January 31, 1995
Judge Guy Burningham
Fourth District Court
Provo, Utah
Dear Judge Burningham,
I'm writing out of a concern for Zenith Helton; I am her Bishop. (I am writing this letter on my secular letterhead. I am a professor at BYU. I have a Ph.D. and like you, I wear robes albeit once a year, and judge the works of others.) I am also the Bishop of Don and Jean Hanes. I have watched most of this case develop over the last two years, and I feel impelled to offer my views on the best interest of the child. I may not be a completely impartial observer, but in my capacity as a Bishop, I too, am a judge. I have talked with Don and Jean numerous times both before this issue came to the civil court and after.
In the last court session (I was in attendance), you indicated that this was a tragic case. While that is true at one level; at another level it is only tragic because the court is allowing itself to be used as a club in the hands of Kelly Helton to retaliate against her mother, Jean Hanes. If the court would recognize the legal adoption, and with it the legal consent of Kelly (who under examination from a judge and with legal counsel present) the issue would be settled in the most just and fair way and the parties could get about making peace and rebuilding their relationships, which is exactly what they will do as soon as the court gets out of the way.
The issue, unfortunately, has turned on the dyad of mother and daughter, not Kelly and Zenith, but Jean and Kelly. The other relationships in this case are more important. For example, the role of the adoptive father, Don, is a primary factor in this case, and has been since the pregnancy, but his capability and needs are swept out the door in the current ruling. It is because Jean wanted a baby with Don, and because Kelly knew of that desire, that Kelly first offered the child to Don and Jean. Kelly had an appointment for an abortion, but canceled it because Don and Jean showed an interest in the child. The primary relationship to be preserved here should not be that between Jean and Kelly but should be that between Zenith and her legally adopted parents, Don and Jean.
I am confident that if Don is allowed to raise a child, that child will have all the privileges and love a child could possibly have. He is the critical personality in all this, and the Thomas report misses this point. Thomas only concludes that the two options (single mothering by Kelly and parenting by Don and Jean) are a toss-up, and therefore he throws his vote to the biological mother. Note, however, he states that Don and Jean would be fine and worthy adoptive parents, but suggests that they pursue adoption of another child. As I read the Thomas report, although he saw each family manifest disadvantages, his conclusion seemed ill-fit to the report. He discounts the advantage of the father. (True, single mothers in many cases do well raising children; my father was raised by a single mother from the time he was seven years old.) Don is a wonderful father; he is older, mellow in temperament -- perhaps one who was resigned to bachelorhood. But I have seen his personality and his outlook on life just blossom with Zenith in his care. If the court and psychologists ignored the two mothers at conflict here, and simply focused on the value of the father, and not just any father but Don Hanes, they would find wherein lies the true best interest of the child.
As a lay clergyman, I cannot but raise the issue of religion, or in general terms, the issue of values, in the life of a young child. Here again, Don and Jean win the case. Kelly looked at giving the baby Zenith to friends of hers rather than to her mother, but backed off because the husband of the friend was a born-again Christian. In this day and age latch-key kids and valueless education, Zenith would be better off with a born-again Christian family, or a LDS family, than she would be with Kelly and her drug-prone, marriageless-multiple-partner lifestyle.
As Zenith's Bishop, I therefore submit this request that you stay your judgement. Please allow Zenith the tranquility of the home she has and do not disregard the sanctity of adoption. Kelly swore before the court that she understood she was giving up her child forever, irrevocably and finally; yet, the court has allowed her to renege on the most solemn of covenants, and thereby disrupt the harmony of what is now Zenith's home. Adoption is a serious business. Consent to give a child for adoption is serious business. And standing before a judge swearing to commit one's child to another forever is something that cannot be dismissed. Perhaps it could be dismissed if there were cause. But there is no cause here. Your Honor has correctly seen through the pretext of the argument that Kelly's counsel has proposed, that the father's consent was flawed. The biological father has no interest in the child. Perhaps one could argue that Don and Jean erred in allowing Zenith to spend time with her biological mother, but remember, before Kelly brought legal action Jean was sharing her adopted child with her biological child. She should not be criticized for trying to keep her family together.
The Hanes household is a good loving home that has provided Zenith all she needs to grow up healthy and happy. Please do not rip her from her moorings to be case adrift on the sea of change.
Sincerely yours,
Mark Peterson
Bishop, Pleasant View Third Ward