Petition of Alsdurf., In re, s. 39274
| Decision Date | 05 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | 39275,Nos. 39274,s. 39274 |
| Citation | 133 N.W.2d 479,270 Minn. 236 |
| Parties | Petition of Frank D. ALSDURF and Lorraine Mildred Alsdurf for the adoption of Debra Sue Sadler. STATE ex rel. Charlotte L. SADLER, Appellant, v. Frank D. ALSDURF and Lorraine Mildred Alsdurf, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A petition for adoption which includes a consent, signed by the mother of an illegitimate child in the presence of only one witness is ineffective to terminate parental rights under Minn.St. 259.24, subd. 5, notwithstanding she has signed other consents similarly defective, each containing the name of a different witness.
2. Where the natural mother is a fit and proper person to have custody of her illegitimate child, and after learning of the defective execution of a consent to adoption which was induced by undue influence has acted promptly to rescind it, the best interest of the child requires that the mother be granted permission to withdraw her consent pursuant to § 259.24, subd. 6, and that she be awarded the permanent custody.
Walter C. Schweppe, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Bertil O. Nygaard, Minneapolis, for respondents.
These proceedings are brought to secure the adoption of an illegitimate infant by her foster parents and are consolidated with a petition by the natural mother to regain the legal custody of her daughter. The appeal is from a judgment granting the adoption and denying the mother relief.
The natural mother, appellant Charlotte L. Sadler, gave birth to a daughter, Debra Sue Sadler, on February 24, 1962, in a Minneapolis hospital where respondent Lorraine Alsdurf was employed. While still confined, Miss Sadler signed two separate documents purporting to give the Alsdurfs her consent to the adoption. Neither instrument contained the signatures of two subscribing witnesses as required by Minn.St. 259.24, subd. 5, 1 but each was witnessed by a different person.
As she left the hospital on February 28, Miss Sadler physically delivered the child to Mrs. Alsdurf. Because the consent was defectively witnessed, the Alsdurfs' attorney left a number of telephone messages for Miss Sadler, attempting to rectify the omission. On September 17, 1962, he reached Miss Sadler and advised her of the necessity for securing a second witness. She refused to cooperate and immediately consulted an attorney to initiate proceedings to regain custody. On the basis of what the Alsdurfs' attorney deemed to be an adequate attestation, based on a telephone conversation between his wife and Miss Sadler, the former signed the consent as a witness, and the petition for adoption was thereupon filed on October 15, 1962.
Miss Sadler formally petitioned for the withdrawal of her consent on November 16, 1962, pursuant to § 259.24, subd. 6, which provides as follows:
'After a petition has been filed, the consent to the adoption may be withdrawn only upon order of the court after written findings that such withdrawal is for the best interest of the child.'
Hearings were conducted by the juvenile division of the Hennepin County District Court in December 1962 and January 1963, resulting in the court's determination that Miss Sadler's consent was valid, the Alsdurfs were fit parents, Miss Sadler had no prospect of making a complete home, and the best interests of the child required that she remain with the Alsdurfs. 2 This appeal followed.
Resolving the conflicts in evidence in favor of the prevailing parties, it is nevertheless difficult to read this record without concluding that the natural mother has been the victim of misguided meddling and officious pressures on the part of persons who were bent on persuading her to part with the custody of her infant daughter. It is manifest that Miss Sadler is an intelligent, well-bred, self-reliant young woman who in a time of anguish and distress found herself driven to relinquish her child by forces which she was unable to resist.
By the court's own findings, it is clear that the consent was defective; that mother is qualified in every respect to rear and educate her child; and the Alsdurfs are 'neither in their ages nor in their economic status nor in their rigidity consistent with the normal high expectations for adoptive parents.' In reaching its conclusions the court rejected the recommendations of both the county and state welfare departments. 3
1. The statute has wisely provided strict safeguards for preventing children from being wrested from their parents except upon a clear expression of the parents' intent. The consent must be in writing, executed before two competent witnesses, and acknowledged. In the instant case no such document exists. The trial court has treated two separate, ineffective writings as one instrument sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. However, we believe that in a matter which involves the dissolution of a relationship as intimate and enduring as that of a parent and child, there should be strict adherence to the letter of the law. The consent accompanying the formal petition for adoption, which is the basis for these proceedings, contains the signature of only one valid witness and we hold it is therefore ineffective to terminate parental rights.
