Court Rejects Father’s Bid to Block Adoption

An Irvine couple do not have to give up their 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 partner’s 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.

In Thursday’s case, the baby, 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 a 12-year-old girl. Jamie agreed to allow the baby, then 3 months old, 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 Schwab to determine whether it would be detrimental to Eric to be placed with his natural 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.

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.”

“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 Broussard.

Fitness of Father

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.

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

And while 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 Eric with the young man--ranging from his youth to his poor school performance.

Temporary Custody Denied

Finally, unlike the previous case, the court denied the father temporary custody while the lower court decides permanent placement for the child.

“Justice finally has been done . . . ,” Gayle White said. “We are beyond happiness.”

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

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

But at the time of that ruling, lawyers involved in adoptions said that removing from the natural mother the sole right to decide the fate of a child born of casual affairs greatly confused adoption law.

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

Adoption Refusals

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 to assert their parental rights, and under the 1984 decision could win custody.

“The sooner we rectify that mistake the better,” Justice Otto Kaus wrote in a separate opinion, referring to the 1984 case.

Also criticizing the earlier case, Justice Stanley Mosk said 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, 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 U. vs. Jamie B., L.A. 32014.)