A bitter custody dispute began between her and a Weber County couple over the boy, identified in court by the initials E.H.

Yet at the age of 5, he still is waiting for an answer.

His plight drew frustration Tuesday from the Utah Supreme Court, which criticized how long the battle has been winding its way through state courts. Still, the justices said they had no choice but to send E.H.'s case back for more hearings.

"The proceeding in this court is the latest, but sadly not the last, act in a very human saga that has played out on the stage of our eight courts," Justice Ronald E. Nehring wrote in the unanimous opinion. "Despite our determination that we must remand this case for further proceedings, we hold fast to the hope that in the near future E.H. will know who his parents will be and where he will call home."

The fight for E.H. initially looked as though it would end swiftly, when 2nd District Judge Stanton Taylor allowed both sides to strike an unusual agreement. A child psychologist would determine what was in the boy's best interest, and his recommendation would be binding.

But the arrangement didn't work out, leaving the justices to consider the validity of such agreements, the role of judges and the rights of biological mothers.

Attorneys say Tuesday's opinion clarifies several areas of Utah's complex adoption laws, making clear judges are not bound to enforce such agreements and when biological mothers like E.H.'s have the right to take part in adoption hearings.

Attorney Greg Hawkins, who represents the adoptive couple, said they were "thrilled" with Tuesday's opinion. It reversed a 2004 Utah Court of Appeals ruling in the mother's favor.

"Now that we've got to this point, we're very comfortable and confident that everything is going to be resolved in our favor," he said.

The boy has not visited with his biological mother for years, he said.

Attorney Linda Faye Smith, who represented the mother in the appeal, did not comment late Tuesday.

The case began in 2000 when E.H.'s mother, identified as T.H., contacted the Adoption Law Center in California to explore placing her unborn child for adoption, according to Tuesday's opinion.

At the time, the Utah couple, identified in court documents as R.C. and S.C. had contacted Families for Children in Salt Lake City to perform a home study. Director Suzanne Scott did the study and found they were eligible to adopt.

In November, the couple told the same California law center they wanted to adopt a baby. The mother and couple spoke by phone, and an adoption was arranged. Ten days later, on Nov. 24, 2000, the birth mother flew to Utah to give birth, and then signed a document relinquishing her rights to the baby.

E.H. was to become the sixth child in the adoptive family, which included two adopted special needs children.

T.H. and her two other children then lived with the adoptive parents after the birth, according to the opinion. During that time, the mother became concerned that Scott's home study was inaccurate and incomplete.

For example, the mother allegedly observed the adoptive parents' other children were not the honor students she was led to believe but were home schooled and in her opinion, behind in their education. The mother said she was also concerned about their social development, claiming the children appeared to have no healthy relationships outside the family and that the children with disabilities seemed to be isolated from the family.

T.H. moved out and filed a petition seeking custody of E.H.

Both sides eventually agreed to select an independent clinical psychologist to determine who should have the child and to be bound by the decision. Seven months later, when E.H. was 28 months old, Chris Wehl was hired - for his first adoption evaluation, although he had done custody evaluations, Hawkins said.

After taking a year to compile his report, Wehl recommended the child be returned to his birth mother. Wehl's report had identified the couple's two children with cerebral palsy and Down syndrome as experiencing possible neglect.

By then, Taylor had retired. New judge Ernest Jones pointed to inaccuracies in Wehl's report and held a hearing on whether the mother's original relinquishment was valid.

Jones found that it was, then held an adoption hearing in which he refused to allow the mother to participate.

The Utah Court of Appeals reversed Jones' decision, saying he was not justified in disregarding the agreement and ordering the boy's placement with his biological mother. Instead, the Utah Supreme Court appeal by the adoptive parents followed.

The justices held the agreement had not stripped the judge of his power to rule in the case. But they also said Jones should have allowed the mother to participate in the adoption hearing.

Tuesday's opinion sends the case back to Jones with specific directions to hold further hearings that could mean E.H. goes back to his mother, stays with his adoptive parents or is placed in a custody arrangement that includes all three.

Attorney Melvin Larew, who represented Families for Children and is a former board member, said the allegations that the home study was flawed are unfounded.

Larew said the opinion is an important one for Utah's adoption law.

"It clarifies the procedure, unfortunately at the expense of not having this case resolved," he said.

eneff@sltrib.com