Sharon S. v. Superior Court
31 Cal.4th 417, 73 P.3d 554, 2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 699 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California Family Code section 8617, which provides that birth parents are relieved of all parental rights and duties upon an adoption, is a waivable legal consequence of the usual adoption and does not operate as a mandatory prerequisite that bars an independent "second parent" adoption in which the birth parent and adopting parent agree that the birth parent will retain their parental rights.
Facts:
- Sharon S. and Annette F. were in a committed domestic partnership from 1989 to mid-2000.
- In 1996, Sharon gave birth to their first son, Zachary, who was conceived through artificial insemination with an anonymous sperm donor.
- Annette, with Sharon's full consent, successfully adopted Zachary as a "second parent," with both women sharing parental rights.
- In 1999, Sharon gave birth to a second son, Joshua, conceived with sperm from the same anonymous donor.
- On August 30, 1999, Sharon signed an "Independent Adoption Placement Agreement" and an Addendum for Annette to adopt Joshua, which explicitly stated Sharon's intent to retain her parental rights and co-parent with Annette.
- In August 2000, Sharon and Annette's relationship ended, and Sharon asked Annette to move out of the family residence.
- The parties were subsequently unable to reach an agreement regarding permanent custody or visitation for the two children.
Procedural Posture:
- Annette F. filed a petition in the superior court to adopt Joshua as a second parent.
- After the couple's separation, Sharon S. moved to withdraw her consent and dismiss the adoption petition.
- The trial court denied Sharon's motion to dismiss the petition.
- Sharon, joined by Joshua's counsel, filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal to challenge the trial court's denial.
- The Court of Appeal, in a divided opinion, granted the writ, holding that the proposed adoption had no statutory basis outside of a stepparent adoption.
- Annette F. petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, which was granted.
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 California Family Code section 8617, which terminates a birth parent's parental rights and responsibilities upon adoption, prohibit an independent 'second parent' adoption where the birth parent consents to the adoption but intends to retain parental rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
No, section 8617 does not prohibit a 'second parent' adoption where the birth parent intends to retain parental rights. The statute's provision terminating such rights is a waivable benefit, not a mandatory prerequisite for every valid adoption. The court reasoned that adoption statutes must be liberally construed to promote the welfare of the child. Following the precedent of Marshall v. Marshall (1925), which permitted a stepparent adoption before it was statutorily authorized, the court found that section 8617's provisions are intended for the benefit of the parties and can be waived by mutual agreement, especially when the parties' clear intent is to create a two-parent family without severing the birth parent's ties. The Legislature has acquiesced to this interpretation for decades, and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has established procedures supporting such adoptions. Public policy strongly favors this outcome to provide legal security for children, clarify custody and support obligations, and protect the settled expectations of thousands of existing families.
Concurring - Baxter, J.
While agreeing that second parent adoptions are valid, Justice Baxter warned that the majority's reasoning is dangerously broad and creates new law that could have unintended consequences. Section 8617's termination of parental rights should not be classified as a generally waivable, nonmandatory provision. Such a holding could permit a child to have three, four, or more legal parents if a judge finds it to be in the child's best interest, which usurps a fundamental policy decision that belongs to the Legislature. The proper rationale is to permit a waiver of section 8617 only in the limited circumstance of a second parent adoption, as this does not compromise the established public purpose of ensuring a child has no more than two parents. The majority goes too far by rendering the statute's core function optional in all adoptions.
Dissenting - Brown, J.
The Legislature has precluded second parent adoptions except in the limited circumstances of marriage or registered domestic partnership, so section 8617 does prohibit this adoption. The statutory scheme, particularly the explicit exceptions created for stepparents and domestic partners, demonstrates the Legislature's intent that section 8617 is otherwise mandatory. The majority misreads Marshall by applying contemporary norms to a 1925 decision that was limited to a married couple and ignores subsequent legislative enactments. Furthermore, treating parental rights as a waivable contractual benefit trivializes family bonds and ignores the state's interest in the stability that formal legal relationships like marriage and domestic partnership provide. While settled expectations of past adoptions should be respected, the court should not prospectively authorize a practice that contradicts the clear legislative framework.
Analysis:
This landmark California Supreme Court decision legally validated the widespread practice of "second parent adoptions" by unmarried couples, including same-sex partners. By interpreting the statutory termination of parental rights as a waivable benefit rather than a mandatory rule, the court adapted traditional adoption law to modern family structures. The decision provided crucial legal security to thousands of existing families and established a clear legal pathway for future adoptions, emphasizing that the primary purpose of adoption law is to promote the child's best interests. However, the powerful dissents underscore a significant judicial debate over the role of courts versus legislatures in defining family and whether family rights should derive from function and intent or from formal legal statuses like marriage.