2. From the moment Charlotte Sadler first consulted her doctor on February 5, 1962, she was subjected to pressures from every source. At the doctor's suggestion, a representative of the Hennepin County Welfare Board called on Miss Sadler at her place of employment the day before the child was born. Miss Sadler's testimony that she told the social worker she did not want to part with her baby is uncontradicted. Nevertheless, she consented to release her to the welfare department on a temporary basis. Shortly after the birth of the child, a hospital employee, characterized by the court as a self-styled unofficial social worker, intruded herself, uninvited, into Miss Sadler's double room for the admitted purpose of assisting Mrs. Alsdurf, a fellow employee at the hospital, to secure the infant for adoption. She joined Mrs. Alsdurf on February 27 in discussing with Miss Sadler the relinquishment of custody at a time when Miss Sadler was weeping and obviously distraught. The same evening the Alsdurfs' attorney presented a consent for Miss Sadler's signature. During all of this period, when the doctor, the welfare department, the hospital official, the adoptive mother, and her lawyer were wittingly or unwittingly bringing pressure to bear on Miss Sadler, she received no disinterested counsel designed to protect her against an ill-advised and impulsive decision at a time of physical and emotional distress. 4
We do not concur in the court's conclusion that Miss Sadler has rejected her child from before its birth until it was 9 months old. Her uncontradicted testimony indicates she expressed her devotion and concern throughout all the difficult period of her confinement and recovery. The day after she discovered that a defect in her consent might prevent her from being divested of all her rights to custody she consulted an attorney. She thereafter vigorously and persistently prosecuted the trial and appeal of her cause through the courts. Had her counsel acted more promptly and withdrawn her purported consent before the petition for adoption was filed, she would have had an absolute right to secure the return of her infant. 5
The record indicates that Miss Sadler was a young woman 37 years of age and, apart from this single dereliction, is of good moral character, holding a responsible position as a legal secretary, well able to care for her child, earning a salary of $400 a month. Her parents were persons of better than average social and economic standing, her father being in business for himself and her brother and sisters being respectable and well placed. It is obvious that Miss Sadler is the product of a stable environment. She is anxious to rear and educate the child, and there is every indication that if she is given the opportunity she will devote herself to that purpose. She testified that she loved the child and wanted to raise her 'as my own the way God intended it.' When Mrs. Alsdurf offered to pay Miss Sadler's confinement expenses, she declined, stating, 'I am not selling the child.' The Alsdurfs, on the other hand, entered into a stipulation with Miss Sadler, executed by all of the parties and their attorneys, under which the Alsdurfs agreed in writing with all due formality to dismiss their petition for adoption and deliver to the welfare department forthwith physical custody of Miss Sadler's baby pending a further investigation of Miss Sadler's plans, upon the payment to them of $2,000 by Miss Sadler. The court has found that these so-called reimbursements were unreasonable and represented expenses unrelated to the welfare of the child and disapproved the agreement. The welfare department has made adverse recommendations, stressing the dangers inherent in a natural mother's knowledge of the adopting parents' identity and nothing that the child had high potential which it was doubtful would be realized because of the inability of the Alsdurfs 'to provide the proper stimulation and educational opportunities.' The Alsdurfs have previously been refused an adoptive child by another agency.
While on the one hand the trial court properly expressed its primary interest in the child's welfare, on the other hand it spoke of the mother's being Estopped from asserting her rights, and noted the harsh effect a change would have on the adoptive parents. Under all of the circumstances, we hold it was error for the court to refuse the mother permission to withdraw consent which was given at a time when she was 'emotionally agitated,' as the court found.
The law in this state is well settled that it is in the best interests of a child to be brought up by the mother unless she is wholly unequal to such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maxfield v. Maxfield
... ... Diane countered with a dissolution petition and requested custody of the children. A year later, in July 1988, the case was called for trial ... See, e.g., Bennett v. Bennett, 277 Minn. 227, 152 N.W.2d 187 (1967); In re Alsdurf, 270 Minn. 236, 133 N.W.2d 479 (1965); Eisel v. Eisel, 261 Minn. 1, 110 N.W.2d 881 (1961). The ... ...
-
Adoption of BGD, Matter of
...after the birth of a child, undue influence (over-persuasion) will result in an insufficient consent. Thus, in In Re Alsdurf's Petition, 270 Minn. 236, 133 N.W.2d 479, 481 (1965) the court "[T]he natural mother has been the victim of misguided meddling and officious pressures on the part of......
- Bloomquist v. William H. Ziegler Co.
-
Welfare of Larson, In re
... ... George Stoner. Appellant Lutheran Social Services filed a petition for termination of parental rights. Appellants separately appealed from an order of the district ... 561, 569, 27 N.W.2d 656, 661 (1947) ... 7 See, In re Petition of Alsdurf ... ...