Mack 1

Katie Mack
ENG 2010
October 24, 2014
Putative Fathers Rights to Their Children
The saying goes that it takes two to tango, so why does it only take one to give a child
away? According to the U.S Census Bureau, the no marital births in the United States have
grown from 5.3% of all births in 1960 to 36.8% in 2005 (Clayton, 2007). In the last ten years the
amount of single fathers has grown 60% (Linzy, 2011). These numbers bring a growing need for
our laws to protect biological mothers and especially biological fathers. I never knew that the
story of someone I didnt know would impact my life. A coworker of mine had told me the story
of her friend, Jake Strickland. Jakes past girlfriend, Whitney Pettersson, had placed their baby
boy up for adoption without any notification before it happened. Among several
miscalculations on Stricklands part, he admits this may have been the biggest one: he trusted
Pettersson (Adams, 2011). It is not completely uncommon for a woman in Utah to place her
child up for adoption without getting consent from the father. Are these laws placed on
putative fathers too restrictive in allowing their ability to get custody of their child? What is the
history in unwed fathers cases, what is Utahs stance on unwed fathers, what are some of the
current cases, and what are the different views?
There are four major Supreme Court cases in the history of biological fathers that set
the ground rules for other cases: Stanley v. Illinois, Quilloin v. Walcott, Caban v. Mohammed,
and Lehr v. Robertson. The first of these cases, Stanley v. Illinois, was in 1972 and started when
Illinois attempted to take Peter Stanley's children from his custody after the death of their

Mack 2

mother. . . under Illinois law at the time, when the mother died, Stanley, as an unmarried
biological father, was automatically presumed unfit as a parent and his children automatically
became wards of the state, despite the long term parental relationship between father and
children (Gateway, 2010, p. 578). It was said that the statute violated Stanleys equal
protection to having custody of his children only because he was an unwed father. The
Supreme Court held that Stanleys interest in keeping custody of his children was cognizable
and substantial. Stanleys case became a case that the Supreme Court would base other cases
off of. The Supreme Court revisited this area in the case of Quilloin v. Walcott. Unlike Stanley,
Quilloin had not built a strong relationship with his child, nor had he ever lived with his childs
mother. Quilloin did not seek legitimation until the child was eleven years old, finally doing so
only after the mother's husband petitioned to adopt the child with the mother's consent
(Gateway, 2010, p. 578). The courts found that in this case it was in the better interest of the
child to be adopted which also caused Quilloins parental rights to be completely terminated
along with his visitation rights.
The third case, Caban v. Mohammed, had similar characteristics of both Stanleys and
Quilloins cases. Caban and Mohammed had lived together for 5 years, during which they had
two children, but were never married. Caban was listed as the birth father on the childrens
birth certificates and provided monetary support to the children. When Mohammed married
another man and petitioned for adoption they were rewarded the petition. The New York Court
found the Mohammeds to be qualified parents and granted their petition for adoption, thereby
terminating all of Caban's parental rights (Gateway, 2010, p. 579). The Supreme Court ended up
overturning the decision made by New York saying, Caban had established a substantial

Mack 3

relationship with his children, the inflexible gender-based distinction was impermissible
(Gateway, 2010, p. 580). In the last case, Lehr v. Robertson, a baby was born out of wedlock.
Robertson and her new husband petitioned to adopt their two-year-old and were granted the
adoption. Lehr had never provided any kind of support to the mother or the child and rarely
had seen the child. Lehr fought against the decision to allow the adoption but was unsuccessful
because he had not built a relationship with the child (Gateway, 2010).
The history of laws with putative fathers in Utah has definitely come a long way. What is
the difference between being a presumed father and being a putative father? The presumed
father is the man that is automatically assumed, under the law, to be the father. This definition
varies a bit from state to state. Some states do not allow the presumption to be challenged
while others do. A putative father is a term used in many states to describe a man who is either
alleged to be the father or claims to be the biological father but who is not married to the
mother at the time of the childs birth (What Does Presumed or Putative Father Mean?).
Utahs original adoption statute did not give the putative father any rights in relation to his
child. The 1898 statute states, "A legitimate child cannot be adopted without the consent of its
parents, if living, nor an illegitimate child without the consent of its mother, if living" (Clayton,
2007). In this statement there is no regard to fathers of a child born out of wedlock. A mother
had all of the rights. If she wanted to keep the child she could, but could also place the child up
for adoption. In 1966 the legislature changed the statute saying, A child cannot be adopted
without the consent of each living parent having rights in relations to said child (Clayton,
2007). This statement took out the difference between married parents and parents that give
birth to a child out of wedlock. This new phrase caused a lot of confusion. Courts began

