State v. SHARON H.
429 A.2d 1321 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An adoption severs the legal rights and obligations between an adopted child and their natural parents, but it does not sever the underlying biological relationship for the purposes of consanguinity statutes prohibiting marriage between close blood relatives.
Facts:
- Sharon and Dennis H. are biological half-siblings, sharing the same mother but having different fathers.
- When she was approximately ten days old, Sharon was legally adopted by the W. family and was raised by them.
- Dennis became a ward of the State and was raised in various State programs.
- After reaching adulthood, Sharon discovered she had a half-brother, located Dennis, and assisted him in obtaining parole from a correctional institution.
- On July 11, 1979, Sharon and Dennis H. were married.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Delaware charged Sharon and Dennis H. in the Municipal Court with engaging in a prohibited marriage and with perjury.
- The defendants (appellees) filed a motion to dismiss the information, arguing that the adoption legally severed their sibling relationship.
- The Municipal Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed all charges.
- The State (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of Delaware.
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 state's adoption statute, which severs the legal relationship between a child and their natural parents, also sever the biological relationship for the purpose of a consanguinity statute, thereby permitting a marriage between biological half-siblings?
Opinions:
Majority - Stiftel, President Judge
No, an adoption statute that severs the legal parent-child relationship does not eliminate the biological ties for the purpose of a consanguinity statute prohibiting marriage between blood relatives. The court reasoned that consanguinity statutes, like 13 Del.C. § 101, are based on long-standing public policy and genetic concerns aimed at prohibiting marriage between close blood relatives. The term 'brother and sister' in these statutes is consistently interpreted to include half-blood relatives. The adoption statute, 13 Del.C. § 919, is intended to sever only the legal ties and obligations between the child and natural parents, such as inheritance, custody, and support. To interpret the adoption statute as erasing biological reality would create an unreasonable result and improperly amend the consanguinity statute by implication, a practice disfavored in statutory construction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinct spheres of adoption law and marriage law, establishing that the legal fiction created by adoption does not override the biological realities that underpin consanguinity statutes. The case sets a precedent that public policy against incestuous marriages is paramount and is not defeated by a change in legal status. This ruling guides future courts to interpret statutes harmoniously, preventing one law from implicitly negating another unless there is an irreconcilable conflict. It solidifies the principle that while law can redefine legal relationships, it does not alter biological facts relevant to other areas of public policy.
