Beltran v. Heim

• Decision Date: 05 January 1968
• Docket Number: No. 32,32
• Citation: 236 A.2d 723,248 Md. 397
• Parties: Claudio F. BELTRAN v. William Peter HEIM.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 397

248 Md. 397

236 A.2d 723

Claudio F. BELTRAN v. William Peter HEIM.

No. 32.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 5, 1968.

As Modified Feb. 7, 1968.

Harvey B. Steinberg, Bethesda, for appellant.

Nicholas J. Fotos, Annapolis, for appellee.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, McWILLIAMS and SINGLEY, JJ.

HORNEY, Judge.

The question presented by this appeal is whether the natural father unlawfully withheld his consent to the adoption of his daughter by the present husband of his former wife. The chancellor decreed adoption.

The natural father, Claudio F. Beltran, was born in Costa Rica and is a naturalized citizen of Venezuela. He married the mother of the child, Catherine E. Beltran, nee Anderson (whose present married surname is Heim), on March 14, 1960, while he was a student at the American University. The child, Marie-Claudette Odilie Beltran, was born in Washington, D. C., on October 24, 1963. The parents separated in February of 1964. The mother met her present husband later in the same year.

The adoptive father, William Peter Heim, a graduate of the Naval Academy and a veteran of the Korean War, is a major in the Marine Corps presently serving as a commanding officer of the Marine Barracks at Annapolis. Ever since his marriage to the mother and custodian of the child, the three of them have lived together as a family.

When the mother filed suit for a divorce against the natural father alleging adultery, the District of Columbia court granted a partial divorce on the graound of cruelty, awarded custody of the child to the mother and ordered the father to contribute to her support. Thereafter the mother went to the Virgin Islands and obtained an absolute divorce from the natural father and married the adoptive father on August 1, 1965.

After the separation, but prior to the divorce, the natural father had extramarital relations with the woman who is now his wife and as a result a son was born to them out of wedlock in December of 1964. For a while, pursuant to the court order, the natural father made regular support payments but they gradually diminished. At the time of the adoption hearing he had made no payments for more than a year. The excuse offered was that since he had to discharge past indebtedness and support his illegitimate son he did not have the money. In addition to what it cost to take his present wife to soccer games and thereafter to restaurants in company 'with a whole bunch of fellows and girls' and to repay the bank loans he had made to pay for automobile parts and other merchandise, a part of the indebtedness was incurred to make a trip without his first wife to visit his parents in South America.

The petition for adoption was filed in October of 1965 and the case was referred to the county welfare board. On the completion of its preliminary investigation, the board, because the parties were newlyweds, recommended that the adoption be delayed for at least a year. The final report, however, stating that the Heims had firmly established their marriage and that there was 'a strong bond of mutual affection between the child and her stepfather,' recommended approval of the adoption.

At the hearing, the adoptive father testified that having known the child for two years, he considered her to be his daughter, that he 'loved her very much' and wanted to adopt her so as to make her 'legally my daughter.' He stated as another reason that he desired to establish his 'rights toward Marie' in case 'anything happened' to his wife. There was no contention that the home he provided was not adequate or that he was an unfit father. Indeed, the record clearly indicates the contrary. His wife testified that she wanted the adoption primarily because she knew that her present husband would adequately care for the child if anything happened to her, but also because her former husband had demonstrated his irresponsibility as a parent and husband.

While there was evidence to the effect that although the natural father resided within an hour's drive from his former wife, he had visited the child on only five occasions during the fifteen month period prior to the hearing and had never requested to be alone with the child on such visits, the record also shows that the mother and stepfather always stayed with the child during each of the visitation periods; that the natural father telephoned 'two or three times' to ask about the child; that he gave the child Christmas presents, a birthday present on her second birthday and sent her a card on her third birthday; that he took his father (during a visit from South America) to see the child; that the named his daughter as a cobeneficiary with his son in his life insurance policy and retirement plans; and that he continued to maintain the benefits of Blue Cross and Blue Shield for the child. When the natural father was asked why he refused to agree to the adoption he said that he would not give the child up because she had 'his name and his blood.'

The chancellor, in weighing the infidelities of the natural father before separation and his adulterous conduct prior to divorce, the inclination of the father to spend money on himself and others rather than his family and the sporadic support of the child even under compulsion as against the assured benefits of a stable home, an abundance of parental care and affection and the assurance of future security which would accrue to the child should the petition be granted, found that...