Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Dad fights for right to raise child after baby adopted

Leann Holt Journal Staff Writer

Mark Huddleston is the biological father of a 16-month-old child he says he wants to raise.

But a judge has ruled the child should remain with its adoptive parents, who have had custody since the infant was three days old.

Huddleston claims he didn't know the baby existed until two months after its birth-- time enough for the child to form an attachment with adoptive parents that a judge believed shouldn't be broken.

At one point, the state said the private adoption agency hadn't properly notified Huddleston and that he should have an opportunity to raise the child.

Valencia County District Judge John Pope disagreed.

He said he agonized over his decision and ultimately decided Huddleston had sufficient notice of the pregnancy and chose to ignore it.

Pope ruled the child would be psychologically harmed if removed from the adoptive family.

"There are always going to be close cases and cases when people get hurt," Pope said in a telephone interview. "I had to decide."

P.J. Hartman and Steve Long, Huddleston's attorneys, expressed respect for the judge and his fairness.

But they say Huddleston's relentless efforts to gain custody after the adoption agency notified him he might be the father indicate he didn't know his ex-girlfriend was pregnant.

"Mr. Huddleston showed a lot of tenacity from the moment he knew about the baby," Hartman said.

After learning the Journal was doing a story about Huddleston, an attorney for the birth mother filed for a gag order in the case, citing privacy concerns. Attorneys for the birth mother and adoptive parents would not comment.

Huddleston has appealed Pope's decision terminating his parental rights. He said he has already spent $60,000 in the fight for custody.

"This child is my blood," said Huddleston, a father of two grown children. "I couldn't live with myself knowing there's a child of mine I have no relationship with. They don't understand that."

Pope said he will watch the appellate process with interest.

"This is an interesting case," he said. "I have no problem having it reviewed."

Adoptions plus letter

Huddleston, 38, works for a commercial cleaning products company, a business he's been in for 22 years.

His daughter calls him "country" and loving. His friends call him honest.

Five years ago, he and his wife of 17 years divorced.

Two years later, Huddleston began a relationship with a woman that lasted about eight months.

Huddleston said the breakup was rancorous. He said the woman told Huddleston to stay away from her, and he did.

Ten months later, in April 2004, Huddleston received a letter from Adoptions Plus informing him it was possible he had a 2-month-old child. By this time, Huddleston had married Penny, a woman he had known for several years.

"When he read the letter, tears started rolling down his face," Penny Huddleston said.

"I've seen him cry and grieve over this child more than most fathers would over one who died."

The next morning, the Huddlestons went Adoptions Plus and were told that the agency had known since before the child's birth that Huddleston could be the father.

They were also told the baby had been placed in an adoptive home immediately after birth.

Huddleston said the agency told him it had attempted to reach him previously by mail and phone. Huddleston said he was not contacted until he received the April letter.

'Dark side of adoption'

Hartman says the case shows "the dark side of adoption".

"All you have to do is hide out the kid for a period of time and then say (the child's) bonded. Courts are using that bond to say 'too bad, Charlie' to biological parents."

According to Huddleston, here is how the case unfolded:

April 23, 2004: Huddleston received a letter from Adoptions Plus informing him he has been named as a possible father to a child born two months earlier.

April 24, 2004: The Huddlestons met with the executive director at Adoptions Plus. They say they were told the baby had been placed in a "very good home" at three days old and they would never have the child.

"She treated us like dirt," Huddleston said. "She also told me I could not have a DNA test (to establish paternity) because I had no rights."

In a telephone interview, the director said she did not recall the conversation and that she was not allowed to comment on the case.

April 27, 2004: Huddleston filed a lawsuit to gain custody of the child.

Summer 2004: A Valencia County judge ordered Huddleston, the child and the child's mother to have DNA testing. The results concluded Huddleston was the child's father.

Dec. 1, 2004: At Huddleston's request, the Children, Youth and Families Department conducted an investigation into Adoptions Plus.

CYFD officials determined the agency did not make diligent efforts to inform Huddleston he might have fathered a child.

Huddleston said CYFD officials ordered the baby be placed with Huddleston or the birth mother.

But the case went to trial before that order was enforced.

CYFD also ordered Adoptions Plus to develop a corrective action plan to ensure the problem was not repeated.

Dec. 8, 2004: Huddleston was given supervised visitation with his child while the custody trial was pending.

Jan. 5, 2005: Huddleston saw his 11-month-old child for the first time. His face lights up when he talks about the experience.

Huddleston said his child reached for him the first day they met.

"I don't know if it's genetic bonding or what," he said.

March 10, 2005: Pope ruled that Huddleston's parental rights be terminated with no visitation.

Pope said in the interview he disagreed with CYFD's ruling that the father had not been contacted in a timely manner.

Pope said he believed Huddleston had been told by the mother that she could be pregnant. He said once he had determined that Huddleston had notice of the pregnancy, he "applied the law in the best interests of the child."

Attorneys say the adoption will not be finalized until the appeal is heard.

Fathers 'a hindrance'

Michael McCormick, executive director for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children in Washington, D.C., said Huddleston's case has captured his attention.

McCormick said some adoption agencies see fathers "as a hindrance."

Huddleston's attorney Long, who described Pope as "one of the best judges in New Mexico," said he understood why it would be difficult to take the child away from the adoptive parents.

"But Mr. Huddleston wasn't at fault, and he is the biological father," Long said.

"It's very frustrating when people that do adoptions don't follow rules and then come into court screaming, '(The child's) bonded to the parents!' What do you do?" Long said.

E-mail this story Printer-friendly version