Hill v. Moorman
| Decision Date | 17 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 525 So.2d 681 |
| Parties | Charlotte M. HILL v. James C. MOORMAN, et al. 87 0451. 525 So.2d 681 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
P. David Carollo, Slidell, for plaintiff, appellant.
G. Brice Jones, Slidell, for defendant, appellee.
Before COVINGTON, C.J., and SAVOIE and LeBLANC, JJ.
Charlotte Manz Hill appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing her claim for reasonable visitation with her natural son, who was adopted by James and Martha Moorman. Mrs. Hill (at that time Manz) executed a Voluntary Act of Surrender on July 5, 1984, of her twenty-month old child, fifteen days after the Moormans executed a notarial act granting Hill "reasonable visitation rights." The Moormans also stated in this document signed June 20, 1984, that they were anticipating the Act of Surrender, a copy of which was attached to the executed document.
There was no testimony taken in this matter. However, both parties agree that some time subsequent to the final adoption decree, Mr. and Mrs. Moorman refused to allow Mrs. Hill to visit the child. On April 28, 1986, Mrs. Hill filed a petition to enforce the "reasonable visitation rights" provision in the June 20th document. In dismissing this claim, the trial court found Mrs. Hill to be a legal stranger, who forfeited her parental rights by giving up her child for adoption. The court found that any agreement to the contrary was unenforceable.
Charlotte Manz Hill does not directly attack the act of surrender or seek to annul the decree of final adoption, although it is alleged in her petition that she would not have signed the act of surrender but for the visitation rights. It is well established that:
An authentic act may be set aside where a party thereto has been induced to execute it through fraud, error, duress or threats, and he is permitted to introduce parol testimony in support of allegations to that effect. Ball v. Campbell, 219 La. 1076, 1088, 55 So.2d 250, 254 (1951).
However, Mrs. Hill does not seek to have the act declared invalid. The relief she seeks is to enforce the "visitation rights" agreed to by the Moormans.
La.Civil Code art. 1968 provides, "[t]he cause of an obligation is unlawful when the enforcement of the obligation would produce a result prohibited by law or against public policy." We find that an agreement to visitation by the natural parent in these circumstances is against public policy. In all legal regards, upon the final decree, adoptive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adoption of Francisco A., Matter of
...524 P.2d 1135 (1974). Some courts have not allowed such visitation because they considered it against public policy, see Hill v. Moorman, 525 So.2d 681 (La.Ct.App.1988), or because it would deter adoptions, see People ex rel. Levine v. Rado, 54 Misc.2d 843, 283 N.Y.S.2d 483 However, it appe......
-
Johnson v. Kilpatrick
...Hardin, 10 La.App. 416 , ... (1929); Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., 41 La.Ann. 970, 6 So. 888 (1889); Hill v. Moorman, 525 So.2d 681 (Ct.App. 1st Cir., 1988); Castano v. Bellina, 503 So.2d 195 (Ct.App. 4th Cir., 1987), writ denied, 506 So.2d Louisiana Revised Statutes 38:2212,......
-
The Psychological and Emotional Ties That Bind Biological and Adoptive Families: Whether Court-Ordered Postadoption Contact Is in an Adopted Child's Best Interest
...36 However, current 29 Id . 30 In re Adoption of Francisco A., 866 P.2d 1175, 1179 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993) (citing Hill v. Moorman, 525 So. 2d 681 (La. Ct. App. 1988)). 31 See In re Adoption of Anthony, 448 N.Y.S.2d 377, 379 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1982) (“The high rates of divorce and remarriage have ......