More Local

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
• Former Marine to serve two years in jail for killing Albuquerque robber
• Wilson-Pearce battle for U.S. Senate exemplifies party's disparity

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

The adoptive parents of a 2-year-old boy have lost another legal battle to keep the child whose biological father says was wrongly taken from him.

The state Court of Appeals last week denied the petition for a rehearing of the case filed by Bobby A. and Rosario Romero, who have raised the boy as their own since he was 3 days old.

The latest decision, filed Sept. 7, affirms its previous conclusion that state District Judge John Pope in Valencia County erred when he terminated the parental rights of the biological father, Mark Huddleston, in part because the judge wrongly based his decision on Huddleston's actions before the baby's birth and not what he did after the birth.

The appellate court reversed Pope's decision and remanded the case back for a hearing to determine who should have custody of the child.

Hal Atencio, the attorney for the Romeros, did not return a call to his office. Atencio has said in the past that being granted a rehearing with the Court of Appeals was a longshot and the family intended to take its case to the state Supreme Court.

Even with the latest appellate opinion, Huddleston said he is no closer to seeing his son.

"It's crazy," said Huddleston, who lives in Albuquerque with his wife, Peggy. "They know he's my son, and I've proven in court that they did something wrong. I want my son. As far as I'm concerned, they don't have legal standing to him."

Huddleston, who is representing himself in the custody case, said he filed an expedited motion last month to reinstate visitation with his son and a motion to seek sole parental custody of his child.

A hearing on the matter before Pope late last month was canceled when the biological mother and her attorney did not show up, Huddleston said.

"It's nothing more than a delay tactic," he said. "They're sitting on the case."

Huddleston said he filed a "show cause" motion this month against the biological mother, identified in court records as Helen G., and her attorney, Gregory Biehler, to explain why they should not be held in contempt for not being present at court.

Biehler did not return a call to his office Tuesday.

On Aug. 21, Huddleston also filed a lawsuit against Adoptions Plus, the Albuquerque agency he says put his son up for adoption without his permission.

The agency placed the boy with the Romeros three days after his birth Feb. 14, 2004, with the biological mother's consent, court documents state.

The Romeros, who live in Los Lunas, have argued Huddleston did nothing to establish his paternal rights to the child until well after the boy had been placed with them.

According to the appellate opinion, the child was the result of a six-month relationship that ended June 2003 between Helen G., an Albuquerque hotel employee, and Huddleston, an account executive for a company that delivered chemicals to the hotel.

Huddleston was divorced at the time of the relationship and had not married his current spouse, court records indicate.

Helen G. testified she told Huddleston twice that she was pregnant and he had at least one opportunity to notice her visibly pregnant. A co-worker of the mother's also testified that Huddleston had known of the pregnancy but did not know whether the child was his.

Huddleston, court records state, also did not give the mother financial support during her pregnancy.

But Huddleston claims the mother kept her pregnancy a secret and he did not know he had fathered a child until he received a notice from the adoption agency three days after the notice date of April 16, 2004, the lawsuits state.

Huddleston, the lawsuit states, was told the next day by Adoptions Plus Executive Director Catherine Troy that he had no right to the child, the lawsuit said.

Huddleston hired an attorney that day and signed up with the state putative father registry the day after that, court records state.

Huddleston filed a paternity lawsuit that month to contest the adoption. Huddleston also underwent a DNA test that proved he was the father.

The Romeros argued that Huddleston's actions were too little, too late.

But the Court of Appeals, in both opinions, said that while it agreed Huddleston knew or should have known about the pregnancy and did nothing about it, his actions before the birth cannot be used to prove that he caused the parent-child relationship to disintegrate, nor that he abandoned the child.

Huddleston said he has not seen his son in about 1 years. Supervised visits with his son ended when his parental rights were terminated April 14, 2005.