In Re: Adoption of Sean (2013) & Natural Parent Objections

Published on
March 3, 2024
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq
Category
Custody and Child Support

In Re: Adoption of Sean (2013) & Natural Parent Objections

Adoption is among the most powerful institutions in our society. Adoption shows that, at least in part, family is a voluntary matter, something which we actively choose and willfully embrace. Of course, no one doubts the significance of biological connectedness, but adoption shows that biological connectedness is not the only aspect of family. We all know about situations in which biological parents have failed to play positive roles in the lives of their children; we also know of plenty of cases in which adoptive parents have turned out to play very positive roles in the lives of their adoptive children.

Sometimes, squabbles can develop when a natural biological parent wishes to play a role in the life of his or her child, but there is an attempt to separate that child from the biological parent via adoption. This occurred in the case of In Re: Adoption of Sean (2013).Let’s look at the facts and outcome of this important family law case.

Factual Overview of the Case

The facts of this case are a bit complex. The mother and the father dated for several months, from roughly April of 2008 to November of 2008. The mother gave birth to a son, Sean, in June of 2009. The mother had already established a new relationship with a new man prior to the birth of the child. The mother married this new man (the “husband”) by the fall of 2009. Initially, the mother sought to obtain sole custody of the child via a court motion; the father didn’t object to this motion, and ultimately the case was dismissed by mutual agreement in 2010. Subsequently, however, the new husband sought to obtain formal custody rights via court motion; in the motion, the new husband alleged that the father had never been verified as the true biological father. What’s more, the motion also stated that, even if he were the biological father, he had failed to show evidence of a desire to play an active role in the child’s life.

The father was given notice regarding the motion. The notice indicated that the father had to respond within a certain time to place a viable objection to the motion. The father failed to respond to the motion in a timely manner, filing the response one day late. The court then granted the new husband’s motion, effectively stripping the biological father of his parental rights. The father then filed motions which attempted to overturn this ruling on certain grounds. Those motions were denied, and then the father appealed. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals upheld the denials of the lower court. The father then appealed again, taking the matter to the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Outcome & Discussion

The father's subsequent attempts to appeal also met with failure. In the appellate court’s review, the court focused its discussion on two core issues: (1) whether the father’s failure to file a timely appeal constituted an “irrevocable consent” to adoption, and (2) whether irrevocable consent under such circumstances constituted a violation of the father’s 14thAmendment due process rights. The court analyzed the first issue by referencing the court’s opinions on similar cases which involved failures to object to guardianship rights. In those cases, the failure to object in a timely manner did in fact lead to irrevocable consent. The court then turned to the constitutional issue regarding due process. The court recognized that the father had a clear interest in playing an active role in the life of his son. However, the court also recognized the interest of the state in creating an orderly system in which it could make decisions regarding custody. Ultimately, the court determined that the father had lawfully abdicated his parental rights by failing to file the timely objection, and that this didn’t constitute a due process violation.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Resources

Clearly, this case perhaps more than any other we’ve discussed so far shows the need to obtain competent counsel. The father needed an attorney who was very well-versed in Maryland’s adoption laws, and on the necessity of filing timely responses.

If you want more information on adoption, or another related topic, get in touch with one of the leading attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8543.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Custody, Adoption, Parental, Family Law, Parental Rights, Custody Dispute, Biological Parent, Legal Procedure, Due Process, Maryland Court of Appeals

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.