Mack 4

including unmarried fathers in the key statutory phrase each living parent having rights in
relation to that child, and adoption agencies soon became hesitant to place babies when their
natural fathers could not be found (Clayton, 2007). As a way to try and fix all of the confusion
derived from this new phrase the state legislature reformed adoption laws in 1975 requiring
that any putative father wishing to obtain paternal rights to his child register a notice with the
Bureau of Vital Statistics claiming paternity and expressing a willingness to support the child to
the best of his ability (Clayton, 2007).
Utah has several deadlines and regulations along with filing paternity. The timeline given
to fathers in Utah to file paternity is said to be any time before the mother consents to
adoption or relinquishes the child to a placement agency. The consequence that comes with
refusing, or choosing, not to file paternity before this time is a waiver and surrender of any right
in relation to the child. Typically there is no exception to these policies no matter what the
circumstances may be (Beck, 2002). In 1990 legislature again tried to help the adoption
statutes, placing emphasis on when there is not the possibility of a father filing paternity. The
father would only be excepted from the strict statutory guidelines if he could prove that: (a) it
was not possible to file before the child was placed for adoption or before the adoption petition
was filed; (b) his failure was through no fault of his own; and (c) he filed notice within ten days
after it became possible (Clayton, 2007). If a father could not prove that he fell within these
guidelines then he had no right to any form of notice.
Filing in the fathers home state does not necessarily protect him if the mother travels
out of state to give birth to her child. In a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy it talks about
this very issue saying, Registration in the State of conception will not ensure notice of an

Mack 5

adoption proceeding in another State (Beck, 2002). This does not mean that the father should
not file paternity. There are benefits that come with filing within the state. Putative father
registries typically operate by providing any registrant with notice of any adoption petition for a
child of the woman named in his filing. Notice provides the man with knowledge of any
adoption plan, and thus gives him the opportunity to consent to the adoption, default on the
adoption petition, or argue at the initial hearing that he should parent the child instead of the
prospective adoptive parents (Beck, 2002).
For out-of-state fathers, filing paternity in Utah can be very difficult. The Salt Lake
Tribune covered the story of a man named Ramsey Shaud. Shaud did what he knew he was
supposed to. When his girlfriend became pregnant he filed paternity in Florida, his home state.
Some months later he had a note delivered by his girlfriends mother stating that his girlfriend
was planning on visiting Arizona and Utah for the holidays. Shaud, knowing the strict laws in
those states, took action to try to find the forms to file paternity in Utah and Arizona. He easily
found the form for Arizona which he sent in that same day. Unfortunately the process was
more difficult in Utah. Unlike most states, in Utah you must be present at Utahs department of
health where you fill out the form and give directly to them. A Salt Lake Tribune review found
Utah is not the only state where determining how to protect those rights is difficult a
problem some experts say would be solved by creating a national putative-father registry
(Adams, 2011).
Like Shauds, there are several lawsuits that have recently been fought and are still
currently being fought in Utah. One specifically has been covered in The Salt Lake Tribune. It is
the story Rob Manzaneres struggle to win back his daughter that his girlfriend had placed for

Mack 6

adoption without his consent. The Salt Lake Tribune states, Manzanares and Terry, both
Colorado residents, conceived a child in the summer of 2007. After their relationship ended,
Manzanares made clear he opposed adoption and would, if necessary, raise the child on his
own. Manzanares provided financial support throughout Terrys pregnancy. Terry arrived in
Utah on Feb. 14, 2008. On Feb. 16, Terrys brother and sister-in-law signed a petition to adopt
the baby, who was born six weeks prematurely the next day. An adoption petition was filed in
Utah state court days later (Adams, 2012). Terry abused Utahs laws and intentionally came to
Utah knowing that there was nothing that Rob Manzanares could do once she had signed away
her rights to the child.
Some might defend Carie Terry in the case against Rob Manzanares. They give her
excuses for her actions by saying that she, as the mother, deserves to choose what she thinks is
best for the child, even if it means going around state laws to do it. Are the mothers always
looking at the best interest of the child? Or, are they simply trying to keep them from the
father? Who are they looking out for? There are many who believe that the mother should
have most, or all, of the rights to decide what she thinks is in the best interest of her children.
Mothers are seemingly doing only what they think is best, and will do anything they can to do
so.
For single mothers, probably one of the more common options for their child is
adoption. Some believe that adoption is always in the better interest of a child that would
otherwise be in a single-parent home. This is a topic that the LDS church almost entirely agrees
with. In a home with both a mother and father the child usually has more opportunities given

