Supreme Court Rejects Natural Father’s Bid in Adoption Case

An Irvine couple do not have to give up their 2 1/2-year-old adopted son to the boy’s biological, teen-age father, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in reversing two lower courts that had granted custody to the young father.

In doing so, the court, by a 5-2 vote, took the unusual step of weakening a ruling it issued less than a year ago, when it held that men who father children in casual affairs have the right to block their partners’ decision to put a child up for adoption.

Three of the seven justices--one shy of a majority --even went so far as to call for an outright reversal of the 1984 action.

Born of Casual Affair

The baby, named Eric, was born April 27, 1983, of a casual affair between a couple identified by the court as Michael U., then 16, and Jamie B., then 12. When the baby was 3 months old, Jamie agreed to allow him to be adopted by Glenn and Gayle White, who have one other adopted child.

But Michael, who has never met the child, protested the adoption, requiring Orange County Superior Court Judge Philip E. Schwab Jr. to determine whether it would be detrimental to Eric to be placed with his biological father. Schwab ordered Eric turned over to Michael pending the outcome of a later investigation into that question.

By that time, Eric was 7 months old and had been with the Whites for four months. They renamed him Christopher.

A state Court of Appeal agreed that Michael should have temporary custody, and at one point law enforcement officials went to the Whites’ home to take the baby, but the Whites were not there.

But in reversing the lower courts, the Supreme Court pointed out that at the time of Schwab’s order, Michael was unemployed, was doing poorly in high school and had liaisons with other young girls, all of which demonstrated a “lack of maturity and judgment.”

Broussard’s Majority Opinion

“If this case could be decided solely on the basis of the best interest of Eric, it would not be a close case,” the court said in a majority opinion by Justice Allen E. Broussard.

Broussard noted, however, that under state law, once Jamie agreed to give up the child, Michael won the right to the court hearing on whether the father’s custody would be detrimental. Overruling the lower courts, Broussard pointed to testimony of doctors that, by the time of the original hearing by Schwab, the baby had bonds with his adoptive parents and so it would be traumatic for the child to be moved.

“Justice finally has been done for Christopher,” Gayle White said Thursday. “We are beyond happiness. This is something we’ve dreamed about. We’ve agonized about this case day in and day out.”

White said she had gotten so used to getting bad news about the case that she began crying when her mother answered the telephone at 12:07 p.m. Thursday and said the Whites’ attorney, Christian Van Deusen, was on the line.

“I’ve come to live in fear of Christian’s phone calls,” White said. “We’ve been disappointed and unjustly dealt with by the courts for so long. We prepared ourselves for the worst, rather than the best. But the first thing he said was, ‘Congratulations.’ ”

White said she was dressing her 4 1/2-year-old adopted daughter when she got the telephone call. She first telephoned her husband, Glenn, 33, a firefighter with the Colton Fire Department in San Bernardino County, and then peeked into Christopher’s room.

“He was sleeping,” White said. “I wanted to pick him up and hug him so bad, but I didn’t want to disturb him.”

White said she bears no animosity toward the biological father, against whom the Whites have waged a 2 1/2-year court fight. “All I can say is that he should go on with his life and do good things in the future,” she said. “But Christopher is our son.”

‘84 Ruling Not Overturned

Although Thursday’s decision does not overturn the 1984 ruling, it presumes that the baby would suffer if placed with the biological father, unlike the previous ruling, where the court assumed that a biological father had a right to custody and that the baby would benefit.

And although the latest ruling allows Michael to press a custody fight in a new hearing, the justices cited several reasons why it would be detrimental to place the child with the young man--ranging from his youth to his poor school performance.

Finally, in a move at variance with its previous decision, the court denied the father temporary custody while the lower court decides on a permanent placement for the child.

Justice Cruz Reynoso, in a dissent in which Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird joined, said that by citing the “emotional bonds” gained over time between the child and the Whites, the majority, “in effect, penalizes Michael for a lengthy judicial process over which he has had no control.”

‘Bringing Uncertainty to Law’

The dissenting justices also accused the majority of “bringing uncertainty to the law” by weakening the October, 1984, ruling.

Some lawyers involved in adoptions disagreed with that assessment, however, saying that removing from the natural mother the sole right to decide the fate of a child born of casual affairs greatly confused adoption law.

Van Deusen argued that often such fathers cannot be found. In other instances, the mothers refuse to identify the fathers.

In San Diego, judges began refusing to grant adoptions unless biological fathers could be found and would sign consents allowing adoptions. They feared that the fathers would reappear after an adoption was final and assert their parental rights, and under the 1984 decision could win custody.

Justice Otto M. Kaus, who voted with the majority, referred to the 1984 case in a separate opinion Thursday, saying, “The sooner we rectify that mistake, the better.”

Mosk’s Comment

Also criticizing the earlier decision was Justice Stanley Mosk, who said that Michael “was legally a rapist” for having sex with a 12-year-old, and argued that he should have no say in the adoption.

“Apparently it now takes something more in a biological father than his attributes as an irresponsible and immature juvenile, a delinquent with no visible means of support . . . to constitute circumstances detrimental to the well-being of an infant,” wrote Mosk, joined by Justice Malcolm M. Lucas.

Winfield Payne, the lawyer for Michael, said the youth is now married and working, adding, “He is certainly more capable now of caring for the child. If we decide to contest it on retrial, there is nothing to suggest he cannot prevail.”

Michael could not be reached for comment. James Banks, an attorney who is acting as an agent for a planned CBS movie and book about the young man’s case, said Michael is a construction worker and lives with friends in San Bernardino because it is close to his job. The friends do not have a telephone, he said.

Wife With Her Parents

Michael’s wife lives with her parents, Banks said, but the couple plan to rent a home in the Fontana area.

“He was devastated by the ruling,” Banks said. “Most, most definitely. He might have lost a small battle, but he’ll win the war.”

Gayle White believes, however, that she and her husband have won the most important fight.

She said that when she told her husband that the state Supreme Court had reversed the lower court rulings, he replied, “What’s a reversal?”

“I think that means we’ve won,” she replied, reassuring her husband that the opinion came not only from her, but Van Deusen as well.

“I said, ‘It looks like it’s finally almost over,’ ” Gayle White said, “and my sweet husband cried.”