Hale v. Cramer

• Decision Date: 08 July 1969
• Docket Number: No. 363,363
• Citation: 254 Md. 592,255 A.2d 37
• Parties: Madonna Agatha HALE et vir v. Howard Harry CRAMER et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 592

254 Md. 592

255 A.2d 37

Madonna Agatha HALE et vir v. Howard Harry CRAMER et al.

No. 363.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 8, 1969.

Douglas N. Sharretts and Louis Peregoff, Baltimore (Edward J. Birrane, Jr., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

L. Robert Evans, Towson (Samuel A. Green, Jr., Towson, and Robert H. Archer, Jr., and Henry C. Engel, Jr., Bel Air, on the brief), for appellees.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and MARBURY, McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ.

SMITH, Judge.

This case is an extension of Palmisano v. Baltimore County, 249 Md. 94, 238 A.2d 251 (1968), cert. den. 393 U.S. 853, 89 S.Ct. 93, 21 L.Ed.2d 123 (1968), in which case Judge Finan for this Court in the opening paragraph of the opinion said:

'When an adoption proceeding lengthens into prolonged litigation, when such litigation finds its way to the appellate level, one may be sure that behind every legal move and counter move lies an abundance of bitterness and, perhaps, heartbreak. If, to this unfortunate circumstance, one adds a child born out of wedlock to teenage parents who successfully conceal the birth from their own families, who in desperation surrender the child for adoptions to a public agency, only to subsequently have a change of heart after the adoptive parents have taken the infant into their home and formed a tender affection for it, the tragedy of the case becomes all too apparent. It is no wonder that, under these conditions, the child may properly be characterized as a 'physical football' of the welfare board. It must follow that the primary concern of this Court is the welfare of the child, rather than the feelings of the adults or near adults who are the dramatis personae.' Id. at 95-96, 238 A.2d at 252.

The infant child was born May 28, 1964. With the exception of the period between January 15 and May 8, 1965, the child appears to have been in the home of the appellees, Howard Harry Cramer and wife, for most of the period following her birth. She has been there continuously since May 8, 1965.

The Circuit Court for Harford County on the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Cramer passed a decree on November 15, 1965, declaring the child to be their legally adopted child. On October 20, 1964, the Baltimore County Welfare Board was appointed guardian with the right to consent to adoption pursuant to the provisions of Code (1957) Art. 16, § 72 and Maryland Rules D 71 and D 78. As such guardian it consented to the adoption by Mr. and Mrs. Cramer.

In Palmisano v. Baltimore County, supra, the natural parents and the maternal grandparents sought to set aside the decree appointing the Baltimore County Welfare Board as guardian with the right to consent to adoption. This Court said:

'After a most thorough review of the record, we are of the opinion that the court below did not err in refusing to reopen the October 20, 1964 guardianship decree.' Id. at 98, 238 A.2d at 254.

The natural mother and her parents filed a motion on January 3, 1966 (more than 30 days after the entry of the adoption decree), seeking leave to intervene in the adoption proceeding. Leave was granted with the comment made by the chancellor:

'Although this Court has some reservations as to the propriety of receiving a Petition to Intervene in a case such as this one, where nothing is pending and where a final Decree has been entered and enrolled, the Court has, nevertheless, decided to allow the Petitioners to intervene in this case in furtherance of its broad discretion to see that equity and justice are done.'

Ultimately, a motion to dismiss was granted against the maternal grandparents 'on the basis of their insufficient standing to strike the decree of adoption'. Subsequent to their intervention a motion to strike the decree of adoption was filed by the natural parents of the infant child, the appellants here. Leave was granted the Harford County Welfare Board to intervene in the proceeding and it here appears as an appellee. From an order of the Circuit Court for Harford County denying the motion to strike the adoption decree and natural parents here appeal. We shall affirm the action of the chancellor.

Under Maryland Rule 625 a an enrolled judgment or decree may not be set aside except 'in case of fraud, mistake or irregularity'. See Household Finance Corporation v. Taylor, Md. 254 A.2d 687 (1969) (decided June 27, 1969); Himes v. Day, Md., 254 A.2d 181 (1969) (decided June 11, 1969); Grantham v. Board of County Com'rs for Prince George's County, 251 Md. 28, 246 A.2d 548 (1968); Berwyn Fuel and Feed Co. v. Kolb, 249 Md. 475, 240 A.2d 239 (1968). The natural parents urge a number of reasons why the chancellor erred in failing to grant their motion to strike the adoption decree. They are bound, however, by our prior holding in Palmisano v. Baltimore County, supra, in which they were parties, that the decree appointing the Baltimore County Welfare Board guardian with the right to consent to an adoption was valid and binding. Code (1957) Art. 16, § 72 as amended by Chapter 36 of the Acts of 1962 provides in pertinent part:

'A petition for adoption * * * may be preceded by a petition for...