nb_cid nb_clickOther -tt-nb this.style.behavior='url(#default#homepage)';this.setHomePage('http://www.aol.com/?mtmhp=acmpolicybanner081514 network-banner-promo mtmhpBanner
14
Search AOL Mail
AOL Mail
Video
Video
AOL Favorites
Favorites
Menu

Father fights for daughter lost in 'secret' adoption

Father Fights Utah Adoption Law

A father's fight to reunite with his daughter who was secretly placed for adoption has finally come to an end.

Robert Manzanares has spent the past six years trying to regain custody of his daughter Kaia. Fox News explains Kaia's mother left Colorado while she was pregnant and secretly gave birth in Utah in 2008. Days later she put her daughter up for adoption and returned home.

This put both Colorado and Utah courts in Manzanares' way. After spending several years and more than $500,000, he was eventually able to get joint custody of his daughter with her adoptive parents, but is still waiting for his appeal for full custody to play out.

Manzanares is the first man to successfully defeat Utah's Fraud Immunity Statute - which prevents any adoption from being overturned.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed a bill earlier this month giving fathers new rights in adoption cases. The Adoption Act Amendments would require mothers to live in the state for at least 90 days and the court may order them to notify the birth father before putting her baby up for adoption.

Join the discussion

1000|Char. 1000  Char.
hoperegained April 17 2014 at 1:37 PM

Not that it cant be circumvented, but in here, if you claim knowledge of who the father is, you must have his signature to put a child up for adoption.

Flag Reply +8 rate up
iolie45 April 17 2014 at 10:23 AM

I am adopted. It is sooo WRONG for Fathers to not have a right to take custody of a child the
Mother does not want. It takes TWO to create a baby. When I child is created SEXUALLY
(as oppose to artificially) the biological Father should have the same rights as the birth Mother.

Flag Reply +12 rate up
1 reply
Jean Marie iolie45 April 17 2014 at 11:00 AM

I agree . But in a large majority the father will turn out to be a sperm donor only and want nothing to do with the child. He should be made to sign the papers prior to adoption so there is no question of his position. To say that the Mother does not want the child may be unfair you always need to hear all of the story before deciding the true reason.

Flag Reply +2 rate up
Sir. JJStryyker April 17 2014 at 10:19 AM

This man should have been granted full custody of his daughter. If the tables were turned and the mother wanted her child back, the state would have taken the child from the adoptive parents and given her back to the birth mother. The father should have full custody of his daughter, he didn't put her up for adoption, and the state should have notified the man of his child and let him make the desission himself. JJr

Flag Reply +11 rate up
1 reply
jerimalibu Sir. JJStryyker April 17 2014 at 10:45 AM

Whatever. Just like that eh? Poof,.he's the biological Father so any other ties and bonds this Child has made should be severed? I don't know all the details,.but if he didn't know a child was produced, then it doesn't sound like he was trying to make a baby. Joint custody seems more then fair to me.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
2 replies
tlnitstr8 jerimalibu April 17 2014 at 11:15 AM

I heard (but have not confirmed) that he was fighting for rights before the baby was born. That's why the mother left the state.

Flag +1 rate up
damoonldy jerimalibu April 17 2014 at 11:16 AM

You should get to know the details. This man supported the mother and filed a paternity action in CO so that he could raise the child. She went to UT (said her dad was sick), had the baby, called the CO court the day she was supposed to be in court, claimed still out of town on family emergency, then she went that same day to the courthouse in UT and surrendered that child for adoption by her brother-in-law. Oh, and did I mention that she didn't tell the court or the father that she had given birth? I bet I also forgot to mention that like so many other birth moms who run to UT to sell their babies, she had that child several weeks early when she was just barely 8 months pregnant. You should really read up on Georgia Tann, Utah adoption practices and illegal and unethical adoption.

Flag +1 rate up
charpist5 April 17 2014 at 10:00 AM

The first sentence says that the father's fight has "finally come to an end."
What end would that be? If he is still waiting for his appeal, then nothing has ended.

Flag Reply +5 rate up
1 reply
damoonldy charpist5 April 17 2014 at 10:57 AM

Rob's fight is not over. He will not stop fighting to get custody of his daughter until the right thing is done and she is in his full custody.

