Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Where is King Solomon?
I wonder if these people are hailed as do-gooders!! The state the the boy has not seen his mother in years – and whose fault is that! Mirah
----------------------------------------------------
Court Orders More Proceedings in Five-year Adoption Case
June 7th, 2006 @ 6:47am
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- An adoption battle that has gone on for five years is still not over, with the Utah Supreme Court ordering further hearings.
The boy, identified in court as E.H., was born in 2000. His mother, who agreed to the adoption, later felt she was deceived about the Weber County couple's suitability and has battled them for his custody.
The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday criticized how long the case has gone on.
"The proceeding in this court is the latest, but sadly not the last, act in a very human saga that has played out on the stage of our eight courts," Justice Ronald E. Nehring wrote in the unanimous opinion. "Despite our determination that we must remand this case for further proceedings, we hold fast to the hope that in the near future E.H. will know who his parents will be and where he will call home."
The court reversed a 2004 Utah Court of Appeals ruling in the mother's favor.
Attorney Greg Hawkins, who represents the adoptive couple, said, "Now that we've got to this point, we're very comfortable and confident that everything is going to be resolved in our favor."
He said the boy has not visited with his biological mother for years.
Attorney Linda Faye Smith, who represented the mother in the appeal, did not comment late Tuesday.
The case began in 2000 when E.H.'s mother, identified as T.H., contacted the Adoption Law Center in California about placing her unborn child for adoption, Tuesday's opinion said.
The Utah couple, identified as R.C. and S.C., had been determined in a home study by Families for Children in Salt Lake City, to be eligible to adopt a child.
The mother and couple were put in contact with each other, and an adoption was arranged. On Nov. 24, 2000, the woman flew to Utah to give birth, and then signed a document relinquishing her rights to the baby.
E.H. was to become the sixth child in the adoptive family, which included two adopted special needs children.
T.H. and her two other children then lived with the adoptive parents after the birth, according to the opinion. During that time, the mother came to question the assessment of the couple.
For example, the mother allegedly observed the adoptive parents' other children were not the honor students she was led to believe but were home schooled, and, in her opinion, behind in their education.
The mother said she was also concerned about their social development, claiming the children appeared to have no healthy relationships outside the family and that the children with disabilities seemed to be isolated from the family.
T.H. moved out and filed a petition seeking custody of E.H.
Second District Judge Stanton Taylor allowed both sides to strike an agreement in which a child psychologist would make a biding determination of what was in the boy's best interests. Chris Wehl was hired, and, after taking a year to compile his report, recommended the child be returned to his birth mother. Wehl said the couple's two children with cerebral palsy and Down syndrome had experienced possible neglect.
Taylor had retired. New judge Ernest Jones said there were inaccuracies in Wehl's report, ruled the mother's relinquishment was valid and then held an adoption hearing in which he refused to allow the mother to participate.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed Jones' decision, saying he was not justified in disregarding the agreement and ordering the boy's placement with his biological mother.
In their decision Tuesday, the justices held the agreement had not stripped the judge of his power to rule in the case, but said Jones should have allowed the mother to participate in the adoption hearing.
Tuesday's opinion sends the case back to Jones for further hearings.
Attorney Melvin Larew, who represented Families for Children and is a former board member, said the allegations that the home study was flawed are unfounded.
Larew said the opinion is an important one for Utah's adoption law.
"It clarifies the procedure, unfortunately at the expense of not having this case resolved," he said.
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
----------------------------------------------------
Court Orders More Proceedings in Five-year Adoption Case
June 7th, 2006 @ 6:47am
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- An adoption battle that has gone on for five years is still not over, with the Utah Supreme Court ordering further hearings.
The boy, identified in court as E.H., was born in 2000. His mother, who agreed to the adoption, later felt she was deceived about the Weber County couple's suitability and has battled them for his custody.
The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday criticized how long the case has gone on.
"The proceeding in this court is the latest, but sadly not the last, act in a very human saga that has played out on the stage of our eight courts," Justice Ronald E. Nehring wrote in the unanimous opinion. "Despite our determination that we must remand this case for further proceedings, we hold fast to the hope that in the near future E.H. will know who his parents will be and where he will call home."
The court reversed a 2004 Utah Court of Appeals ruling in the mother's favor.
Attorney Greg Hawkins, who represents the adoptive couple, said, "Now that we've got to this point, we're very comfortable and confident that everything is going to be resolved in our favor."
He said the boy has not visited with his biological mother for years.
Attorney Linda Faye Smith, who represented the mother in the appeal, did not comment late Tuesday.
The case began in 2000 when E.H.'s mother, identified as T.H., contacted the Adoption Law Center in California about placing her unborn child for adoption, Tuesday's opinion said.
The Utah couple, identified as R.C. and S.C., had been determined in a home study by Families for Children in Salt Lake City, to be eligible to adopt a child.
The mother and couple were put in contact with each other, and an adoption was arranged. On Nov. 24, 2000, the woman flew to Utah to give birth, and then signed a document relinquishing her rights to the baby.
E.H. was to become the sixth child in the adoptive family, which included two adopted special needs children.
T.H. and her two other children then lived with the adoptive parents after the birth, according to the opinion. During that time, the mother came to question the assessment of the couple.
For example, the mother allegedly observed the adoptive parents' other children were not the honor students she was led to believe but were home schooled, and, in her opinion, behind in their education.
The mother said she was also concerned about their social development, claiming the children appeared to have no healthy relationships outside the family and that the children with disabilities seemed to be isolated from the family.
T.H. moved out and filed a petition seeking custody of E.H.
Second District Judge Stanton Taylor allowed both sides to strike an agreement in which a child psychologist would make a biding determination of what was in the boy's best interests. Chris Wehl was hired, and, after taking a year to compile his report, recommended the child be returned to his birth mother. Wehl said the couple's two children with cerebral palsy and Down syndrome had experienced possible neglect.
Taylor had retired. New judge Ernest Jones said there were inaccuracies in Wehl's report, ruled the mother's relinquishment was valid and then held an adoption hearing in which he refused to allow the mother to participate.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed Jones' decision, saying he was not justified in disregarding the agreement and ordering the boy's placement with his biological mother.
In their decision Tuesday, the justices held the agreement had not stripped the judge of his power to rule in the case, but said Jones should have allowed the mother to participate in the adoption hearing.
Tuesday's opinion sends the case back to Jones for further hearings.
Attorney Melvin Larew, who represented Families for Children and is a former board member, said the allegations that the home study was flawed are unfounded.
Larew said the opinion is an important one for Utah's adoption law.
"It clarifies the procedure, unfortunately at the expense of not having this case resolved," he said.
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
# posted by Senior Mom @ 6:42 PM 
