In February of 1992, Connie received a call from her daughter, Kelly in Arizona. Kelly, unwed and ending a relationship with her current boyfriend, was pregnant and was calling to offer us the child for adoption. We were delighted to accept as we were considering egg donation but we wanted to be absolutely sure that Kelly was making the right decision. Up until the baby was born on October 20, and even after, we tried to persuade Kelly to take responsibility for her baby. Kelly called our family attorney and asked him to create a petition for adoption. By early December, our attorney had both consents, with Kelly appearing in open court to sever her rights to the child. The petition was filed in Utah were we resided. Kelly left the infant in our home and returned to Arizona about November 20th.
Kelly began to be unsure of her decision in February 1993 after visiting off and on with us since Christmas. The trouble began when Kelly removed the baby from our home without our permission in late April, just weeks before the adoption was final. Prior to this time we had learned that at one instance, Kelly had intended to leave her other 3-year-old daughter alone with the baby.
After several peaceful attempts to retrieve the child failed, we attained an arrest warrant for custodial interference and traveled to Arizona where the child was returned to us with the help of a police officer. After the baby was safely returned home we dropped the charges on Kelly. In July 1993 while appearing in court on a restraining order, Kelly filed a motion objecting to the adoption, asserting (1) that the best interests of the child would be to return the child to her custody, and (2) rescinding her consent, even though according to Utah law it was too late. Still believing that we could work this out as a family, we gave Kelly supervised visitation, an opportunity that she did not make use of until October 20th. At the hearing, Judge Davis commented that a full evidentiary hearing should be held.
By March, two attempts at mediation failed. In May, our attorney resigns after suggesting a custody settlement which we refused and home studies and psychological evaluations are ordered. In October 1994, before the evaluations are completed the court orders that we provide the child, who is bonded to us and has forgotten Kelly, for lengthy unsupervised visits. After her first visit with Kelly, the child is aggressive and hurtful for the first time with other children and showing signs of an anxious attachment. The report is completed on Nov 21, 1994 and states that we are fit to adopt and bonded to the child, but the conclusion was (inexplicably) that custody be returned to Kelly.
In the end of December, we are ordered to provide the child for several days of visitation preceding overnights, and despite the amount of stress this applies upon the health of the child ( in the opinion of several psychologists and doctors), the petition for adoption is dismissed on January 24th, 1995. The evidentiary hearing never took place.
Though we were awarded visitation, Kelly made it more and more difficult for us each time by not showing up at the right time, if at all. During visits our little girl would cling to Connie the whole time and screamed when it was time to be returned to Kelly. Finally, Connie was physically assaulted and battered by one of Kelly's boyfriends in front of the children. The boyfriend who beat Connie is the brother-in-law of Kelly's counselor who arranged for her drug testing, home study and made recommendations to the court. We lost faith in the Utah judicial system. Fearing the child's fate was in jeopardy because of Kelly's admitted life style of drug use and promiscuity, in October 1995 we left for Iceland.
Since then we have fulfilled our dream of being a real family. Donald has a good job in his field, our teenage son and our little girl had adjusted and made friends, as we all have. Our children have attended school and we have been responsible, law abiding members of the community.
Our dream was thwarted on January 21st 1997, when our little child was taken by authorities against the rules of the Hague Convention and returned to Kelly. Our 4-year-old went to school like any other trusting Icelandic child to be isolated from family and friends for several days before Kelly came to pick her up. We last saw her on the television where her near catatonic expression contrasted sharply with the gleeful smiles pasted on the faces of the adults surrounding her. Despite our phone calls to Kelly, she came and went without a word to us, but for the public she was as thrilled as a new mother who had received her first Oscar award for her performance. We are now facing charges in the state of Arizona.
This inhumane act will be compounded with another when we are forced to leave our son behind due to the Minister of Justice returning us to the unjust judicial systems we fled. His need to execute the request of the United States in violation of Icelandic law gives him the right to treat us as "things" as he did our little daughter, and will our son. Upon completion of his orders we will have learned that the judicial system of Iceland is the same as the injustices in system we left.
Although Connie is willing to return to the United States to face the charges, why further destroy the family of the teenage boy? We wish to continue our lives in Iceland.
Donald Hanes
Connie Hanes
February 18, 1997
Error corrected May 22, 1999