Wilson v. Wallace, 81-60
| Decision Date | 12 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-60,81-60 |
| Citation | 622 S.W.2d 164,274 Ark. 48 |
| Parties | Bonnie Wallace WILSON and Clyde Wilson, Appellants, v. D. L. WALLACE and Dorothy Wallace, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Eaton & Benton by Charles S. Embry, Jr., Pine Bluff, for appellants.
Gill & Johnson by Marion S. Gill, Dumas, for appellees.
The question is this: When the widowed mother of an infant child remarries and later joins her second husband in obtaining a probate court decree by which he adopts the child, are the paternal grandparents of the child still entitled to obtain visitation privileges by a chancery court proceeding? The chancellor, recognizing the binding effect of the Court of Appeals decision in Hensley v. Wist, 270 Ark. 1004, 607 S.W.2d 80 (Ark.App. 1980), answered the question in the affirmative and continued in force the existing visitation privileges of the appellees. We cannot agree with the Hensley decision and must therefore deny the grandparents' claim to visitation.
The facts are not in dispute. The child, Dana, was born to Danny and Bonnie Wallace in 1972. Bonnie later sued for divorce, but her husband was killed in a traffic accident in 1974. Danny's parents, the appellees, had a friendly relationship with Bonnie and with their granddaughter until a dispute arose in 1979, apparently after Bonnie had married Clyde Wilson. The Wallaces then brought a suit in chancery court against Bonnie and obtained a consent decree recognizing specified visitation privileges. A 1975 statute permits the maintenance of such a suit by grandparents whose own child is deceased. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 57-135 (Supp. 1981).
In July, 1980, the Bradley Probate Court entered a final decree by which Clyde Wilson adopted Dana, whose name was changed to Dana Lynette Wilson. The Wallaces then brought in Clyde Wilson as a defendant in the chancery court case and had the Wilsons cited for contempt of court for their refusal to recognize the Wallaces' visitation privileges. After a hearing the chancellor denied the Wilsons' motion for summary judgment and reaffirmed the Wallaces' visitation privileges, with clauses in the decree prohibiting the Wallaces from ever referring to their deceased son in the child's presence, from ever saying that Dana had any father except Clyde Wilson, and from ever referring to Dana by any surname except Wilson.
Our disagreement with the Court of Appeals decision in Hensley rests squarely on a 1977 statute which amended the adoption law to provide for the first time that the effect of an adoption decree, except with respect to a spouse of the petitioner and relatives of that spouse (here Bonnie and her relatives), is "to terminate all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hede v. Gilstrap
...separable from the remainder of the decree." Matter of the Adoption of RDS, 787 P.2d at 970. Poe was reaffirmed in Wilson v. Wallace, 274 Ark. 48, 622 S.W.2d 164, 166 (1981), where the Arkansas Supreme Court It was unquestionably within the province of the legislature to decide that the rea......
-
Adoption of Schumacher, In re
...natural parents' relatives in the child. (See People ex rel. Bachleda v. Dean (1971), 48 Ill.2d 16, 268 N.E.2d 11; Wilson v. Wallace (1981), 274 Ark. 48, 622 S.W.2d 164; In re Adoption of Gardiner (Iowa 1980), 287 N.W.2d 555; Lee v. Kepler (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967), 197 So.2d 570.) This is con......
-
Martin v. Martin
...Hensley v. Wist, 270 Ark. 1004, 1006, 607 S.W.2d 80, 82 (1980) (emphasis supplied), overruled on other grounds by Wilson v. Wallace, 274 Ark. 48, 622 S.W.2d 164 (1981). Another part of the Revised Uniform Adoption Act provides that "A consent to adoption cannot be withdrawn after the entry ......
-
Newkirk v. Hankins
...266 Ark. 18, 582 S.W.2d 929 (1979) ).35 Scudder v. Ramsey, 2013 Ark. 115, at 9, 426 S.W.3d 427, 433 (citing Wilson v. Wallace, 274 Ark. 48, 50, 622 S.W.2d 164, 166 (1981) ; Poe v. Case, 263 Ark. 488, 565 S.W.2d 612 (1978) ).36 97 Ark. App. 163, 245 S.W.3d 174 ...