Adoption of BGD, Matter of
Decision Date | 30 May 1986 |
Docket Number | No. C-85-1,C-85-1 |
Citation | 719 P.2d 1373 |
Parties | In the Matter of the ADOPTION OF BGD, a Minor. TD, By and Through her next friend and parents JD and ZD, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. LDP and MFP, Appellees (Defendants). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
This case came on before the Court pursuant to Order Granting Petition for Rehearing and Denying Petition for the Appointment of Weston County DEPASS as Guardian Ad Litem to Investigate the Parties to Aid in Determining What is in the Best Interest of BGD, a Minor, and Denying Motion to Disqualify Supreme Court Justices entered on March 28, 1986, 716 P.2d 983, and the Appellees' Brief on Order Granting Rehearing and the Appellant's Answer, and the Court having heard the oral arguments of counsel for the parties, and having examined the file and record of the Court and the opinion of the Court in this case which was filed on February 14, 1986, 713 P.2d 1191, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that the opinion of the Court filed on February 14, 1986, should be confirmed in all respects; and it therefore is
ORDERED that the opinion of this Court filed in this case on February 14, 1986, be and the same hereby is, confirmed.
It was with a heavy heart that I voted with the majority in this court's decision of February 14, 1986. It was equally difficult to join the majority in confirming the court's original opinion. A judge is no stranger to difficult and unpopular decisions. However, he must vote according to his conscience and uphold what he perceives to be the law.
After the court's opinion of February 14, 1986, the Supreme Court was inundated with letters urging us to change our determination, which is unfortunate. Over fifty of these letters were directed personally to me. It was reported that one of those Those who organized the letter writing campaign misconceived the judicial process. A judge cannot properly be influenced by public opinion or pressure. I wish to assure the public that the letters did not have any influence whatsoever on the court's decision to grant a rehearing. It would be totally improper for the court to succumb to pressure or be influenced by public opinion. Those interested in this case must understand that the courts cannot tinker with the rules in order to accommodate one circumstance. The law applies the same to everyone in the state.
active in the letter writing campaign said: "I think the publicity and the letter writing campaign * * * probably helped" (obtain a rehearing). Casper Star Tribune, May 29, 1986; Newcastle Newsletter Journal, April 3, 1986.
If I ever make a decision based upon pressure or because of public opinion instead of my own professional judgment, I would have to resign from this court. In that circumstance I would have compromised my principles, violated my oath, sacrificed my integrity, and no longer be of any value to the court. The other members of this court feel the same way.
The only question presented on rehearing is whether the court correctly interpreted and applied § 1-22-109 and § 1-22-104, W.S.1977 to the facts of this case. A review of these facts is helpful in answering that question.
The lawyer, who had been employed by MFP and had previously prepared the consent form, advised TD that it "would be necessary for her to sign."
MFP and her husband LDP, the prospective adoptive parents.
The next morning TD asked to see her baby and was told it was gone. TD then checked out of the hospital fast "so I could go home and start trying to find a lawyer."
"Where, as here, a natural mother not represented by legal counsel at the time consent is given attempts to withdraw that consent within a few weeks and thereafter takes reasonable steps available to regain the custody of her child, neither so-called 'vested rights' nor superior economic or social position of the proposed adoptive parents will serve to deprive that withdrawal of legal effect." Small v. Andrews, 20 Or.App. 6, 530 P.2d 540 (1975).
The adoptive parents also contend that TD's consent obtained before the birth of baby girl D was irrevocable and, therefore, they should be permitted to keep TD's baby. The contention finds little support in law. And even where the consent form is executed after the birth of a child, undue influence (over-persuasion) will result in an insufficient consent.
Thus, in In Re Alsdurf's Petition, 270 Minn. 236, 133 N.W.2d 479, 481 (1965) the court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Atws
... 486 P.3d 158 In the MATTER OF the ADOPTION OF: ATWS, Minor Child, KA, Appellant (Petitioner). S-20-0184 Supreme Court of ... adoption statutes in a manner which will promote this purpose." Matter of Adoption of BGD , 719 P.2d 1373, 1382 (Wyo. 1986) ; see also 3A J.G. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory ... ...
-
In re MAJB
... 478 P.3d 196 In the MATTER OF the ADOPTION OF: MAJB f/k/a ZJC, minor child, DLB and DAB, Appellants (Petitioners). S-20-0120 ... construe adoption statutes in a manner which will promote this purpose." Matter of Adoption of BGD , 719 P.2d 1373, 1382 (Wyo. 1986) ; see also 3A J.G. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory ... ...
-
TR, Matter of, C-88-10
...(Wyo.1986) (Urbigkit, J., dissenting) and Matter of Adoption of BGD, 713 P.2d 1191, reh'g granted 716 P.2d 983, opinion confirmed 719 P.2d 1373 (Wyo.1986). Even though the original trial judge who conducted the two trials has now retired, I disfavor putting these children through the proces......
-
J.M.P., In re
... Page 1002 ... 528 So.2d 1002 ... In re Mr. & Mrs. J.M.P. Applying for Adoption ... No. 88-C-0008 ... 528 So.2d 1002 ... Supreme Court of Louisiana ... June 3, 1988 ... has been determined by it and when the other party knew or should have known that the matter affected by the error was the cause of the obligation for the party in error. La.Civ.Code art ... See, e.g., In re Adoption of BGD, 719 P.2d 1373 (Wyo.1986) ... The controversial issue considered in Sorentino ... ...