Adoption of Baby T., In re

• Decision Date: 17 September 1997
• Citation: 705 A.2d 1279,308 N.J.Super. 344
• Parties: In re ADOPTION OF BABY T.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 344

308 N.J.Super. 344

705 A.2d 1279

In re ADOPTION OF BABY T.

Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division Family Part,

Camden County.

Decided Sept. 17, 1997.

[705 A.2d 1280] David M. Fried, Chatham, for plaintiff, (Blume, Goldfaden, Berkowitz, Donnelly, Fried & Forte, attorneys).

Lauren O'Neill, Roseland, for Irwin Krasna (Post, Polak, Goodsell & MacNeill, attorneys).

Marie Judith McCormack, Cranford, for Nishat Zedie (Dughi & Hewit, attorneys).

Sheila Glackin, North Brunswick, for Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital (Lynch, Martin, Philibosian, Chansky, Fitzgerald & Kane, attorneys).

COOK, J.S.C.

INTRODUCTION

In what appears to be an issue of first impression in New Jersey, this court is asked to set aside a final judgment of adoption entered more than two years ago, on grounds that four months after the birth of the adoptive child, Baby T., and the voluntary surrender of all parental rights by his birth mother ¹, as On July 7, 1995, the adoption hearing was held and the final judgment of adoption of Baby T. by Peter and Janet Hyman was entered, upon full disclosure to the court by the adoption agency and the adoptive parents of the child's unexpected, premature death. Also before the court at the adoption hearing was a letter from the State licensing bureau for adoption agencies. In that letter, the State adoption agency licensing bureau acknowledged Baby T.'s unexpected death and his adoptive parents' desire for closure and finalization of his adoption. The Bureau gave its approval, waiving the requirement that a child reside in the home of his or her adoptive parents for six months, and authorized the adoption agency ("Adoptions From the Heart") to consent to the adoption of Baby T., without risk of loss of its license nor citation for any violation of adoption licensing standards or regulations.

well as four months after the child was lawfully placed in the custody of his adoptive parents by a State-approved and licensed adoption agency, the child unexpectedly died prior to the final hearing on his adoption. The motion to vacate the adoption is brought not by the adoptive parents nor any other party to the adoption proceeding. [705 A.2d 1281] Rather, Dr. Nishat Zedie, a defendant in a separate medical negligence action, and at whose hands the death of Baby T. is alleged to have occurred, is the one who now seeks to invalidate his adoption. Dr. Zedie had no relationship to Baby T., except as the physician who allegedly administered the wrong anesthesia agent to him, in conjunction with what was to be same-day surgery for repair of a left inguinal hernia, as a result of which Baby T. met a premature and unexpected death.

For the reasons expressed herein, it is this court's determination that given the particular facts and circumstances of this case, viewed in the light of those legal and equitable principles that bear on this application, the posthumous judgment of adoption of Baby T. by the Hymans is valid, and should not now be set aside.

STANDING

Preliminarily, there is the threshold question whether the movant-physician who is alleged to have negligently caused the adoptive child's death has any standing to challenge the adoption judgment. Seeking to vacate what is now a two-year old judgment of adoption as being void, Dr. Zedie relies on R.4:50. However, the rule provides relief only to a party to the judgment, or the party's legal representative. R.4:50-1, 2. The movant was not a party to the adoption judgment she now seeks to vacate; therefore R.4:50 does not confer standing nor afford her a basis for relief. Movant's further reliance on In re Adoption of Children by O., 141 N.J.Super. 586, 359 A.2d 513 (Ch.Div.1976), is likewise misplaced. That case involved a motion to vacate a judgment of adoption brought by a party to the adoption proceeding, the adoptive father. Here, Dr. Zedie was literally a stranger to the adoption proceeding that she now attacks. Thus, there are serious questions whether Dr. Zedie has standing to challenge the judgment of adoption. Certainly Dr. Zedie did not suffer any direct injury from the adoption of Baby T. It is also clear that Dr. Zedie's primary, if not sole, motive and interest in seeking relief at this late date is to avoid the potential liability she may be exposed to in the wrongful death and survival action that has been brought against her by reason of the child's death. However, assuming arguendo that movant has standing to seek to vacate the judgment of adoption by applying a most liberal interpretation of the New Jersey test for standing, the court will address the substantive issue. See Patrolmen's Benev. Ass'n v. East Brunswick Tp., 180 N.J.Super. 68, 72-73, 433 A.2d 813 (App.Div.1981) (addressing the substantive issue raised by a plaintiff whose standing was questionable). In doing so, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the motion, and is cognizant of its power to control, vacate or correct its own judgments. Wilford v. Sigmund Eisner Co., 13 N.J.Super. 27, 33, 80 A.2d 222 (App.Div.1951); In re T, 95 N.J.Super. 228, 235, 230 A.2d 526 (App.Div.1967); In re Adoption of Children by O., 141 N.J.Super. 586, 589, 359 A.2d 513 (Ch.Div.1976); In the Matter of Adoption of G., 89 N.J.Super. 276, 280, 214 A.2d 549 (Cty.Ct.1965). This is not to say, however, that the interests of an outsider to the adoption, as Dr. Zedie is, should be considered in determining whether the adoption judgment should be set aside. In re Adoption of G., supra, 89 N.J.Super. at 281, 214 A.2d 549. Neither can the importance of the finality of judgments be ignored, nor the principle that relief in the form of vacation of a final judgment should be granted only on the presentation of "truly exceptional circumstances", as determined by the particular facts of each case. See Baumann v. Marinaro, 95 N.J. 380, 395, 471 A.2d 395 (1984).

