Tuesday, November 25, 2008


I had heard about Mark Huddleston a while back. I really feel for this man. Anyone who reads here knows I am sympathetic to the fathers. These days adoption agencies intentionally go out of their way to circumvent the rights of fathers. I know this has happened here in Texas with Shawn McDonald. There are many others fighting still to this day. Its not just fathers. It is mothers fighting as well too. There is Camira Bailey, Matt Tenneson, Joshua Simmerson, Cody O'Dea, Brynden Ayre, Bryce Carkhuff, and many others that are unnamed. Each day brings another story. Each day I hear of another father or mother losing their battle against an adoption agency. A majority of these cases are with LDS Family Services across the country. They are the worst of the worst when it comes to father's rights.

They delay the court battle time and time again until it is no longer in the "best interests of the child" to be separated from his adoptive parents. That is how the courts view it. I wonder often if this will happen to Shawn and Cody. Many fathers are losing this battle. Michael Marek is another victim of the adoption industry's dash for the cash with infant adoption.

This blogger, Glenn Sacks, came up today with this article. I am reposting it so that others can read it too. I also know that Shawn won $650,000 in his fight against both the adoption agency and the LDS Church. He won his court fees in the first court battle. Adoption these days is not about the best interests of the child or the parents, adoptive or natural. It is about the money.

A Pyrrhic Victory for Embattled Father

November 25th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks

We've previously discussed the injustice of the Mark Huddleston adoption case. In my co-authored column Anna Nicole Dispute Shows System's Flaws (Chicago Sun-Times, 3/10/07, Detroit News, 3/20/07) I wrote:

[I]n the highly-publicized Huddleston case in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mark Huddleston’s baby boy was adopted out when he was three days old, but Huddleston didn't know the baby existed until two months after his birth. A New Mexico court later found that the private adoption agency hadn't properly notified Huddleston, and had needed to get Huddleston’s permission before giving his son away.

Nonetheless, the stall tactic worked--by the time the case was finally legally adjudicated, the boy had been with his adoptive parents for over a year, and the judge ruled it was in the child’s best interests to remain with them.

Huddleston won a pyrrhic victory the other day. From "Who Is the Loser in Custody Battle?" (Albuquerque Journal, 11/21/08):

The little boy turns 5 on Valentine's Day, his birth date something of an irony, given the bitterness and contempt that rage around him all in the name of love.

On one side is Mark Huddleston of Albuquerque, the biological father. He says neither the boy's natural mother who decided to give the child up for adoption, nor the adoption agency told him he was the father until it was too late to stop it.

On the other are Bobby and Rosario Romero, who became Mommy and Daddy three days after the boy's birth when the agency delivered the bundle of joy and legal papers to their Los Lunas home.

Neither side has been willing to split the baby, so it has come down to the courts to render the wisdom of Solomon again and again in a heart-wrenching series of reversals and remands over the past 4 1/2 years that has charted the unwieldy course of this boy's life and those who want to call him "Son."

A year ago this month, the state Supreme Court appeared to put an end to Huddleston's quest for daddydom when it reversed an appellate court decision that reversed a state court decision keep up with me, I'm giving you the condensed version and gave the Romeros the go-ahead, finally, to complete the adoption.

The court ruled that Huddleston had done too little, too late to establish himself as an "acknowledged father" and thus his consent to the adoption was unnecessary.

"Mark knew for months about the pregnancy and took no steps to establish paternity until more than two months after his child's birth," Justice Richard Bosson wrote for the unanimous court.

Now comes the latest decision this time by the civil court that appears to confirm Huddleston's claim that he had not known "for months" about the boy because Gutierrez and the agency didn't want him to.

"It was spitefulness," said attorney Louren Oliveros, who represented Huddleston in his successful lawsuit against Adoptions Plus. "They deliberately did not notify Mark until it was too late."

Why? Because, the lawsuit contends, Gutierrez insisted the father of her unplanned baby was someone else and the agency sanctimoniously moralized on Huddleston's fitness as a father.

"Mark Huddleston created this baby in the act of cheating on his wife," Adoptions Plus agent Juliet Calibi sniped in court notes directed at Huddleston's lawyer. "One can only wonder why Mark and Penny (Huddleston's wife) would want this baby. Do you know, Ms. Oliveros, that there are people who want babies in order to abuse them?"

Never mind that the agency is obliged to notify all putative fathers even if they're ax murderers or dweebs.

Never mind that Huddleston says he did not marry Penny until the six-month fling with the child's mother had crashed and burned.

