pick up the hospital bills for the babys growth and birth? i belive he should, the state or states have paid for meny meny births that fathers dont pay for father is more the just saying I want the baby. Thats how i feel. Is hew willing to pay all that?
Reply
Christine 8-09-2006 @ 12:34PM
My bet is if he was willing to pay attorney's fees for two years...(And whatever $$$ after he took it over his self on appeal) then paying a hospital bill would probably be a no brainer.
Adoption did not just get riskier in New Mexico. Agencies and Women were just forced to act ethically. There was no way, even if he knew she was pregnant, that he knew the baby was his until the DNA test said so... once that happened, he should have had his child.
The child wont always be two -- and he can go to his dad knowing that his dad wanted and fought for him... or he can stay with this other couple knowing that his dad fought for him, wanted him, and they kept him away.
In the long run, and the message that should be sent is, it would be better to return the child to the father. Father's do have rights.. and dragging out a custody case in hopes that he will disappear should be unacceptable.
Yay for New Mexico! Ethics DO exist.
Reply
Steven Husak 8-10-2006 @ 11:03AM
Here's my problem with all of this...this adoption was illegal.
Just as illegal as a kidnapping.
If this child had been kidnapped when he was a few days old, would we allow him to stay with the people that kidnapped him because he has bonded with them?
HELL NO!
http://stolenyears.spaces.live.com/
Reply
Ann Bradley 8-10-2006 @ 4:50PM
We have to deal with the hand we've got. Damage has been done. To frame this situation as a yes or no, black or white one is simplistic. Contextually we have a mess. Adoptive children are different than biological. To say they aren't is to skew reality. We honor adoptees when we honor their reality instead of playing the "as if" game. Now, the adoptive parents have to make the sacrifice: they have to share this child with his father with the goal of eventual reunion. I doubt many will understand that we cannot and must not put a halo on adoptive parents while condemning a birth father. Our society has vilified birth parents in order to justify taking their children and then put adoptive parents on a pedestal. In fact, most adoptive parents are buying what they can't have. It is not their first choice. This is not to deny the bond of deep love many come to have for their children, but to put this in perspective.
Reply
Ann Bradley 8-10-2006 @ 4:53PM
updating link when you click on my name. Sorry for the broken link
Reply
julia rodriguez 8-11-2006 @ 8:28AM
Mr. S. I applaud you for beginning to tell more of the
truth of this most complex case. You are right about the lack of support prenatally, but it does not end there. From the child's birth and up to the present, there has been no support. Nothing has ever been offered. Mr. Huddleston is good with the media but has not been there when it really counted. He has no empathy for this child. This is evident by his attempting to cultivate media support to influence public sympathy. You never see any comment by the
adoptive parents which indicates to me that they are very protective of this young boy. Unfortunately, Mr. Huddleston is not protecting the privacy of this young child.
Reply
Felicia 8-11-2006 @ 10:21AM
It's a trajedy that Mark Huddleston chooses to have such a high profile in the media. His concern is obviously not for the protection and privacy of this child.
Reply
Felicia 8-11-2006 @ 10:30AM
I feel that it is important that the public is also aware that Mark Huddleston has domestic violence history in Haye's county Texas. He was charged with bodily injury resulting in assault as well as terroristic threat. The cause number is 61091 and the phone number is 512-393-7800. I believe that domestic violence is such a serious issue in the state of New Mexico and I think even more critical when there is a baby involved.
Reply
Jack Rokowski 8-11-2006 @ 11:29AM
Adoption agencies in New Mexico sell children. They have sold Mark's child without investigating who the father was, and once they found out that he wanted to raise his child, adoption agency faught him in court to keep the money they made selling his child.
