Jason C., In re, 86-301

• Decision Date: 09 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-301,86-301
• Citation: 129 N.H. 762,533 A.2d 32
• Parties: In re JASON C.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 32

533 A.2d 32

129 N.H. 762

In re JASON C.

No. 86-301.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Oct. 9, 1987.

Law Offices of James J. Bianco, Jr., Concord (James J. Bianco, Jr. (orally), and Eric G. Falkenham on brief), for plaintiff, Daniel C.

Stephen E. Merrill, Atty. Gen. (Charles T. Putnam, on brief and orally), for State Div. for Children and Youth Services.

SOUTER, Justice.

This appeal from a decree of the Probate Court for Hillsborough County (Cloutier, J.) challenges a ruling of law that two unmarried adults may not jointly petition to adopt a child under RSA chapter 170-B. We affirm.

Daniel and Mary Lou C. were husband and wife in May, 1983, when they became foster parents of Jason C. They were divorced in July 1985, under a decree which recognized that Jason would remain with Mary Lou, but that Daniel would contribute toward the child's support and would have rights of visitation.

The following October, Mary Lou petitioned the probate court to adopt the child, see RSA 170:B-12, and soon thereafter Daniel requested the court to treat him as a co-petitioner. Although Mary Lou did not oppose the request, the investigatory report of the division for children and youth services, see RSA 170-B:14, indicates that Mary Lou would not agree to Daniel's joinder with her in adopting Jason if Daniel would thereby obtain standing to request physical custody of the child at some time in the future. The division opposed Daniel's request.

In May, 1986, the probate court denied Daniel's request to be treated as a co-petitioner and granted Mary Lou's petition. Daniel moved for reconsideration of each order and requested findings of fact and rulings of law, to which the court responded by deciding, in effect, that RSA chapter 170-B does not authorize a decree that two unmarried adults may jointly adopt another person. Daniel appeals that ruling.

He directs our attention to the statutory categories of adults who may be eligible petitioners for authority to adopt another, one of which is described as "[a]n unmarried adult." RSA 170-B:4, II. Although "adult" is in the singular, Daniel submits that it may be construed to include two unmarried adults, under the provision of RSA 170-B:2, XII that, as terms are used in the adoption statute, the "singular includes the plural ... when consistent with the intent of the chapter." In attempting to divine that intent, he urges us to remember that the statute was enacted "to facilitate the adoption of children by removing 'arbitrary and broad restrictions' on who could adopt and to enable the courts to respond to the varied circumstances of individual cases." In re Diana P., 120 N.H. 791, 796, 424 A.2d 178, 181 (1980) (citing Bianco, Chamberlain and DeGrandpre, The New Hampshire Adoption Statute: An Overview, 18 N.H.B.J. 199, 206 (1977)). Daniel argues that these objectives call for us to hold him eligible to adopt jointly with his former wife, in order to recognize the importance of each of them as a psychological parent to the child.

Despite the statute's admitted objective of removing broad and arbitrary restrictions we nevertheless conclude that it would not be consistent with legislative intent to construe RSA 170-B:4, II to provide that the probate court may entertain a petition from two unmarried individuals and, in its discretion, approve their joint adoption of another. The reason becomes apparent when we look carefully at the categories of eligible petitioners to adopt. They include two classes of individuals described as unmarried and applying alone: an "unmarried adult," RSA 170-B:4, II; and the "unmarried father or mother of the individual to be adopted." RSA 170-B:4, III. Married applicants must apply jointly with their spouses, however, except under...