Acedo v. Arizona Department Of Public Welfare

Facts

P filed a habeas corpus petition in the trial court, seeking the return of her baby. The evidence shows that the child was born on February 3, 1972, to P, an unmarried woman, who at that time was 18 years of age and a high school graduate. Prior to the child's birth, P had gone to the County Department of Public Welfare, hereinafter referred to as the adoption agency, at which time she decided that it would be best for the unborn baby to give it up for adoption. After the birth of the baby, she changed her mind and decided to keep the child. P and the baby resided at the home of P's parents until about August 13, 1972, when, although unemployed and in possession of only $20, she moved out of her parents' home, taking the baby with her. On August 14, 1972, only one day after moving, she made another visit to the adoption agency, where the possibility of adoption was again discussed. On August 15, 1972, a welfare worker went to P's temporary residence to discuss the adoption. P stated that she wanted to place the baby for adoption, and thereafter petitioner accompanied the welfare worker back to her office. At the office, P was given a 'Consent to Place Child for Adoption' form to read, and after reading it was asked if she understood it. She responded that she did, and thereupon signed the form. The adoption procedure had been explained to P before the consent form was signed. Included in this explanation, was the fact that in an adoption proceeding the adoption itself is not final until six months after the adoption petition is filed. At no time was there any conversation between P and the representatives of the adoption agency as to P having six months, or any other time period, within which she could, upon request, get her baby back. In accordance with the written consent, P voluntarily gave her baby to the adoption agency on August 15, 1972. Subsequently, on September 1, 1972, the baby was placed in an adoptive home. During the latter part of August or early September of 1972, P, her $20 expended, returned to her parents' home. On September 4, 1972, P sought to have the baby returned to her and was told that the child had been placed in an adoptive home and that nothing further could be done. On September 8, 1972, P sent to the adoption agency a form prepared by her attorney which purported to revoke her previously given consent. This revocation was received on September 11, 1972. P commenced habeas corpus proceedings to have the child returned to her, alleging that the consent for adoption was procured by threats, coercion, and fraud. P testified that when she signed the consent form she did not realize its finality, but rather thought she could get her baby back at any time within six months. The trial judge informally stated at the end of the hearing that 'because of the nature of this case', he 'would resolve in [P's] favor the fact she was confused about the six months.' The court did specifically find that the adoption agency had not engaged in threats, coercion, or fraud in obtaining P's consent, and therefore denied the petition. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.