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 [?]

SANTA FE — The state Supreme Court, in a ruling that could affect future adoptions, has cleared the way for a 3-year-old boy's adoption by the couple who raised him since he was a newborn.

The high court said the boy's biological father, Mark Huddleston of Albuquerque, did not act early enough to establish himself as an "acknowledged father," so his consent is not required.

The adoptive parents' lawyer, Harold Atencio, hailed Monday's ruling as one that "will protect the children of New Mexico" and promote adoptions in cases where it's the right thing for children.

Huddleston has been fighting for custody of the boy, who was born in February 2004 to a woman identified in court documents as Helen G.

Huddleston's wife, Penny Huddleston, said Monday her husband was "crushed" by the ruling.

"This is a very devastating blow to him and all fathers . . . that are in this situation," she said.

At 3 days old, the child was placed by an adoption agency with Bobby and Rosario Romero of Los Lunas.

Huddleston claimed he didn't know of the boy's existence until he was notified by the agency about two months after the birth.

That conflicted with testimony from the mother and one of her co-workers, and the Supreme Court concluded there was evidence that Huddleston knew of the child.

After he was notified of the adoption petition in April 2004, Huddleston registered with New Mexico's putative father registry and filed a paternity suit. He argued that made him an "acknowledged father" with a veto over the adoption.

Under state law, consent for adoption is required from "acknowledged fathers" or from presumed fathers, those who are married to the mothers.

The Supreme Court, in its first-ever ruling on the issue, said unwed biological fathers must register with the Department of Health's putative father registry within 10 days of a birth.

And the court said a man who knows he has fathered a child must file a paternity suit before an adoption petition is filed if he is to be considered an "acknowledged father."

"The risks to young children are well documented when adoption proceedings are delayed," and the language in state law demonstrates that the Legislature intended for such biological fathers to act quickly, Justice Richard Bosson wrote for a unanimous court.

The Supreme Court's decision overturned a ruling last year by the state Court of Appeals, which restored Huddleston's parental rights and sent the case back to a state District Court in Valencia County to decide who should have custody. That ruling was stayed when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.