Adoption of Baby Boy A. v. Catholic Social Services of the Diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
517 A.2d 1244 (1986)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 1979, the father (defendant) of a baby boy was serving a prison sentence for a rape conviction. The father was informed by the director of professional services for the Catholic Social Services of the Diocese (CSSD) (plaintiff) that a baby boy had been born and that he was the biological father. The CSSD director told the father that the mother had consented to voluntarily terminate her parental rights and requested that the father do the same so that the baby could be formally adopted. The father refused to consent, and the child was placed in foster care. The father took no further action to exercise his parental rights while he was incarcerated. Fifteen months after the CSSD director had visited, the father was released on parole and continued to prevent the child’s adoption on the ground that his parental rights should not be terminated. The trial court found for the father on the grounds that the father attempted to exercise his parental rights after his release and that there were obstacles preventing the father from forming a meaningful relationship with the child because he was illiterate. The superior court vacated the trial court’s decision with directions to terminate the father’s rights. The matter was appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hutchinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.