Wednesday, February 06, 2008


Dear Mr./Ms. Anonymous,

I am taking you to task for the comment that you left on the blog. You see I moderate my comments for a reason. Its one thing to disagree with me. Its entirely different to bring your sense of entitlement to my blog. ITS MY BLOG. I will humiliate you. You see, I am that child fourty years down the road. I am pissed off at folks just like you. The state has no rights in this adoption of Matt Tenneson's child. NONE. The mother has already relinquished hers. Her rights are gone and out the window. The agency just wants that profit that they made on that child. Matt Tenneson didn't relinquish his rights period. The child's best interests are with his father. Period. There is no other question about this. You are either Larry Jenkins himself or one of the Nielsons. All I can is shame on you. Shame will forever be hanging on your shoulders. You will answer to God. Why else do think our Lord has put me on this earth? I am warning you that you will spend time in hell. Your comments are horrible. I am letting the public read them. Why don't you call a spade a spade? I am anti-adoption when it comes to stories like these. If both parents consent to the adoption, then I am fine with the adoption. You don't own that child like a piece of furniture that makes your livingroom complete. Explain to me why fathers and mothers have to jump through hoops to raise their own children. Explain to me why many staff members in these DCF departments don't know about putative father registries. Why is that many fathers have to know every state's putative father registries? How do I know that you didn't coerce the mother in some form or fashion? Believe I know it happens. It is alive and well here in the United States. It doesn't surprise me that members of our society doesn't want a single father to raise his child. Heck many in society don't want single mothers to raise their own children either. I have no doubt in my mind that you are probably one of them. I don't want your biblical shit taking over this country. Its because of people like you that this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

The Nielson case is an example of how some "adoption reformers" constantly let emotion guide their thought processes. This case has not yet been reviewed by the highest court in Idaho and already the "reformers" have jumped on the bandwagon. What do we know about Matt Tenneson? We know that he fathered a child out-of-wedlock and than failed to follow Idaho law to protect his rights. Idaho law speaks specifically of the obligation of an unmarried birthfather to file a Notice of Paternity with the state. Tenneson failed to do so.Matt never took any action to object to this adoption until after the child was born and placed with the Nielson's. There are many undercurrents that run through this case. One undercurrent is that Tenneson's father apparently worked frequently for years with the trial court judge that blocked the adoption.It may surprise you to know that a large number of people don't believe an unmarried biological father's rights don't trump those of the birthmother, the adoptive parents, and the state. If he wanted parental rights he could have at least taken time to look up the law in his state.The people of Idaho chose a particular process to legitimize adoptions. When this case is resolved through appeal the courts will rule that its Tenneson who acted inappropriately.But...let's not let the facts get in our way...And let's keep wishing everyone who takes another side of this controversy to rot in hell.


Anonymous said...

Biblical shit is one thing, Amy. But what they did/are doing is NOT biblical. I will check my stash of Bible passages that indicate how UNChristian the theft of Matt's child is...and when I get them, you can bold them for me!

Lizard said...

I left the following comment on this editorial by an adoptee who apparently has been raised to hate and disparage his natural parents. I wonder who taught him to feel that way? (rhetorical question).,5143,695251648,00.html

I doubt that Deseret News will publish my comment, so here it is:

The perpetrators here are the child's natural mother and LDS Services, both of whom had agendas that motivated them to disregard the rights of the father in the first place. LDS was responsible for getting the father to sign off, but they flouted their responsibility.

The Nielsons are victims, but that does not give them the right to play God. Anyway, I assume God is not that self-serving.

If I were adopting a child, I would make very certain that BOTH parents had signed paperwork that terminated their rights to parenting the child. Otherwise, I could never live with myself or look that child in the eye without feeling like a kidnapper.

BOTH parents should have a say regarding what they feel is in their child's best interest - not just one of them. There is no doubt in my mind that both the mother and LDS Services have committed kidnapping. The former for egotistical reasons, the latter for financial gain. Both, perhaps, out of self-righteousness.

How would the Nielsons feel if someone were to come along and take "Harvey" without notification, having decided THEY were better suited to raise him, blatantly ignoring the courts?