Adoption of Richardson, In re

• Decision Date: 22 May 1967
• Citation: 59 Cal.Rptr. 323,251 Cal.App.2d 222
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In the Matter of the ADOPTION OF Scott James RICHARDSON, a Minor. Wayne Harbro CHRISTENSEN and Madeline Marie Christensen, Petitioners and Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUREAU OF ADOPTIONS, Objector and Respondent. Civ. 30852.

Page 323

59 Cal.Rptr. 323

251 Cal.App.2d 222

In the Matter of the ADOPTION OF Scott James RICHARDSON, a Minor.

Wayne Harbro CHRISTENSEN and Madeline Marie Christensen, Petitioners and Appellants, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUREAU OF ADOPTIONS, Objector and Respondent.

Civ. 30852.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

May 22, 1967.

Hearing Denied July 19, 1967.

Ivan E. Lawrence, Canoga Park, for appellants.

Robert M. Werdig, Jr., and Charles J. Brown, Washington, D.C., amici curiae on behalf of appellants.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Wayne R. Parrish and Ronald Aubert, Deputy County Counsel, for respondent.

FOURT, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal 'from the decree denying adoption entered July 5, 1966, and from the denial of both Motion for New Trial, and, (in the Alternative), Motion to Vacate a Decree and to Enter Another and Different Decree denied in Court July 19, 1966.' The appeal, in effect, is from the denial of the petition of Madeline Marie Christensen and Wayne Harbro Christensen for the adoption of Baby Boy Richardson, and removal of the subject minor from the homes of petitioners-appellants and commitment of the child to the Los Angeles County Bureau of Adoption, pursuant to section 226c of the Civil Code. The minute entry of the court dated June 29, 1966, states that the petition was 'denied in the best interest of the child' and that it was directed that the child be delivered to the Bureau of Adoptions. The decree denying the petition, signed the next day, June 30, 1965, states that the 'denial is specifically based on the finding that the home of * * * (petitioners) is not a normal home, and that the welfare of the child will best be served by the denial of the petition.'

A re sume of some of the facts and some of the procedural background of this case is as follows: Wayne and Madeline Christensen, 46 and 41 years of age respectively, and married 17 years, sought to adopt the child here involved. Wayne is prelingually deaf (unable to hear or speak) and Madeline is deaf but can speak and be understood to a limited degree. They cannot have children of their own. Wayne, is now, and has been, steadily engaged as a drill press operator for the same employers for over 11 years with a take-home pay of about $98 per week. He has a $5000 life insurance policy on his life and $7000 mortgage insurance which will practically pay off the indebtedness on his home in the event of his death. The Christensens have a $17,000 equity in a comparatively new three-bedroom home, own two automobiles and have a modest savings account. Wayne has been a licensed car driver for 28 years.

The Christensens have been very active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon). That church has a branch for the deaf where Wayne is an active member and where he has been superintendent of the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association for 10 years and a clerk of the Southern California Deaf Branch of the Church for five years, with the duty, among others, of keeping careful typewritten records of all church activities.

Madeline is not employed for compensation outside the home, but she also is active in the church affairs. She was president of the Young Women's Mutual Improvement Association, the secretary to the Relief Society for a year and its president for three years.

In 1962 the Christensens brought Janett Cornell, a two-year old girl, into their home with the written consent of her parents and they have reared her to the present date. Janett's parents are deaf and she has lived practically her entire life in the homes of deaf persons. On November 4, 1966, in the Superior Court in Los Angeles County, the Christensens were appointed the guardians of Janett with no hesitation or qualification. The guardianship was approved by the natural parents and maternal grandmother. Janett was unable to talk when originally placed with the Christensens. However, now at the age of six she speaks with others, communicates in sign language, talks and plays with all the normal neighbor children, is normal in every respect and is described by Doctor Neil V. Litman ¹ as being a bright, charming and vivacious child; Doctor Litman states that everybody in his 'office loves her' and that frequently she acts as the interpreter between the Christensens and himself. When Janett attends church functions with the Christensens, she participates with other hearing and speaking children where she is taught by speaking and hearing teachers.

