There had to be a reason...I mean, the state wouldn't just allow an agency to take a child for the money, would it?
I started sifting through different articles online here, so I could find the reason that Nikolas deserved to have his parental rights terminated. It didn't take long!
A.E. went into premature labor and had the child early on Saturday, Sept. 4, 2004. Thurnwald learned of the birth an hour after the baby was born. When he tried to visit the mother, she wouldn't see him, court documents said.
Thurnwald contacted a lawyer but was unable to file a paternity petition until Tuesday because the courts were closed Sunday and also Monday for Labor Day.
By Tuesday, the mother had waited the requisite 24 hours and relinquished custody of the child to LDS Family Services for adoption.
At a hearing on the paternity petition, the adoption was placed on hold.
In July 2005, a state district court ruled against Thurnwald because he didn't meet the deadline for filing the paternity petition.
May 9, 2007
Utah justices modify paternity deadline
So the truth comes out! How dare this Dad not file a petition during the holidays, when NO STATE AGENCY would be open!
According to the above article, after becoming pregnant, his girlfriend, A.E. moved out of their home.
Yet, throughout her pregnancy, they continued dating each other, and talked numerous times about the birth of their child.
Anticipating the demands of fatherhood, Dad not only went out to buy the standard supplies for his newcoming bundle of joy, but he also attended most doctor appointments with his girlfriend.
This poor Dad didn't even see it coming! He had NO reason to believe that he needed to file a petition. It's not like these 2 separated on hostile terms. They were still dating! A.E. didn't tell Dad she was considering adoption, before he purchased items for their child, and even included him for intimate doctor appointments. Can we spell d-e-c-e-p-t-i-o-n?
After Nikolas Thurnwald's girlfriend became pregnant and moved out of their home, he continued to date her.
(This is just a scan of first paragraph original newspaper article)
Court: Dad's rights pinched by holiday weekend birth (PDF format)
Justice always prevails though, right? The Utah Supreme Court realized that it's just a bit tricky to file paperwork, when the office is closed, so they decided that unwed fathers are entitled to an extension of the deadline for filing a paternity petition, if the baby is born on a weekend or a holiday.
In a 4-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Thurnwald, saying that when a child is born on a weekend or holiday the deadline should be extended to the next business day.
In a dissenting opinion, Associate Chief Justice Michael J. Wilkins said the Legislature had given unmarried fathers a limited but adequate time period to assert their parental rights.
"The period begins at conception and ends at the time the biological mother executes her consent to adoption," he wrote. "Those who elect to father a child without benefit of marriage must take steps to assert their legal relationship with the child, or they risk losing it altogether."
What if it was Dad who wanted nothing to do with this child, and wanted to terminate his responsibility? Would he be excused from paying child support for the next 18 years?
If Dad had won this case, would the mom assume responsibility of child support?
Unfortunately, I'm rather sure I already know the answer to these questions, and the answers disgust me!
Problem solved, right?
The courts realized that this technical glitch didn't make any sense, so they revised it to make things 'fair' and Dad was awarded custody of his son ....
August 3rd, 2007 @ 6:33am
FARMINGTON, Utah (AP) -- The Utah Supreme Court gave a Utah man the right to challenge the adoption of his son, which he argued was done before he could reasonably file for paternity.
But now the adoption agency says the rights of the nearly 3-year-old child would be violated if the boy was removed from the only home he's known.
Nikolas Thurnwald argued that he and the child's mother made plans to keep the child. But under pressure from her family, the woman gave the child up for adoption shortly after birth.
Thurnwald filed for paternity in 2004 on the first business day after the child was born. But that was after the 24-hour deadline set for unwed fathers because of a weekend and the Labor Day holiday.
After Thurnwald's Supreme Court victory that found the rules were unfair, a motion to dismiss the adoption was filed.
But an attorney for LDS Family Services, which handled the adoption, says the child shouldn't be removed from his adoptive home. The attorney also wants proof Thurnwald is the father and that he paid a reasonable amount of the expenses of the mother's pregnancy and childbirth.
Adoption Agency Against Giving Baby Back to Biological Father
NO! NO! NO! If the agency cared about the rights and well being of this child, they never would have SOLD him to begin with, considering they knew that Dad had intentions of raising HIS SON!
IF Dad had won this case, how many other children would this agency no longer be able to sell?
