Acedo v. State, Department of Public Welfare
20 Ariz. App. 467, 1973 Ariz. App. LEXIS 762, 513 P.2d 1350 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's voluntary consent to adoption, given without fraud or duress, may not be revoked after the child has been placed in an adoptive home solely on the grounds of the parent's unexpressed, unilateral misconception of the consent's legal finality.
Facts:
- Petitioner, an 18-year-old unmarried woman, gave birth to a child on February 3, 1972.
- After initially deciding to keep the child, petitioner found herself unemployed and with limited funds, and on August 14, 1972, she revisited the County Department of Public Welfare (the adoption agency) to discuss adoption.
- On August 15, 1972, petitioner read and signed a 'Consent to Place Child for Adoption' form, affirming that she understood it.
- The form explicitly stated that she voluntarily and unconditionally consented to the placement, surrendered custody, and relinquished all rights to the child.
- On the same day, petitioner voluntarily gave her baby to the adoption agency.
- The adoption agency placed the child in an adoptive home on September 1, 1972.
- On September 4, 1972, petitioner contacted the agency seeking to have her child returned, claiming she believed she had six months to revoke her consent.
- On September 8, 1972, petitioner, through an attorney, sent a formal document purporting to revoke her consent.
Procedural Posture:
- The natural mother (petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the superior court (trial court) to regain custody of her child.
- The trial court found that while the petitioner may have been confused about a six-month revocation period, her consent was not obtained through threats, coercion, or fraud by the adoption agency.
- The trial court denied the petition.
- The petitioner (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial to the Court of Appeals of Arizona (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a natural mother's unexpressed misconception about the finality of a voluntarily signed adoption consent form constitute sufficient legal cause to revoke that consent after the child has been placed in an adoptive home, absent any fraud, duress, or coercion by the adoption agency?
Opinions:
Majority - Haire, J.
No. A parent's unexpressed misconception about the finality of a voluntarily executed adoption consent form is not sufficient legal cause to permit its revocation after the child has been placed with adoptive parents. The court affirmed the precedent set in In re Holman's Adoption, which holds that consent becomes irrevocable once the child is placed in the adoptive home, except for legal cause such as fraud, undue influence, or coercion. Here, the consent form was unambiguous, and the petitioner, a high school graduate, affirmed she understood it. Allowing a consent to be invalidated by a secret, subjective misunderstanding would undermine the stability of the adoption process and create uncertainty for adoptive families. Public policy demands that individuals be held to the consequences of their voluntary acts and that the integrity of the adoption system be protected from the 'unstable whims' of a consenting parent after placement has occurred.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the act of placing a child in an adoptive home is the critical point at which a biological parent's consent to adoption becomes irrevocable. It clarifies that 'legal cause' for revocation requires objective proof of wrongful conduct by the agency or others, such as fraud or duress, rather than the parent's subjective misunderstanding. The ruling prioritizes the need for finality and stability in the adoption process to protect adoptive parents and the child, effectively aligning the consequences of signing an adoption consent with general principles of contract law where a party cannot typically avoid a contract based on a unilateral mistake.
