Petition of Steve B.D. – Adoption
Petition of Steve B.D., 111 Idaho 285, 723 P.2d 829 (1986).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This lawsuit involved a petition to revoke consent to the adoption of a child.
FACTS: Mary was a 36 year old woman who had four children and was recently divorced after a long marriage. She had minimal financial resources and answered an ad which sought surrogate mothers. She learned that prospective parents were willing to pay $7,000 plus medical and legal expenses. Mary never completed negotiations for a surrogate parenthood arrangement.
Mary then entered into a relationship with Chet and became pregnant. Mary then contacted the attorney with whom she had spoken about surrogate parenthood. She told the attorney that she wished the child to be adopted. The Ds agreed and a contract was entered into to pay legal and medical expenses but not to pay Mary anything herself.
Mary gave birth to a child in 1984. Two days after the birth she executed a consent to the adoption of the newborn child by the D family in the presence of a magistrate. The Ds filed a petition for adoption two days later. Eleven days after the Ds petition, Mary filed a written revocation of her consent to adopt. A hearing was held and the adoption consent was upheld.
The child was born and the judge refused to revoke her consent to adoption under the Anderson standard. Mary testified that she had received no counseling prior to the birth of the baby, and that she had bought clothes and furniture and that the attorney then involved had exerted pressure on her to give up the child. The attorney testified that he had reviewed the consent forms with Mary and denied that she had placed any conditions upon the adoption such as being raised by an out of state family or one of the Catholic faith. The lawyer also denied that he had ever coached Mary.
The trial court found that Mary was a mature woman and had the benefit of counsel and consultations with social workers. Mary also had brief contact with the child and the Ds had uninterrupted custody since two days after birth and had spent considerable money and legal fees and had formed an emotional detachment to the child. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE: In the absence of fraud, duress, or undue influence, does a natural parent have the right for an indeterminate period of time to revoke consent to adoption even after the adoption proceeding has been completed?
RULE OF LAW: No. In the absence of fraud, duress, or undue influence, a natural parent does not have the right for an indeterminate period of time to revoke consent to adoption even after the adoption proceeding has been completed.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The court overruled Anderson but affirmed the judgment of the lower courts. The court adopted a new standard of determination tailored to place more importance on the child’s welfare rather than the protection of the interests of the natural and adoptive parents.
There is no doubt that the older standard will breed litigation and uncertainty with the future of potentially adoptive children remaining in a state of limbo for years. The Anderson factors concentrate unduly on the rights of the natural parents to the exclusion of the welfare of the child. The natural parental ties are one factor to be considered in determining the best interests of the child but such ties are not to be treated as a presumption in favor of the natural parents. As for the improper influence of the attorney and the fact his fees were paid by Ds; we so no evidence in the record that the attorney allowed Ds to influence or regulate his professional judgment in rendering services to Mary.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.