[[[ But now the adoption agency says the rights of the nearly 3-year-old child would be violated if the boy was removed from the only home he's known. ]]]Who's fault is that? Surely not Dad's!
Since this case was not resolved through the courts, why wasn't there some sort of temporary visitation arrangement in place?
The only thing that concerned this agency was having to refund money from a botched abduction...money earned by selling a baby!
(That's MY opinion, and I'm sticking to it!)
Then I found this gem!
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Father or sperm donor? The front-page story on May 20, "Paternity case," about Nikolas Thurnwald, who wants to gain custody of his three-year-old son, made me want to scream. A quote from Thurnwald, "I don't know his name," tells it all.
How is it in the best interest of his biological child to remove him from the only home he's ever known, from the two people he calls "mommy" and "daddy," and put him in the arms of someone he doesn't know, Mr. Thurnwald?
I would fight to the death to keep my child, whether mine by birth or adoption... (blah blah blah...)
Child is not a puppy to be transferred
And here I am, trying to figure out why men are so bitter towards women ... DUH!
It might be because of insensitive garbage like this!
Nikolas Thurnwald was hardly a sperm donor! He didn't drop his package off at the front door, and drive off!
This Dad wanted involved in his son's life since, 'Honey, I'm pregnant' day!
The drivel continues, as a puppy ~ child comparison is made. This is the only statement I agree with so far...only I have a different perspective.
This baby should have NEVER been sold out, like a puppy from the pound!
I somehow continue reading through the above post, and shuddered as I read
"I would fight to the death to keep my child, whether mine by birth or adoption"
It's heroic for this poster to fight for her child, yet because Nikolas does the same, it is insinuated that he is uncaring, insensitive, scum of the earth??? Which is it, lady? Fight for your child, or give up?
What about the people who knew that this father wanted his son, yet continued on with the purchase? Why haven't I found questions about their integrity? Why aren't they considered selfish? They had a chance to buy a baby, and they took it!
The only interests they were looking out for, was their own! What truth can these people possibly tell this child when he starts asking questions? Or will he live the "We are your parents" lie?
How will he feel, if/when at age 14, he finds out his entire life was a lie? That his Dad does want him, but an agency sold him!
I haven't seen these kinds of questions, anywhere!
After reading the May 28 letter, "Case is all about Thurnwald, not child," I just couldn't take all the negative criticism Nikolas Thurnwald is receiving for trying to get his son back.
People who wrote and trashed him need to pull their heads out and read the May 20 news story again ("Paternity case"). They all think he is just barely trying to get custody of his son after three years, but he's been trying since the day his son was born!
June 3, 2007
Criticism against Thurnwald is unjustified
That's kind of what I think, Mark!
Unfortunately, the story of this botched 'abducted to sell' case is not showing in favor of the now-toddler, or for his Father.
By JESSE FRUHWIRTH
Standard-Examiner Davis Bureau
SYRACUSE -- A father's quest to reunite with his son has apparently come to an end -- the Utah Court of Appeals has ruled against the man whose son was placed for adoption against his wishes four years ago.
One judge noted, however, that the law cited to terminate Nikolas Thurnwald's paternity rights is vague, illusory, highly problematic and invites fabrication.
He urged the Legislature to clarify the law.
"... (S)evering an unmarried biological father's parental rights based on such technicalities serves to reinforce traditional notions about gender and childrearing -- i.e., that women are biologically better suited for raising children," Judge James Z. Davis wrote in his concurring opinion released Thursday.
"(Those) notions are antiquated and harmful to both men and women."
Syracuse father loses fight / Court ruling in four-year-old adoption case urges Legislature to clarify law
I pray that there's a way to reverse this perverse decision. I don't see how he would benefit, being raised in a cloak of secrecy and lies! These people who adopted him knows that his Daddy wants him!
How are people with obviously very little compassion, no concern for others, or no basic sense of right and wrong, in the best interest of this little tyke?
But hey, they can comfort each other with the truth. There was a legal glitch, And no matter the consequences, this baby legally belongs to them, because he was bought and paid for!
~A few other links~
Thurnwald v A.E. (PDF formatt)
September 25, 2007
Announcing our NEW Attorney!
The community comment board
has it's share of opinions about this legal abduction.
Adopt Now Hotline~message board
Voice of Utah