My child has also been sold by Adoption Assistance Agency from Albuquerque. Agency knew , I was a father and wanted to raise it. However $13000,- selling price plus money thet received from a state was to important to bother with some father.
www.my-sara.com
Reply
Jack Rokowski 8-11-2006 @ 12:26PM
I didn't put the whole link together right, her it is:
http://www.my-sara.com
This acusing father of being willing to raise his own child is insane.......... New Mexico is so pathetic that loser who abbandon their kids and agencies who sell them are consider normal, but father who simply loves his child become controversy:
http://www.my-sara.com
Reply
julia rodriguez 8-12-2006 @ 10:09AM
My understanding of this case is that everyone seems to blame the adoption agency when in fact the agency was notified in writing that there was no wrong doing on their part. Diligent efforts were made to find this biological father. It is clear that he was made aware of this pregancy. He had opportunity to respond appropriately months before the adoption agency actually got involved. We believe that because of these actions or lack thereof the adoption ever occured, therefore, he is completely responsible for the abandonment of this child. A fetus has needs too. A child does not begin to have needs at birth. If Scott Peterson could be charged with the murder of his unborn child, then why can't this man continue to be found as solely responsible for the disintegration of this relationship with this child. He is also further responsible for the abandonment of this child even beginning in utero (9 weeks gestation).
Reply
Jack Rokowski 8-14-2006 @ 1:12AM
.."Diligent efforts were made to find this biological father."....Dilligent efort were made to unload this father. Adoption Agency is a group which was going to make the money and they are responsible for the whole trouble.Adoption Agencies sell children and that is all they care about..........
www.my-sara.com
Reply
Lori 8-15-2006 @ 1:14AM
I would really like the public to think about how hard it must be for the adoptive parents to sit around and just watch all that is being said about them in the media and not having the ability to comment and defend their position. It is obvious that they are more concerned with protecting and providing stability for this child. Protecting this child is their number one priority and this is because they have a lot of love and dedication to this child. A lot of debating has occurred but it is so sad that not much thought is being taken about what the child may want and what is in his best interest.
I think it is important for everyone to take a minute and think of your own children and families. If they were just taken away one day, how would it affect you, better yet, how would it affect the children. 2 ½ years of bonding and attachment have occurred and as far as this child is concerned, he has parents who love him, have been there from the start and are dedicated in providing a stable environment for him.
I have two children of my own and I know that a child cannot wait to be loved. Stability is a very important element for growth. Children are strongest when they have ongoing support. and attention by people who truly love them. I feel very grateful that these adoptive parent chose to love and care for this child as much as they do.
I do not believe that it would be in the child’s best interest to leave the only parents he has ever known. Actually, I believe that it would cause great harm. Mark Huddleston knew about this pregnancy and did nothing. He abandoned this child in utero, so why would anyone think that he is ready to be a parent now. Thank God this child has had a lot of love and genuine care for him by his adoptive parents. Unlike Mark Huddleston, they have chosen to love him unconditionally and he loves them without condition as well.
Reply
Lori Albright 8-15-2006 @ 1:30AM
I think it is crucial that we encourage stability and a safe environment for this child. He has been in a nurturing home since the beginning, why must anyone interrupt this for an agenda that may be convenient at the moment.
Reply
Melisa Roybal 8-15-2006 @ 9:42AM
I personally feel that the biological father needs to learn the true meaning of tough Love and let the child proceed living with the parents the child knows as mommy and daddy. Why take this child from the home he knows? If Mr. Huddleston didn't want the responsiblity of being a father when the woman was pregnant and he was told of the situation then he shouldn't have the prevlige of trying to rip this child from a loving home now that he feels he's ready to be responsable for this child. I also think that he shouldn't get any type of visitations because I feel that would just put more logs to the fire. I strongly believe that Mr. Huddleston needs to leave this child and his family alone and go on with the life he has going for himself now. Being part of this childs life would just damage him. Mr. Huddleston wasn't there for the first few years so he shouldn't be there at all.
Reply
K George 8-25-2006 @ 4:13PM
The biological father had every opportunity afforded to him to be a part of this childs life and didnt. He is a selfish person who changed his mind AFTER it was well to late. So to get what HE wants after the fact he will disrupt the life of the very same child he didnt even want for over a year. Why didnt he show up when he received notice that his parental rights will be terminated? Oh because he didnt want to.
The child has rights to a happy life and to tear him from the arms of the parents who raised him is disgusting.
Reply