Mack 7

to them than a child in a single-parent home. There was a quote from the 2008 Ensign that said,
In placing their faith in the Lord as they make a truly selfless choice, many birth mothers have
found that from the ashes of their deepest pain, He has made something beautiful (Taylor,
2008). Birth mothers have a connection with their child that is unlike that of any other. It is
truly a selfless thing to give a child up for adoption and allow the life of her child to be enriched
more than if she were to raise the child. It is her decision and sacrifice that will change the lives
of many, including her own.
A social worker that specializes in adoption and single parent cases gave me a really
powerful analogy. She drew on a whiteboard a target with three rings. In the center of the
target she wrote, the baby. In the center is where our focus always needs to be. She told me
that nothing and no one else should be as important as the child. Our darts need to always be
directed towards the center. In the next ring out from the center she wrote, the birthparents.
The birthparents are important and deserve to be given a chance as long as it does not do
anything that will steer the darts from the center of the target. The last and farthest ring from
the center was a broad category, everyone else. Everyone else in this equation should always
be looked at last. Compared to the biological parents and the baby no one else is as important.
In her opinion this should always be the order and way in which we look at adoption and family
cases.
There is no question in my mind that the child should always be placed first in every
situation, but I also know that the next ring should also be considered. The fathers of those
children should at least be given a chance to prove that they can at times be the best option for

Mack 8

the child. Most, if not all of us, can relate to the safety that we feel when we are with our
father. It has been said many times that fathers are good for picking you up, brushing you off,
and kissing you better. They can protect their children better than any other, and still be the
kind and gentle guardian that every little boy and girl needs in their lives. No, a father is not
always fit to care for a child, but there should be a way for the courts to look at him and decide
if he is fit to be a parent to his child or not while always keeping the childs best interest in
mind. Like the birth mother, the birth father has a bond with their child before he or she is even
born. Though the mother may be doing what she feels is best for her child, the father should be
able to be given a say and a chance to gain custody of their child. The father needs to prove to
the courts that his finances and habits conform to raising a child. The father should not have
any drug or alcohol abuse, or any past history that would prove him unworthy to raise a child.
The father should have a job where he can be part of his childs life, without constantly
traveling or moving the child from place to place. These things are important for being able to
raise a child and give them the necessities that we all need in our lives.
I have been overjoyed in hearing of the progress that our state is making in assisting
fathers. Utah is definitely trying to make a turn in the right direction. In January 2012, a
lawmaker proposed a bill aimed in keeping pregnant women from coming to Utah with the
specific purpose of giving birth and placing their child up for adoption with the intentions of
keeping the child from the biological father. A The Salt Lake Tribune article reported, House Bill
308, sponsored by Rep. Christine Watkins, D-Price, would require pregnant women to give
notice by mail or publication to out-of-state unmarried fathers if they plan to give birth and
place infants for adoption in Utah. Watkins proposed bill also simplifies the process an unwed

Mack 9

father must follow to initially protect his rights, eliminating the requirement that he initiate a
court action before he can file a notice of intent to claim paternity with the states putative
father registry. That change would apply to Utah residents as well as unwed fathers who reside
elsewhere (Adams, 2012). Notice must be sent to the fathers last known residence or some
type of notice needs to be placed in a newspaper where they were last known to be living,
stating the adoption plan, and what he needs to do to protect his rights. Following this notice,
the father has 30 days to start a court paternity action (Adams, 2012). Utah is making valiant
steps in trying to make Utahs laws more reasonable for fathers both in state and fathers from
out of state. Utah has already come this far and I hope that we can continue to grow and help
those fathers that want to be able to become that iconic figure that protects their children from
harm.
What about Rob Manzanares? Manzanares continues to make progress in gaining his
daughter back. Nearly four years after his daughter had been placed up for adoption,
Manzanares will now move back to his home state in Colorado where he did follow the
guidelines in filing paternity. Manzanares said, Its just a step closer to getting to see my girl
Ive been fighting for for so long and I just cant wait to hold her and bring her home where she
belongs, with her family (Adams, 2012). The adoptive parents and Carie Terry wished to
terminate Manzanares parental rights of the child. The Salt Lake Tribune stated that it was
evident that there was tension between the two parties. Despite this Manzanares says, I have
no hard feelings. I hope nothing but the best for them. I just want my daughter back and Im
willing to do whatever I can and whatever I need to do to get her back into my arms (Adams,