Previous testimony had painted Huddleston as a jerk who wanted sex without strings in this case with a woman who worked at one of the hotels on his route as a chemicals account executive and who muddied the paternal waters only after it appeared he was going to lose the child he didn't want in the first place.

But Huddleston has always said he acted quickly to claim his son after receiving the first notice from the agency dated April 16, 2004, two months after the baby's birth and well past the 10 days in which to sign up with the Department of Health's putative father's registry.

"That notice was an afterthought, a cover-your-ass move," Oliveros said. "They undoubtedly gambled that Mark would be one of the 85 percent of the men they deal with who don't care they have a kid somewhere."

As part of Huddleston's civil suit, two state Children, Youth and Families Department officials testified that Adoptions Plus had violated state regulations by not making diligent efforts to contact Huddleston.

"The agency didn't even comply with its own policies," Oliveros said.

In September, state District Judge Geraldine Rivera agreed, ordering Adoptions Plus to pay Huddleston $350,000.

Calibi did not respond to my attempts to contact her. Adoptions Plus Executive Director Cathrine Troy declined to comment, saying only that her agency is "looking at closing, and it still may."

But it all may be too late for Huddleston.

"The litigation regarding the adoption of the child was previously resolved and the trial court, the New Mexico Court of Appeals and the New Mexico Supreme Court all agreed that (Huddleston) knew or should have known about the pregnancy and failed to act timely in contesting the adoption," the Romeros said in a statement provided by their attorney, Hal Atencio.

"Further attempts are not consistent with the best interest of the child, who has been raised by the adoptive family and knows no other individuals as his mom and dad. I believe any further attempts to attack the adoption are more about (Huddleston's) ego than what is best for the child."

Huddleston, the father of two other, grown children and a foster father, remains undeterred.

"It's frustrating, but this dad is not going to go away," he said. "As much as they would like me to, it's not going to happen. I'm prepared to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court. As I've shown, I'm not one to give up. If I can find a legal avenue, I'm going to use it. And because there was some level of fraud in this case, that's going to be another avenue."

Huddleston dismisses the notion that perhaps the better part of fatherly valor would be to simply walk away and leave the boy's world intact.

"My son would be living a lie, and what kind of parent would I be just walking away?" he asked. "My son will never be able to come back to me someday and say I gave up."

For now, Huddleston will have to make do with winning a battle but not the war, and not his son, who in the end could be the biggest casualty of this awful, endless siege.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

From, David Archuletta 1205 Pine Street
Pueblo, Colorado 81004

To whom it may concern:

First of all, if may say;

I am not an authority on child adoption, yet the account of an unjust one must be told.

Accordingly, this body of written truths will not sit in await, proposed for humanities accreditation before a panel of scholars whom themselves sit behind the long tables at some esteemed university. Despite lacking thesis and or my name inked on a sheepskin parchment given of some east coast Ivy League college, I still consider my person more than qualified, and all but established sovereign in expertise involving the following subject…

“Wrongful Adoption!” a phrase imparting of nightmarish effect when used in the dream-come-true world of newly blessed adoptive parents. However, should this declaration stand true, the possibility of them having heard these words spoken in a courtroom are slim, and next to none. Yet, it is these headlines that make good copy, as evidenced by newspapers across the country. [This alone, should cue us of something.]

With such claimed instances happening now more than ever, it brings up a serious, if not taboo question; a question that is not meant to assault character or the doubt the integrity of ones moral standard. With that being said…

What role, if any, does the adoptive parent maintain in an illegal child acquisition; even if not made privy, will the situation still reflect harshly upon them? My wording seems to indicate that such is the case; and to a certain degree that is exactly the way I feel. Therefore, with a bias seemingly rather obvious; how is it that a person would criticize the intentions of two genuine, and selfless people?

The answer given of such question is rather complex, if not paradoxical, and will unfold itself in the accorded chapter of this journal.

Understandably, based on these statements alone, this book most likely will not gain popularity in the hearts of those having only recently secured court appointed parental rights. Despite such and with disagreeable conjecture set aside, any successes lay hopeful that these writings, perceived by others as informative of value, rather than written script purposed of instigating unwarranted worry and fear.

Nevertheless, although my name is not of fame or storied in the circles of humanities work or research, these words must be heard by the people, including all elected officials within our legislative process; for here too, change is in dire need.

As for wrongful adoption, one can formulate opinion of these newborn placements, as viewed through the perspective of the rarely acknowledged platform of the silenced, unknown father.

