Petition of Dickholtz

Decision Date19 June 1950
Docket NumberGen. No. 45097
Citation341 Ill.App. 400,94 N.E.2d 89
PartiesPetition of DICKHOLTZ et al. DICKHOLTZ et al. v. LITTFIN et al.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Marvin J. Bas, Chicago, for appellants.

Barry & Crowley, Chicago, Patrick F. Crowley, William G. Webber, Chicago, of counsel, for appellees.

FEINBERG, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the County Court dismissing the petition for adoption and ordering the petitioners to immediately surrender custody of the child to the respondents, the natural parents. The petition was filed September 7, 1949. The baby was born out of wedlock on August 17, 1949. The natural mother and putative father were married October 8, 1949. Simultaneously with the filing of the petition the mother signed a prepared form of appearance and consent to adoption in the office of the clerk of the County Court. A guardian ad litem was appointed by the court to represent the interests of the minor. The order appointing the guardian directed that the statutory requirement for residence of the child with the petitioner for six months prior to the filing of the petition be waived, but 'that the entry of the decree in this cause be deferred until the child has resided with the petitioners for six months.' On September 15, 1949, the mother filed an answer to the petition, denying that she abandoned the child, alleging a desire to have her child returned to her, and praying that the written consent to adoption be revoked.

On September 29, 1949, the mother filed a petition, alleging in detail the circumstances of the birth of the child out of wedlock; that she was without the benefit of advice from family or friends when, at the request of the nurse on the day she left the hospital, she turned the baby over to a woman, selected by the adopting petitioners, who was to care for the child until the adopting parents were given the custody by order of court; that this arrangement was dictated by the physician who delivered the child; that he was the same physician who suggested to her to consent to having the baby adopted by the petitioners, known to said doctor; that the doctor was dictatorial and domineering in his manner and attitude, and that she feared him; that at the time the nurse took the baby from the mother as she was leaving the hospital, the mother cried and declared she was not going to give her baby to any one; that she had only been in the hospital five days after the birth of the baby and had been confined to her bed the entire time and could not walk; that she was taken out of the hospital in a wheel chair; that she was taken directly from the hospital to the County building in Chicago, and at the request of some lawyer, signed a paper purporting to be her appearance and answer, and consent to the adoption; that she was then under the impression she had six months in which to change her mind; that she had inquired of the lawyer if she had that much time in which to change her mind, and he answered she had; that she immediately notified her family in Georgia of the birth of the child; that her brother came from Georgia to consult with her and help her; that she and her brother then visited the doctor to find out where the baby was; that he refused to tell her and advised her that if she was looking for trouble, she would get plenty of it; that thereafter she retained her attorneys to represent her. She prayed for leave to withdraw her consent to adoption that it be declared a nullity, and that the petition for adoption be dismissed and the baby returned to her.

An answer was filed to this petition, denying in substance the facts set up in the petition of the mother. Thereafter, a hearing was had, evidence heard upon the petition and answer, and the order appealed from was entered.

The question presented upon this appeal is whether the natural mother had the right to withdraw her written consent to adoption before the petition for adoption was acted upon, and whether the court abused its discretion in allowing its withdrawal and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • T., In re
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • November 7, 1967
    ...relevance the nature of their relationship may have on the matter, it does not preclude an award of custody. In re Petition of Dickholtz (1950), 341 Ill.App. 400, 94 N.E.2d 89, 91; State ex. rel. Guinn, v. Watson (1946), 210 La. 266, 26 So.2d 740, 743; Ware v. Muench (1935), 232 Mo.App. 41,......
  • Adoption of McKinzie, In re
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 8, 1955
    ...of Harvey, 375 Pa. 1, 99 A.2d 276.2 For cases considering such questions since the annotation in 156 A.L.R., see Petition of Dickholtz, 341 Ill.App. 400, 94 N.E.2d 89; Weisbart v. Berezin, 347 Ill.App. 13, 105 N.E.2d 814; Keheley v. Koonce, 85 Ga.App. 893, 70 S.E.2d 522; In re Adoption of C......
  • Griggs v. Barnes
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1955
    ...63 A.2d 447; Templeton v. Walker, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 811; Henderson v. Henderson, 187 Va. 121, 46 S.E.2d 10; Petition of Dickholtz, 341 Ill.App. 400, 94 N.E.2d 89; 7 Am.Jur., Bastards, §§ 61-66; 10 C.J.S., Bastards, § 17; Pierce v. Jeffries, 103 W.Va. 410, 137 S.E. 651, 51 A.L.R. [150......
  • Lavigne v. Family & Children's Soc. of Elizabeth
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • March 24, 1952
    ...Munro, 323 Mass. 542, 83 N.E.2d 172, 173 (Mass.Sup.Jud.Ct.1948); French v. Catholic Community League, supra; Petition of Dickholtz, 341 Ill.App. 400, 94 N.E.2d 89 (App.Ct.Ill.1950). In Re Schult, 14 N.J.Super. 587, 82 A.2d 491 (Hudson Cty.Ct.1951), which dealt with the withdrawal of parenta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT