High Court Sides With Adoptive Parents

In a sharp rebuff to a state appeal panel, the California Supreme Court on Thursday refused to allow a Romanian refugee to withdraw her consent to the adoption of a child she bore after fleeing her native land and winning asylum in America.

The justices unanimously overturned an unusual legal action taken by the state Court of Appeal here that would have enabled the woman to belatedly block the adoption on grounds she had been improperly advised of her rights and alternatives to adoption.

The high court upheld a trial court finding that the woman had been adequately counseled and could not regain custody of the child--a boy who will be 4 next month--she had given up knowingly and voluntarily.

The justices criticized the appeal panel for several procedural errors in its “creative use” of the law--and stressed the importance of finality in child custody and adoption cases.

Justice Edward A. Panelli, writing for the court, pointed out that ruling for the natural mother would open the way for another round of trial and appeals in a case that was already three years old.

“Protracted litigation over the custody of a child may harm the child,” Panelli said. “. . . The facts of this case provide a perfect example of the kind of delay that should be avoided.”

Jerome B. Falk Jr. of San Francisco, an attorney for the adoptive parents, said the couple were “greatly relieved and very, very happy” with the decision. The boy has lived with his adoptive father and mother since two days after birth.

Falk said the appeal court’s unusual action, overturning what seemed to be a final judgment by the trial judge, could have threatened the stability of custody and adoption law had it been allowed to stand.

An attorney for Nicoleta Simionescu, the natural mother, was not available for comment.

The case arose after Simionescu immigrated to the United States from Romania in December, 1983, and discovered she had become pregnant. The father, who remained in Romania, and the mother were not married.

Feeling she would be unable to support the child, Simionescu consulted charity workers and was referred to a local attorney, who in turn introduced her to the prospective adoptive parents.

Simionescu later agreed to the adoption in exchange for payment of her medical and living expenses. After giving birth to a son and further consultations with welfare workers, Simionescu signed an agreement consenting to adoption.

A month later, however, the woman said she had found a permanent job, had spoken to the natural father who opposed adoption and she now wanted to withdraw consent to the adoption. Her lawyer then declined to represent her, citing a conflict of interest, and she went to court with a new attorney.

After a five-day trial, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Stuart R. Pollak found Simionescu’s consent was knowing and voluntary and refused to allow her to rescind her agreement, saying it would not be in the child’s “best interests.” The judge also ruled that the natural father lacked custody rights and need not consent to the adoption.

On appeal, Simionescu challenged the ruling on the father’s rights but missed the legal deadline for contesting the judge’s decision on withdrawal of consent.

Nonetheless, the three-member appeal panel took the unorthodox step of treating the case as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, an ancient legal device ordinarily used for obtaining release from an unlawful imprisonment.

Appellate Justice Zerne Haning, joined by Justices Harry W. Low and Allison M. Rouse, held that the case should be retried because of its “profoundly disturbing aspects.”

The appeal court, in its own review of the facts of the case, concluded that the original attorney did not fully inform Simionescu of her options and that she had given her consent “only after much urging from her attorney who at that time was acting primarily in the interests” of the adoptive parents.

The state Supreme Court, however, held that the appeal court lacked jurisdiction to overturn what had become a final judgment by the trial court and that habeas corpus may not be belatedly employed to make up for a litigant’s failure to file a timely appeal.