Percentage wise, it is true that for most birth father termination of rights, each case was correctly assessed; denied were any future rights of say by means of applied state statute. However, the remaining silent figure of forgotten voice, when in comparison as to the number of increased wrongful adoptions, only evokes further the intended message of this book, ___ for in it, I did accuse, quoting, “New Jersey state adoption statute N.J.S.A. 9:3-39 1[b] is a license to steal.” Incredulously, the State Supreme Court Rule 1:20-3 D [3] concedes this point without defense, further assessing the made statement as correct!

“There is something bad wrong in the state that is New Jersey.”

If in agreement of statement withstanding, and as for future social accountability, it is of singular like-minded conscious that which collectively would enable a well-heard shout of acknowledgement in our united concern. Wary would we be of the “trickle down” consequence of unreformed adoption law.

Tragically though, over the years these statutes have tipped the scales unbalanced. Meanwhile, and just as tragic, along with Lady Justice we have allowed our consensus into jaded complacency; each of us preoccupied with tasked day to day lives.

Therefore, I ask that all persons whether involved in adoption or not, that they give this book a chance, as the issues concern every one of us…

Although, adjudicated as victimless, the denied to be criminal aspect of the unread forthcoming trials involving social humanities reveal only the proverbial “tip of the Lindbergh,” for levied thereafter is a far more serious natured accusation. By means of a practiced relationship between state and private enterprise, evolved was a form of adoption equal of description to that of legalized Kidnapping!

That said, the following are the written words of one story proved true despite a bias Department of Human Services in New Jersey. Their rejection of one man‘s outwardly plighted case forces his own investigation; which in turn reveals documents that uncover adoption attorney/adoption agency horrors, once thought only practiced in the distant past.

Thank you,
David Archuletta,

Author: David Archuletta
Publisher: Wheatmark Publishing
ISBN#: 9781604941616
Available for order, November 10, 2008
Shipping date, November 25, 2008

Odyssey of an Unknown Father

The Complete Book on Wrongful Adoption

“The extortion ‘Letter,’ long due read in proper place in script, ominously began rising with its treacherous content. Those of whom having failed to grasp opportunity to expose its treachery, in turn would be consumed by its treachery. The letter would soon announce arrival.”

Spurred from the depths of guilty conscious, an induced psychological apparition with a purpose of revenge manifests itself in the form of haunting words from the past. This was an entity quested on a mission that would soon expose a blueprinted policy of wrongful adoption.

Eventually forced into public disgrace was a Rosie O’Donnell funded adoption agency, “Children of the World Inc.” of Verona, New Jersey.

Upon reading this narrative written by the birthfather, shocking discoveries come to light. The father, who in 2003 thought his son stillborn two years past, embarks upon his own fact-finding journey. Without aid, followed is his conspiracy suspicion that proves true with the unearthing of official State documentation.

Ironically, as for the conspirators, the key element in this case is an extortion letter authored by the birthmother. Although, shamefully composed after her successful orchestrated deception of the birthfather, this “letter” would later evolve into the centerpiece implicating component of a pending litigation. This treacherously written extortion attempt, when introduced early in the adoptive process should have instantly raised concerns as to the legitimacy of the adoption. The letter’s custodian, an adoption attorney, was keenly aware of certain facts that this correspondence represented. With the content held fast, __ and its fate purposely put on hold; therein quelled was any chance of its exposure.

It wasn’t until the letter surfaced, and the break down of a ruse that which ultimately did force major violations issued against the state licensed agency. This corporation in turn faced a vengeance requited, for in one reading of the letter, these surreal words of failed extortion did mete out their own form of vengeance.

This intertwined conspiracy most certainly involves a suspect Department of Human Services in the State of New Jersey. Of suspicion are the supposed non-bias enforcement agents, whose investigative techniques are question of motive.

It is a case that also details an in-depth study of New Jersey State adoption statutes. These of which, reveal a previously un-detected double standard in application. With this well-hid loophole in adoption law, a tandem duo of adoption agency and adoption attorney, can easily manipulate the State’s adoption system in their favor.

Also revealed in this all-truth bared story is a full account of how these unenviable set of circumstances evolved. Included, is the complete relationship between the birth mother and the birth father, who at the time of birth was five years afflicted with Parkinson’s disease.

Did she deceive him for the betterment of the Childs future? Did she have the right to decide the fate of father-son relationship? How did the birth father’s medical condition affect all the decisions made of the birth mother? How will the child eventually feel?

From pre-adoption to conception of conspiracy, with minimum conjecture, unfolds a riveting story where you can conceivably make your own judgment of the intentions of all involved. All is considered in this ghostly third-person, and self-narrated travesty that encompasses scores of adoption issues. This book is necessary reading for those who have endeavored, or plan to follow the path that leads to the humanitarian act of Child adoption.