Mack 10

2012). Manzanares is also taking steps to encourage other fathers, like Jake who he was able to
meet, not to lose hope and keep fighting for their children.
This is something that all of us can relate to in our lives. Whether we are a parent, aunt,
uncle, sibling, or grandparent, we all know the love that we can feel for a child in our family,
and how painful it would be to have them taken from our lives with little hope of getting them
back. Hopefully, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. As the laws become better towards
helping putative fathers gain custody of their children, there will be less heartache for the
biological father, the adoptive parents, and the baby. Instead of the father and adoptive
parents directing years battling one another, they will be able to grow and work on making
their families stronger.
The most important decision that anyone can make is whats really best for their child.
Sometimes the parents are too young to care for a child or dont feel adequate. A home with
two parents who are happily married may be the best option, or at least seem like perfect
circumstances, and more times than not it will be. However, sometimes a single parent can
create a great life for their child, full of everything that a child would need. The most important
point is that sometimes the biological father or the biological mother, even if they are doing it
alone, can be the best thing that ever happens to that baby. That is all that really matters.
Sometimes adoption is the best scenario for the baby, and if both the biological mother and the
biological father have both received equal rights to the child but still decide to give the baby up
for adoption, then it is a win-win situation. There is more than one piece to the puzzle in this
equation. All of the pieces need to be looked at and studied carefully before you try to put it

Mack 11

together. What are the motives of the parents? Are they fit to care for their child? If all of the
parents darts are aimed toward the center, then who are we to take away a child from their
parents?

Mack 12

References
Adams, B. (2011, December 24). Stopping an adoption: In Utah, unwed fathers rarely win. The Salt Lake
Tribune.
Adams, B. (2011, December 29). Would-be Utah dad says misplaced trust cost him his son. The Salt Lake
Tribune.
Adams, B. (2012, March 21). Colorado father's custody fight moves back to his home state. The Salt Lake
Tribune.
Adams, B. (2012). Utah Adoption Bill Aims To Give Unwed Fathers More Protection . Salt Lake Tribune.
Adams, B. (2012). Utah high court reverses ruling in adoption case of unwed Colorado dad. The Salt Lake
Tribune.
Beck, M. (2002). Toward a national putative father registry database. Harvard Journal of Law & Public
Polilcy, 1031.
Bluth, J. A. (2002). Can an unmarried biological father recover his child and damages? Utah Law review,
577-600.
Clayton, B. J. (2007). A Day Late & A Dollar Short: Should Utah's Unmarried Dads Get One More Chance
to Claim Their Newborns? Journal of Law & Family Studies, 249-266.
Dapolito, A. R. (1993). The failure to notify putative fathers of adoption proceedings: balancing the
adoption equation. Catholic University Law Review, 978-1026.
Family, S. (n.d.). Retrieved from Get Baby Jack Back: http://www.getbabyjackback.com/p/contactus.html
Gateway, C. W. (2010, June). Utah Adoption: The Rights of Unmarried Fathers. Retrieved from Child
Welfare Information Gateway:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/state/index.cfm?event=stateStatutes.p
rocessSearch
Linzy, M. (2011, June 06). Single Parent Statistics. Single Parent Magazine.
Morgan-Tracy, K. (1993-1994). The right of the thwarted father to veto the adoption of his child.
University of Cincinnati Law Review, 1695-1724.
Taylor, R. M. (2008, January). Why Adoption. The Ensign, pp. 46-52.
What Does Presumed or Putative Father Mean? (n.d.). Retrieved April 06, 2012, from MyFamilyLaw.com:
http://myfamilylaw.com/library/children-parenting/paternity/what-does-presumed-or-putativefather-mean/

Mack 13
Zdon, T. M. (1994). Putative Fathers' Rights: Striking The Right Balance In Adoption Laws. William
Mitchell Law Review, 929-938.