In Re Swihart

517 N.E.2d 792 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was retained to represent an unwed, pregnant, eighteen-year-old woman in the placement of her expected child with adoptive parents. The mother made it clear that she would rely upon D's judgment for placement, but did not want to know the identity of the adoptive parents and did not want the child placed within the local area. The child was born on December 21, 1984, and on that evening D met with the mother and biological father. D left a form of 'Release and Power of Attorney' which the mother signed giving D temporary custody of the child. D informed the mother and father that he would take custody of the child for a few days until the child was placed with the adoptive parents. Between December 24, 1984, and March 1985, D and his wife decided to adopt the child who remained in their home. On March 4, 1985, D called the mother and natural father and stated that he was coming to see them with a Notary Public to have them sign new consent forms. The notary was Joe Williams (Williams), an attorney and personal friend of D. During his discussion with the mother and father, Williams commented on how well he knew D and how nice D's family was. Williams did not directly inform the mother and father that D intended to adopt the child, although he was aware of the fact. Eventually the mother figured it out and Williams confirmed that D was going to adopt the child. They still signed the consent forms but the forms lied in that they claimed the consent was voluntary and that the mother and father knew who was going to adopt. D never informed the mother and father that he intended to adopt the child or that he could no longer represent them because of his personal interest in the matter. D tried to get them to sign the final set of papers for the court to approve the adoption but the mother and father declined to sign the affidavits. Another attorney was retained and the mother and father regained the child and started the process all over again. By way of mitigation, the parties claimed that D was responding to vigorous and powerful influence from his wife who formed an emotional attachment to the child. D also paid all natal expenses and all costs for the child for a period of five months, at a total cost exceeding $ 4,000.00, with no reimbursement.