In re Petition of S.O.
Colorado Supreme Court
795 P.2d 254 (1990)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
T.O. and her husband, S.O. (plaintiffs), filed a joint petition in juvenile court to permit S.O. to adopt T.O.’s biological son, E.E.F., whom T.O. had when she was unmarried and in a relationship with D.J.T., E.E.F.’s biological father. D.J.T. and T.O. had lived together for nearly three years after E.E.F.’s birth. Subsequently, T.O. ended the relationship with D.J.T. and married S.O. D.J.T. continued to maintain a relationship with E.E.F., visiting E.E.F. periodically. Several months later, T.O. and D.J.T. discussed the possibility of permitting S.O. to adopt E.E.F. Prior to completing the required form to consent to the adoption, D.J.T. and T.O. asked the court clerk whether the document could be altered to specifically provide that D.J.T. would be permitted to continue visitation with E.E.F. The court clerk stated that the form could not be altered. T.O. told D.J.T. that future visitation with E.E.F. would be permitted with her and S.O.’s consent. D.J.T. signed the consent form “as is” and submitted it along with the adoption petition. At a subsequent hearing that was not attended by D.J.T., the juvenile court granted the adoption. Thereafter, D.J.T. continued to visit E.E.F. After T.O. prevented the ongoing visitation, D.J.T. filed a petition to set the adoption aside. After a hearing, the juvenile court denied D.J.T.’s motion. D.J.T. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mullarkey, J.)
Dissent (Quinn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
