Supreme Court upholds adoption rules

Monday, Dec. 30, 2002 | 9:35 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has upheld a state law that justices acknowledged may cause many birth mothers to lose contact with their children after the babies are adopted.

Any agreement between the mother and the adoptive parents to allow visits with the child is superseded by the formal adoption documents that are issued by a District Court judge, the state's highest court ruled Friday.

So unless contact rights are written into the court documents, there are no contact rights.

In a 6-1 decision, the justices said that "what many of these natural parents fail to realize is that if the agreement is not incorporated in the adoption decree their rights as to the child are terminated upon adoption and any contact with the child may be had only upon the adoptive parents' permission, regardless of the agreement" between the adoptive parents and biological parents.

Justice Miriam Shearing, who wrote the majority decision, said there is no provision in the law to enforce any prior agreements after the adoption is approved by the District Court.

"Despite this unfortunate result, this court cannot enforce such an agreement until the Legislature mandates otherwise," wrote Shearing. Once the District Court approves the adoption, the natural mother loses all rights to contact her child.

Justice Bob Rose dissented.

"It is patently unfair to have a biological parent agree to the adoption of her or his child on the basis that continued contact will be permitted, but upon the approval of the adoption, refuse to enforce the continued contact agreement," Rose wrote in his opinion.

Rose said, "We should not permit birth parents to be so misled." He said fairness justifies the enforcement of the contact agreement.

Justice Bill Maupin agreed with the majority that a contact-rights agreement between adoptive and biological parents is unenforceable after the adoption is approved. But he disagreed with the majority and said there is no provision for the agreement for child contact to be enforced, even if it is written into the adoption decree.

The appeal came from Reno where a mother agreed to relinquish her child to an adoptive couple. But she had a signed an agreement with them that she would have continued contact.

After six months, the mother became upset when the adoptive parents changed the middle name of the child and put the youngster in daycare. She said the parents broke their promise about daycare.

She notified the adoptive parents she wanted the child back. The adoptive parents then cut off the contact with her child. The adoptive parents then petitioned the district court to approve the adoption decree.

The mother fought the adoption but lost. She then sought enforcement of the agreement allowing continued contact with the child. She lost in district court before the case went before the Nevada's highest court.

The names of the parties were not released.