THE ADOPTION OF BABY T.

Turning to the substantive issue, namely the validity or invalidity of the judgment of adoption of Baby T., the salient facts of record regarding the child, his biological and adoptive parents, his placement for adoption, his premature death and the adoption process itself, are as follows.

Baby T. was born on December 1, 1993. He was a full-term, healthy baby, weighing over 7 pounds. His biological father predeceased Baby T.'s birth by several months. On December 4, 1993, three days after his birth, Baby T.'s biological mother voluntarily relinquished all her parental rights and custody of the child to Adoptions From The Heart, an adoption agency licensed and approved by the State of New Jersey. She executed a notarized formal document, therein acknowledging the termination of all her parental rights, and consenting to the adoption of Baby T. by a person or persons approved by the adoption agency. Under New Jersey adoption laws, this surrender constituted a valid and complete relinquishment of the biological mother's parental rights and custody rights, and signified her consent to the adoption of Baby T. N.J.S.A. 9:2-16 and 17; N.J.S.A. 9:3-41 (surrender of child to approved adoption agency and relinquishment of custody and parental rights). In its subsequent report to the court, the adoption agency noted that the biological father predeceased Baby T.'s birth, and that the biological mother was unable to raise the child.

That very day, December 4, 1993, Baby T. was committed to the custody of the adoption agency, and he was also placed by the approved adoption agency that day in the home of his adoptive parents, Peter and Janet Hyman. The Hymans were married in 1984 and had previously adopted another son in 1988. Mr. Hyman was a business executive and Mrs. Hyman was a full-time mother and homemaker. They had been selected by Baby T.'s biological mother, through Adoptions From The Heart, to adopt the child.

Baby T. remained in the Hyman family home under their continuous care and nurture from the time of his placement until his premature and unexpected death on March 31, 1994, a period of almost four months.

As noted, it is alleged in the separate action that on March 31, 1994, Dr. Nishat Zedie, who now seeks to void Baby T.'s adoption, negligently caused his death by administering the wrong anesthesia for what was to be same-day surgery for repair of an inguinal hernia. Documenting that allegation is the uncontroverted submission by Mr. Hyman on this motion of the report of Dr. Sheldon Deluty, M.D., outlining various deviations by Dr. Zedie from accepted standards of practice in her treatment of Baby T. These deviations included the improper use of an anesthetic that had been expressly mandated by the FDA as contraindicated for use in children. As a result, Baby T. suffered cardiac arrest and died several hours later. Dr. Deluty's report is uncontroverted by any medical expert report of record.

After Baby T.'s untimely death, Mr. and Mrs. Hyman, with the consent of the adoption agency, took the responsibility for all funeral arrangements and expenses for Baby T., and made those arrangements as his parents. In his certification opposing Dr. Zedie's motion, Mr. Hyman states:

On or about December 4, 1993, my wife, Janet and I brought our newly born son, [Baby T], home to live with us. At that time, we knew there was a six (6) month waiting period to file an adoption Complaint and to obtain an Order of Adoption.

On March 31, 1994, our son died during a hernia repair operation.

We buried our son in our family cemetery plot. He died as our son and was buried with the name we gave him, [the full name given Baby T].

Although the child died unexpectedly prior to a final hearing on his adoption, Mr. and Mrs. Hyman wanted to complete the adoption of Baby T. for purposes of finality and closure. They considered him as their son. Mr. Hyman further states in his certification:

On July 5, 1995, we obtained an Order of Adoption. This was important to us to know our son died as a member of our family, he was...