Adoption of Robinson, A--390

• Decision Date: 01 July 1953
• Docket Number: No. A--390,A--390
• Citation: 26 N.J.Super. 440,98 A.2d 111
• Parties: Adoption of ROBINSON et al. MINER et al. v. ROBINSON.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 440

26 N.J.Super. 440

98 A.2d 111

Adoption of ROBINSON et al. MINER et al. v. ROBINSON.

No. A--390.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued June 15, 1953.

Decided July 1, 1953.

Oliver T. Somerville, Rutherford, for appellants (Kipp, Ashen & Somerville, Rutherford, attorneys).

George F. Losche, Hackensack, for respondent (Mr. Harry L. Towe, Rutherford, attorney).

Before Judges STEIN, PROCTOR and CONLON.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CONLON, J.C.C. (temporarily assigned).

The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Bergen County Court seeking the adoption of two minor children, Patricia Spottswood Robinson, aged ten years, and Richard Bland Robinson, aged seven years. The complaint alleged that the infant children were residing with the plaintiffs and that the defendant, Russell M. Robinson, the father of the children, had wilfully and continuously forsaken his parental obligations to them. Upon the filing of the complaint the court set the matter down for hearing and ordered that notice thereof be served upon the defendant. The court also appointed the Department of Institutions and Agencies as next friend of the minors and referred the matter to it for investigation. A hearing was thereupon had at which the defendant opposed the adoption, and the court dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appeal.

The defendant Russell M. Robinson, the father of the children, lives in Wyoming. Mary Miner, one of the plaintiffs, is his sister and lives with her husband, Dr. William W. Miner, in Rutherford, Bergen County, New Jersey. Dr. Miner is a practicing osteopathic physician. The mother of the children died on March 18, 1949 and in September of that year the younger child, Richard, was sent to the home of Dr. and Mrs. Miner with the consent of all the parties. The older child, Patricia, spent the winter of 1949--1950 with friends of the family in Seattle, Washington, and was then sent to live with the Miners, also with the consent of all the parties. No discussion was had with respect to the support of the children. Dr. and Mrs. Miner admit that they never sought support from the defendant and he offered none. On one occasion he sent his sister $75 at Christmas time. The defendant paid relatively little attention to his children until he came east to visit them on Christmas 1951, when he stayed two days with his sister and her husband. They admit that at that time he evinced concern and affection for the children. The defendant gives no explicit explanation for his lack of attention to his children except to say that he was financially embarrassed when his wife died; that he owed some $9,000, and that he concerned himself primarily with restoring his financial status. He also stated that since he could not himself provide a home for the children, he thought that it 'might be better for me to keep my hands off.' He has reduced his indebtedness to about $1,500 and now was a position in Wyoming where he is earning $400 per month plus complete maintenance for himself and his family, including food, a car and a furnished house. Thus, he now claims to be in a position to maintain a home and properly care for the children.

By Christmas 1951, as frequently happens under such circumstances, Dr. Miner and his wife had become extremely fond of the children, and when the defendant visited them the subject was broached of his signing a consent to the adoption of the children by the Miners. He tentatively agreed, but when a formal consent was sent to him in Wyoming he declined to sign it. Thereupon the instant proceedings were instituted.

In the trial before the County Court the plaintiffs contended that the court should approve the adoption because to do so would be in the best interest of the welfare of the children. They also contended that ...