Petition Of Steve B.D.

723 P.2d 829 (1986)

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

Mary gave birth to a child in 1984. Two days after the birth and before a magistrate she executed a consent to the adoption of the newborn child by the D family. Ds filed a petition for adoption two days later. Mary then filed a written revocation of her consent to adopt 11 days after the petition was filed (15 days after the birth). A hearing was held, and the adoption consent was upheld. Under the facts of the case, 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 was informed that the prospective parents were willing to pay $7,000 plus her medical and legal expenses. The negotiations for such surrogate parenthood were never completed. Mary then met and lived with Chet from 1982 to 1984 and learned that she was pregnant. Chet left in 1983 and Mary then recontacted the attorney whom she had spoken with before about the 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. 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. This appeal resulted.