Petition of Gonzales

• Decision Date: 01 March 1951
• Docket Number: No. 53,53
• Citation: 330 Mich. 35,46 N.W.2d 453
• Parties: Petition of GONZALES. GONZALES v. TOMA et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 453

46 N.W.2d 453

330 Mich. 35

Petition of GONZALES GONZALES v. TOMA et al.

No. 53.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Mar. 1, 1951.

Max E. Klayman, Detroit (George Stone, Detroit, of counsel), for plaintiff and appellant.

Clyde L. Fulton, Highland Park (T. G. Daines, Highland Park Henry R. Maurer, Detroit, of counsel), for defendants and appellees.

Before the Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Justice.

Plaintiff, a minor, gave birth to a child out of wedlock. She signed a Release of Child, pursuant to C.L.1948, § 710.3, Stat.Ann.1949 Cum.Supp. § 27.3178(543), joined in by her guardian ad litem and acknowledged before a judge of probate, releasing the child to the St. Vincent De Paul Society, a placement agency licensed by the state. The society placed the child with defendants, who petitioned the probate court for its adoption. Plaintiff gave notice in the proceedings of what she termed a revocation of consent and brought habeas corpus in the circuit court. From denial of the writ, plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff contends that the release did not become legally effective because of noncompliance with the statute above cited, which is controlling. Under its provisions the probate judge, before taking the acknowledgment to her release, was required to fully explain to plaintiff her legal rights and the fact that by the release she voluntarily terminated permanently her rights to the child. Plaintiff professes to discern a variance between that statutory requirement and what actually was done in this case as appears from recitals contained in the release signed by plaintiff and the attached certificate of the probate judge, which read, respectively, as follows:

'I hereby certify that the undersigned Probate Judge duly authorized by law to administer oaths did first fully explain to me my legal rights in the premises concerning said child and concerning said adoption and did fully appraise me of the fact that I need not execute this release unless I desire so to do of my free will and accord, but that once having executed this release I hereby lose any and rights in, to and concerning said child forever.'

'On this 11th day of July, A.D., 1949, before me the subscriber, a Probate Judge in and for said County of Wayne in said State, personally came the above named Delores Elaine Sibers, known to me to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the same to be her free act and deed, after the effect of the foregoing surrender and release upon her rights to the custody of said child had first been fully explained to her by me.'

It seems to us that, despite some slight differences between the precise phraseology of the statute and the quoted language of the release and judge's certificate, the latter, nonetheless, discloses full compliance with the statutory requirement in question.

The statute...