Rodriguez v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 25 June 1971
• Citation: 95 Cal.Rptr. 923,18 Cal.App.3d 510
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Tony RODRIGUEZ and Sylvia Rodriguez, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent; STANISLAUS COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ADOPTION AGENCY, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 1515.

Page 923

95 Cal.Rptr. 923

18 Cal.App.3d 510

Tony RODRIGUEZ and Sylvia Rodriguez, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF STANISLAUS COUNTY, Respondent STANISLAUS COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ADOPTION AGENCY, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 1515.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

June 25, 1971.

As Modified July 7, 1971.

[18 Cal.App.3d 511] Jensen & Pendergrass and Ralph E. Gaarde, Modesto, for petitioners.

No appearance for respondent.

T. W. Martz, County Counsel, Jonathan H. Rowell, Asst. County Counsel, John F. Christensen and Harry B. Drabkin, Deputy County Counsels, Modesto, for real party in interest.

State of Cal., by Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., N. Eugene Hill and John Fourt, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, as amicus curiae on behalf of real party in interest.

OPINION

STONE, Presiding Justice.

Petitioners seek a writ of mandate to compel respondent court to vacate its order dismissing petition for adoption and that petitioners return the adoptive child to the Stanislaus County Welfare Department, Adoption Agency, and to direct respondent court to assume jurisdiction of the petition for adoption.

On July 31, 1969, the Stanislaus County Welfare Department, Adoption Agency, placed a minor female child born January 31, 1969, with petitioners for adoption. On February 10, 1971, a case worker for the agency informed petitioners that the placement of the child was being terminated and that the child had to be returned to the agency. The following day, February 11, petitioners, without approval of the agency, filed a petition for the adoption of said child, in the Stanislaus County Superior Court.

Real Party in Interest, Stanislaus County Welfare Department, Adoption Agency, filed a motion to dismiss the petition for adoption upon the grounds that the child placement had been terminated the day before the petition for adoption was filed, and that the petition was filed without the approval of the agency. The superior court dismissed the petition upon the ground it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for adoption, relying upon the provisions of Civil Code, section 224n, which reads, in pertinent part:

'The agency to which a child has been relinquished for adoption shall be responsible for the care of the child, and shall be entitled to the custody and control of the child at all times until a petition for adoption has been granted. Any placement for temporary care, or for adoption made by the agency, may be terminated at the discretion of the agency at any time prior to the granting of a petition for adoption. In the event of termination of any placement for temporary care or for adoption, the child shall be returned promptly to the physical custody of the agency.'

No petition for adoption having been filed by petitioners prior to notice of termination of the placement by real party in interest, the trial court properly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to proceed with the petition for adoption.

Petitioners assert that under the trial court's interpretation of section 224n, prospective adoptive parents with whom a child has been placed for adoption, have no protection against the caprice, prejudice or arbitrariness of the adoption agency or its case workers. For example, here the motion for dismissal was supported by the following declaration by the adoption worker assigned to supervise the adoptive child:

'In July, 1970, I began to have doubts as to the suitability of Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez as adoptive parents. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez were unable to relieve the cause of my concern and I became increasingly uneasy about the...