Return to Portfolio – “How Would You Rule?” – Interstate Adoption
How Would You Rule?
You may think of adoption as a happy event in a family’s life-for the adopting parents. But what about the biological parents? The stories are legion of a biological mother regretting her decision, and trying to get her baby back.
There is a biological father in the mix, too. What about his rights?
Adoptions often involve more than one state, or even other countries. An interstate adoption often involves two adoption agencies, and two lawyers. The biological mother typically gets her expenses paid for the pregnancy and birth, and maybe some payment beyond that.
You can see the cost of an adoption mounting up.
Enter the biological father. His rights depend partly on his marital status. Married dads often have an easier time than unwed fathers. This is the story of one Washington State unwed father.
Mother was married, but developed an intimate relationship with father. She became pregnant, informed father he was the dad, and cohabited with father for several months. Father already shared custody of two children from a prior marriage.
Mother left father, stating that she was concerned about his parenting abilities. She moved back to her husband. Father initially favored abortion, and signed a consent to adopt two months before birth.
Father then revoked his consent.
About one month before the baby was due, mother emailed father that she was going to Utah to stay with friends and to have the baby. She took a leave of absence from her job. Father replied that he did not know if he would ever see her and the baby again, but he wished her luck.
Mother and her husband did not deny that Father was the dad. And mother knew father wanted to participate in raising their child.
Mother gave birth to a baby girl in Utah. At the time of this case, Utah was nationally known as a state where pregnant women from out of state who were not married to the father could give their baby up for adoption without notifying the unwed father.
Two days after giving birth, mother filed in Utah District Court to terminate her rights, her husband’s rights, and father’s rights to the infant. She listed herself in papers as a Utah resident. On the same day mother filed papers, the Utah Court ordered all rights ended, even though father had not been notified. The baby was then adopted by a Washington State couple.
To move the child to Washington State from Utah, mother’s Utah lawyer wrote administrators in both Utah and Washington State that mother and father had both consented. Mother claimed that her husband was the father. Mother gave her residential address as that of her Utah lawyer’s office.
Mother then returned to Washington State, and to her job.
One day after the infant was born, father filed in Washington to prove that he was the dad. He did not know of the birth. When he found out about the termination of his parental rights, he filed papers in a Utah court to prove he was the father. Father also filed two motions in the Utah Court’s first case. Eight months later, the Utah Court ruled against him because he had not timely filed a “declaration of paternity” in the Utah Court. Father did not appeal in Utah. Under Utah law, the birth mother must sign such a declaration, but cannot sign after she has consented to termination of her parental rights, and to adoption of her child.
Father also continued legal proceedings in Washington State. He made several arguments, including that his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution had been violated. This set the stage for a clash of federal Constitutional rights.
Father’s Washington State case first went to a Court Commissioner. The Commissioner ruled that Washington State had jurisdiction (Court power over people and property.) Mother and her husband requested a revision by a trial court judge. They argued that Utah had jurisdiction, and invoked the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the United States Constitution.
The Washington Court agreed with mother. The Washington Judge had waited until the Utah Court made a final ruling, and then dismissed father’s case as “moot.” Moot meant that the Trial Court could not provide any relief to father under full faith and credit.
Father then appealed to the Washington State Court of Appeals.
The Fourteenth Amendment protects a parent’s basic liberty interest in raising a child by requiring that that parent be given due process-be treated fairly.
The United States Constitution also requires that “[f]ull faith and credit shall be given in any state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of any other state..” Article IV, Section 1. It does not matter how wrong the court might be in its decision.
So how would you rule? Does this unwed father have any rights to the baby? To see how the Court of Appeals ruled, see page ___.
Return to Portfolio “How Would You Rule?” – Interstate Adoption