On August 30, 1965, the Christensens received custody of Scott James Richardson, who was then two days old. On September 1, 1965, they filed a petition for adoption of the baby Scott. Scott's natural mother, prior to the birth of the child, was told of the Christensens' deafness, their ages, church associations, economic circumstances and inability to have natural children. The natural mother selected the Christensens from among several prospective parents; she did not want the child. The child was conceived in an illegal relationship. Proper written consents of the father and of the mother of Baby Scott to the proposed adoption by the Christensens were made and executed and were filed in the proceedings. During the nine-month period when Baby Scott was with the Christensens, he developed normally. The expert pediatrician, Doctor Litman, who had cared for the child, stated that the development was normal, that the child had received treatment of his minor childhood illnesses at the proper times and had received the usual immunizations; that when he dealt with the Christensens he was 'dealing with intelligent parents who are handling their child wonderfully.'

The child welfare worker (Mrs. Barr) assigned by the bureau to the case made three reports. In a progress report dated January 21, 1966, she stated that petitioners 'appear to be suitable,' that the doctor had reported with reference to some question about the neurological development of the child and desired a further observation. The bureau recommended that the child continue in petitioners' home while his developments were further evaluated. In a supplemental report made on February 23, 1966, the bureau set forth the circumstances of the proposed adoption and placement; further, the report related that at a subsequent examination of the child he was responsive, that the child was getting care and that the petitioners 'were functioning well as parents.' It was pointed out that the petitioners were going to take the child to a neurological specialist for a full evaluation of his condition. The report described the excellent conditions of the Christensen home, their church activities and other related matters. It was noted that the petitioners had an excellent reputation among people who had known them for years. It was therein described how an electronic device had been installed to the end that if the child needed anything in the nighttime, the petitioners could be alerted and could normally, that '(t)he petitioners appear to out that petitioners were rearing Janett in such a manner that she was developing such a manner that she was developing have made an excellent adjustment to life despite the handicap of no hearing or speech, evidencing a stability in their marriage and in the man petitioner's case, in his job. They appear well able to function as parents which is borne out by the apparently good adjustment of the five year old left in their care. The petitioners appear to be a warm and sensitive couple. They share interests in camping, fishing, traveling, and their home.' and that the bureau 'is of the opinion that the home of the petitioners is suitable, the minor is now legally free for adoption, however, there is some question as to the neurologic development of the minor' and that the cause should be continued to obtain further information on the health problem of the child.

In the report dated April 27, 1966, it is related that the child had been examined by Doctor Arthur H. Parmelee, Jr., a neurological specialist at the U.C.L.A. Medical Center, and the conclusion of that doctor was that the child was performing at a five-month level (he was then seven months old) and that this lag in development was possibly because he was five to six weeks premature. Further it was reported that Doctor Litman had again examined the child on March 12, 1966, and that the child 'seems in all respects to be a normal child.' The child had an alert and responsive appearance, that he was receiving good physical care and was 'much-loved and wanted by the petitioners.' The bureau stated that the home is suitable and recommended 'with reservations, that the petition * * * be granted.' Attached to the report were the statements of Arthur H. Parmelee, M.D. and Neil N. Litman, M.D. The former set forth, 'I would encourage these people to keep this child.' The latter set forth that the child had made considerable progress in his neurological development and that 'Dr. Parmelee at UCLA agrees with me that the child has now caught up and is performing normally for his age. Both of us feel that his relative retardation noted earlier was related to his premature birth weight, and now feel that the prognosis is excellent. Without qualifications we recommend that this child be adopted by the Christensen family.'

On June 6, 1966, the cause came on for hearing. The record relates as the first words of the judge, 'I am rather concerned about this case. I can't go through with it.' The judge then indicated that he had written a letter in January, 1966, to the Bureau of Adoptions with reference to the cause. The contents of the letter were not disclosed to petitioners or their counsel. The judge stated that from all of the reports he had received, the petitioners were 'wonderful people' but he had to think about the baby and that he had 'talked to five different judges about it and three different social workers' and they all...