Flag Reply +2 rate up
krcunited April 17 2014 at 9:50 AM

This is how I read this:
The birther mother (?) had left the state to give birth, (not the first time this has occurred), and returned to a previous, pre-pregnant life. Current laws give her this long, and often successfully pursued optioned. With the more current state of discussion concerning the rights of all parties in a birth, the birth father should have been the first call the adoption "agency" contacted. To proceed to a direct adoption without the consent of both concieving parties, is purposely avoidant. This not having occurred gives pause to the legitimacy of the "agency".
What is paramount is the 'agency of self'. Pregnancy having been a violation of that sovereignty to the birth mother, she correctly chose adoption rather than abortion. Thusly preserving the sovereignty of the child in regards to it's right to life. But violated that child's self-agency in any involvement or considerations of the birth father. And again violated the birth father's self-agency in all parts in this process.
It would seem the greater discussion of the rights of both parties in a birth haven't been genuine from the start.
1. At what part in any one's gene's, is anyone capable to determine the paternal/maternal capabilities of another? At what point is that determination lawful?
2. At what point does anyone become culpable for these actions?
It is not lawful to transport a child across state line with out a parent's consent. It is unlawful to deprive/with hold child from their parent. Fraud, intent to defraud, conspiring to defraud, kidnapping, false testimony, to begin.

Flag Reply +6 rate up
Dr Obvious April 17 2014 at 6:11 PM

Obviously the 'society' has put roadblocks in the way of a father just trying to gain access to his biological child. In fact, if you look at US law in general, our society goes to great efforts to make sure that fathers 'pay' for the support of their biological children. So why should society not encourage a faterh who wants to step up and take responsibility for this child? As usual, those Mormons are being uber concervative and rediculous in their laws

Flag Reply +5 rate up
Protect Our Backs April 17 2014 at 6:37 PM

If it's true that the adoptive parents are the mother's aunt and uncle then you will have a hard time making me believe that they didn't at least suspect something if they weren't in collaboration with their niece. Could even have been prearranged. Why would she (1) leave
"secretly", (2) go to another state, and (3) return within a few days of the birth? If the aunt and uncle had to go through a regular adoption it would have cost thousands more and mountains of red tape.

Also seems the father found out while the baby was still an infant and the transition could have been made without too much psychological damage. Next concern, most states have laws regarding the parental rights of the father. How were these bypassed if they were in place?

Women are demanding the right to decide about the use of their bodies and can choose to have the child or abort it. The father as it stands now only has the right to pay child support if she chooses to keep it and she demands it. He has no choice whatsoever whether he wanted to have a child or not. How about the man's right to the use of his sperm? That is a part of his body and he should have as much right to choose as the woman. A child is not the exclusive property of the mother. It has TWO creators. If she chooses to give birth then the father should have equal rights period!

Flag Reply +9 rate up
2 replies
... Protect Our Backs April 17 2014 at 8:50 PM

the man makes the decision to have unprotected sex. if you're going to do that, then you can't demand an abortion or demand a birth.

both forcing a woman to have an abortion and forcing a woman to give up control of her body for 9 months would be traumatic for a woman - an independent adult citizen of America, which claims to provide it's citizens autonomy. it would be unethical

Flag Reply 0 rate up
slloyd414 Protect Our Backs April 17 2014 at 8:50 PM

Or maybe there is more to the story on both sides. If he doesn't want anyone to have use of his sperm, there are things called condoms.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
kkkino April 17 2014 at 7:02 PM

As a father that was awarded sole custody of his two daughters, I applaud the final outcome in favor of the father. The courts still subscribe to the "tender years" doctrine that favor the mother in custody issues. The father has to overcome tremendous obstacles to prove that he is fit to be a good parent. The fact that it took so long to get custody is a travesty caused by the courts. In some of the posts, it is hard to believe that there are people out there that fault the father as not having the best interests of his child in mind. All too often, dads get the short end of the stick and must expend immense amounts of resources and time to get heard. If the right thing was done at the beginning, then this would have been solved years ago and there would have not been any trauma to the child. I respect the dads perseverance, because it would have been much easier to just walk away

Flag Reply +8 rate up
1 reply
slloyd414 kkkino April 17 2014 at 8:49 PM

I'd like to find one of these courts. With the experiences I and others I know have been through, I have yet to find one. Whether it's fathers who get full custody (and deservedly so) or neglectful/abusive fathers who get unsupervised parenting time, I have a hard time believing these claims. And these cases I have seen have occurred in various counties and states.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
blonddur April 17 2014 at 9:37 AM

He should have been notified. It's his daughter and he has the right to be in her life if he so chooses. Bottom line. Adoptive parents don't really have a say.....

Flag Reply +9 rate up
photocountry April 17 2014 at 9:17 AM

Fathers have rights! The laws must change!

Flag Reply +17 rate up
2 replies
Liz photocountry April 17 2014 at 9:42 AM

You bet they do. If woman can make a man pay for a child, then how can the same courts say he has no rights.

Flag Reply +9 rate up
poll100 photocountry April 17 2014 at 10:01 AM

Only dads can change the laws. Unite and contact your senators and legislative people. Women are seen by the judges, both men and women, as the better home source and 'the nuturer.' Ridiculous but thats the way it is.

Flag Reply +2 rate up
aol~~ 1209600

Voting...

Back to School Deal

1408668110590

A new item every day in August
Back to School deal

More From Our Partners