Final Hurdle Keeps Mother, Child Apart

Evelina Adeline Ester has fought for two years with Ventura County to regain custody of the daughter she gave up for adoption at birth. During the battle, Ester has seen her child for only one, brief moment.

But now that Ester has won a decision in Ventura County Superior Court that could reunite her with her 3-year-old daughter, neither Ester nor county officials are sure whether reunification would be best for the child.

Ester and the officials agree that the child, Cheryl, may have “bonded” to her adoptive parents and might be harmed if returned to her natural mother. If a Juvenile Court judge decides that separation from adoptive parents could damage the child, Ester’s battle will have been for naught.

A hearing on the case is scheduled in the court today.

“I still want her back,” Ester, 43, said in her Tujunga home. “I’m trying to figure out what’s best for her at this point.”

Had Six Children, Faced Eviction

According to court records, the events under scrutiny go back to April, 1981, when Cheryl’s birth was imminent. Ester was living in Simi Valley then and was raising six children, two boys and four girls. She was separated from her husband and about to be evicted.

Worried that she could not care for another child, Ester contacted Ventura County’s Public Social Services Agency to inquire about giving the child up for adoption. Before she decided what to do, Cheryl was born. The same day, Ester signed a form allowing the county to temporarily care for the child.

Two weeks later, Ester signed a second form formally relinquishing Cheryl to the county for adoption.

Ester said later that the adoption worker told her she would have 12 months to change her mind. That assurance, she said, helped convince her to give up Cheryl.

“That’s why I signed the papers,” she said. “I always had it in the back of my mind that I would want Cheryl back.”

Ester’s lawyer, Maxine R. Benmour, also argued that Ester, who has a ninth-grade education and had been on welfare for 10 years, was at a disadvantage in dealing with a college-trained county adoption worker, Barbara Hutchason.

‘Child Cannot Be Reclaimed’

Benmour said Ester was hurried into signing the adoption form, which states that the parent forfeits all rights and that the “child cannot be reclaimed.”

Lyn Ward, an assistant county counsel, said Ester was never told she had a year to change her mind and have Cheryl returned. Ward described Ester as “an intelligent woman” who should have understood the consequences of her actions.

In early 1982, 11 months after signing Cheryl over to the county, Ester requested that her child be returned. The county denied the request, telling Ester that Cheryl had grown attached to her foster parents, according to court documents.

Ester filed suit in late 1982, charging that the county’s adoption worker misrepresented Ester’s rights.

A Ventura County Superior Court judge agreed that Ester had been wrongly treated. The county appealed, but the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Santa Barbara last November affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court ruled that there should be a hearing in Juvenile Court at which a judge would balance the best interests of the child with the rights of the biological parents.

In its decision, the appeal court chastised the county for primarily using “cultural and socioeconomic factors” in determining the best interests of Cheryl. The court referred to a description of Ester in a September, 1981, background report written by Hutchason.

In it, Hutchason described Ester as fitting the “stereotype of a redneck hillbilly living in the Appalachias or the Ozarks.” Hutchason also wrote that Ester had an “intelligent mind.”

Ester said she “was kind of shocked” when she read the report. The county worker, she said “saw me at a time when I was moving and I was not myself.”

Ward said the report was not used to determine whether Cheryl should be returned to Ester, but was merely a historical report that could be used by Cheryl if, during her adulthood, she wanted to find out why her mother gave her up for adoption. Such information is now kept secret from adopted children, but officials anticipate that state law may be changed some day to open up the records, Ward said.

Ester’s problem is that, although she won her court case, the length of the legal fight has reduced her chances of gaining custody.

“It’s kind of ironic that it may turn out that Cheryl may end up with the adoptive parents instead of Mrs. Ester,” Benmour said. “But at this point, I don’t think anyone can say for sure what the best interests are.”

Cheryl, who turns 4 in April, has lived with her adoptive parents in Ventura for more than three years. The adoptive parents would not comment on the case, their attorney said.

Ward, who represents the Public Social Services Agency, said the county shares the “general position of the psychological community” that children become accustomed to parents, whether natural or adoptive, beginning at 6 months of age.

“The county’s concern at this point is to look after the best interest of the child,” Ward said.

Ester has mixed feelings about caring for Cheryl again. “She can’t possibly remember me; I realize that,” the natural mother said. “I’m going to have to go one day at a time.”

Ester said that even though she has seen Cheryl only once since her birth--she visited the child for five minutes last Easter--she would not be apprehensive about meeting her child. Discussions with Cheryl’s adoptive parents and the director of a preschool she attends have eased the nervousness, she said.

“I’m not scared,” she said. “I know a little bit more about Cheryl than I did before.”

Ester said she can adequately care for Cheryl. She has given birth to another child since giving Cheryl up for adoption, she said.

Both sides have said that, if the judge does not make a decision with the information now before the court, they would agree to have an independent consultant, appointed by the court, determine whether a reunification would harm Cheryl.

The hearing, like most Juvenile Court proceedings, is closed to the public.