Adoption of Doe, In re
Decision Date | 21 February 1964 |
Citation | 197 A.2d 469,57 Del. 132 |
Parties | , 57 Del. 132 In re the ADOPTION OF John DOE. Orphans' Court of Delaware, New Castle County |
Court | Delaware Family Court |
Thomas G. Hughes, Wilmington, for petitioner, an Adoptive Agency of the State of Delaware.
Daniel F. Kelleher, Wilmington, for respondent, Mary Doe.
Sidney Clark, Wilmington, for respondent, Robert Doe.
This matter arises by reason of a Motion filed by an Adoptive Agency of the State of Delaware in the following words, to-wit:
In support of this Motion an Affidavit was attached thereto made by the Director of the Agency in the following language, to wit:
'(1) I am the Director of . . . (Adoptive Agency) and among my duties am charged with overseeing the adoption policies, investigations and recommendations made by the Agency, an authorized Agency under 13 Del.C. Ch. 9.
'(2) Social workers under my supervision prepared the customary investigation into the bankground and fitness of Robert Doe and Mary Doe, husband and wife, who wished to adopt an infant child through an Adoptive Agency of the State of Delaware.
'(3) No information was discovered which indicated that the Does were not morally and economically fit to be adoptive parents prior to July 26, 1963 by the Adoptive Agency or its Agents.
'(4) However, it has later been discovered that Mary Doe left the marital home on or about August 21, 1963 and on information and belief Mary Doe took up residence in Dover, Delaware with a Mr. Richard Roe, a former neighbor of Mary Doe.
'(5) On information and belief the home life represented to the Social Workers of the Adoptive Agency by the Does was deliberately falsified for the Does put on a display of domestic tranquility when in fact their home was not stable or conducive to proper adoption.
'(6) On information and belief the moral conduct of Mary Doe prior to the Final Decree and after the Final Decree makes her an unfit person to be an adoptive parent.
'(7) In light of the information obtained the Adoptive Agency would not have consented to the adoption of John Doe by Robert Doe and Mary Doe, his wife.'
The Respondents, Robert Doe and Mary Doe, were married on May 18, 1957 and at the time of the hearing in this matter Mr. Doe was thirty-two years of age and Mrs. Doe was twenty-five years of age.
Mrs. Doe was one of a family of ten children, and her husband, whose Mother died when he was eight months old, and whose Father remarried at the then age of twenty, was raised by his paternal Grandmother and never had the benefit of a Father except for a very short period of time after his Grandmother's death.
Following the Doe's marriage they attempted on many occasions to have children, but it was learned early in their married life that Mrs. Doe was unable to have children although on one or more occasions she had thought she was pregnant and had proudly indicated that fact to family gatherings at Christmas time which was in accordance with family custom. As a matter of fact, Mr. and Mrs. Doe were so disappointed that they could not have children and so desirous of having children that she spent almost three years having medical tests and going through medical treatment in an effort to correct the unhappy situation. All of this was to no avail, however, and on February 4, 1960 Mrs. Doe first contacted the Adoptive Agency, a licensed Adoptive Agency in the State of Delaware, concerning the possibility of adopting a child. Since the present Petition is based upon fraud on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Doe in obtaining the ultimate consent of the Adoptive Agency to the adoption in question it becomes pertinent to quote a part of this letter as follows:
* * *'
Following this initial contact and subsequent communications Mr. and Mrs. Doe made a formal application on November 28, 1961 for the adoption of the child who is the subject of this proceeding. In due course Mr. and Mrs. Doe attended a pre-adoptive meeting at which the Director and an Assistant of the Adoptive Agency spoke to the prospective adoptive parents and at which time Mr. and Mrs. Doe were told by the Assistant, in the words of Mrs. Doe, that now was the time prior to entering into the actual adoption proceedings to shake the skeletons out of the closet and take inventory of whatever problems they might have. No information was forthcoming at that time concerning any difficulties that might have existed between Mr. and Mrs. Doe, and there is nothing in the record to substantiate any thought that there were any differences at that time. In fact, the Social Worker who performed the background and pre-adoptive study para-phrased very well her conclusions of the actual marital status of this couple during and at the conclusion of her study in the following words:
In the adoptive study which leads to the placement or non-placement of an adoptive child the Case Worker stated in this instance that it was her duty to make a study of the family but that it was not her duty to act in the capacity of an Investigator to uncover hidden facets of the prospective adoptive parents' lives. In making her study she felt that it was clearly understood by all parties concerned, as a result of preliminary interviews and lectures, that all matters pertaining to the family and family life of those who were being considered as adoptive parents should be held out to the Worker in an open and above-board manner. At no time during her study was any dissension between Mr. and Mrs. Doe noted, and according to the evidence before me it appears that no serious dissension did in fact exist at that time.
On March 23, 1962 the child who was then ten days old was placed for adoption with Mr. and Mrs. Doe, and thereafter another member of the Adoptive Agency took over the supervision of the child and parents in the adoptive home during the required ensuing year. Immediately following the placement of this child, and specifically on March 23, 1962, Mr. and Mrs. Doe signed an Agreement with the Adoptive Agency in which they agreed among other things as follows:
'We shall work closely with the Adoptive Agency during the supervisory year, keep the Agency advised of any significant changes in our family situation, permit its representative to visit our home, and attend Agency meetings designed to assist us with the adoption.'
In the same text the Adoptive Agency through its Director agreed as follows:
'We reserve the right to withdraw the child prior to legal adoption if, in our judgment, such removal is warranted and if we feel that the adoption will not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Novak, In re, 59141
...v. Farris, 131 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App.1939); In re Adoption of L., 56 N.J.Super. 46, 151 A.2d 435, 437 (N.J.Prob.1959); In re Doe's Adoption, 197 A.2d 469 (Del.Orph.1964), affm'd, 210 A.2d 863 (Del.1964); 2 Am.Jur.2d Adoption, § 76 In this case an affirmative showing that the grandparents then ......
-
Husband (G.T.B.) v. Wife (G. R.)
...Court correctly recognized that it generally has the power to vacate an adoption decree on the grounds of fraud. See In re Adoption of Doe, Del.Orph., 197 A.2d 469 (1964), aff'd, Del.Supr., 210 A.2d 863 (1964). The Trial Court further opined that mistake in the granting of an adoption decre......
-
Adoption of O, In re
...a judgment or proceeding for a fraud upon the court. The rationale of In re L's Adoption, supra, was followed in In re Doe's Adoption, 197 A.2d 469, 474 (Del.Orph.Ct.1964), and in In re Emery, 191 Cal.App.2d 428, 12 Cal.Rptr. 685 The N.J. adoption laws, N.J.S.A. 9:3--17 et seq., effective J......
-
Adoption of Doe
...and CAREY, JJ., sitting. PER CURIAM. The opinion of the Orphans' Court below is affirmed on the opinion as entered below In re Adoption of Doe, 197 A.2d 469. ...