Facts

The child was born on February 3, 1972, to the petitioner, an unmarried 18-year-old high school graduate. Prior to the birth, the petitioner had considered adoption through the Coconino County Department of Public Welfare but decided to keep the child after birth. She lived with her parents and the baby until August 13, 1972, when, unemployed and with only $20, she moved out with the child.

On August 14, 1972, the petitioner visited the adoption agency to discuss adoption again. The next day, August 15, a welfare worker met with her, and after discussion, the petitioner signed a 'Consent to Place Child for Adoption' form, stating she understood it, and voluntarily gave the baby to the agency. The agency had explained that adoption becomes final six months after the petition is filed, but there was no discussion of any revocation period.

On September 1, 1972, the agency placed the baby in an adoptive home. Around late August or early September, the petitioner, having spent her money, returned to her parents' home. On September 4, she requested the baby's return but was informed it was placed and nothing could be done. On September 8, she sent a revocation form prepared by her attorney, received by the agency on September 11.

The petitioner then filed a habeas corpus petition in the trial court to regain custody, alleging the consent was procured by threats, coercion, and fraud. At the hearing, she testified she believed she could revoke within six months, though the trial judge found no threats, coercion, or fraud by the agency and denied the petition. The petitioner appealed the denial, arguing her mistaken belief invalidated the consent.

Analysis

Issue #1

Issue

May a natural mother regain her child after it has been placed in an adoptive home solely on the ground that she had an unexpressed misconception about the legal significance of the consent form, which was not the result of any improper actions by the adoption agency?

Legal Rule

Under Arizona law, parental consent to adoption must be in writing and comply with statutory requirements (A.R.S. §§ 8-106, 8-107). Once given and the child is placed with adoptive parents, consent may not be revoked except for legal cause, such as fraud, undue influence, coercion, or other improper methods (In re Holman's Adoption, 80 Ariz. 201, 295 P.2d 372 (1956)).

Rule Analysis

The consent form clearly indicated an unconditional relinquishment of rights, with no language suggesting revocability within six months, and the petitioner affirmed understanding it without expressing reservations. The adoption agency explained the process but did not discuss revocation, and there was no fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation.

The petitioner's unexpressed belief that she could revoke within six months did not constitute legal cause to invalidate the consent, as policy demands stability in adoptions to protect adoptive parents and the process from whims of natural parents. Cases from other jurisdictions supported that voluntary consents, even if misunderstood without inducement by improper means, cannot be revoked after placement.

Assuming the petitioner was confused, public policy favors holding her to the natural consequences of her actions to maintain the integrity of adoption procedures, especially since the child was placed before her attempted revocation.

Conclusion

No, the natural mother may not regain her child on that ground alone. The trial court's denial of the habeas corpus petition was affirmed.