Sorentino v. Family and Children’s Society of Elizabeth
New Jersey Supreme Court
72 N.J. 127, 367 A.2d 1168 (1976)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Constance Severini (plaintiff) gave birth to a child on May 5, 1974, when Severini was 16 years old. Severini agreed for Family and Children’s Society of Elizabeth (the agency) (defendant) to have custody for 30 days. At the end of the 30 days, Severini would decide whether to keep or relinquish custody. On June 28, 1974, Severini notified the agency that she wanted to retain custody, but an agency representative threatened and pressured Severini until she agreed to relinquishment. The agency placed the child with a potential adoptive family (defendant). On the advice of counsel, Severini and Philip Sorentino (plaintiff), the child’s father, waited until Severini turned 18 in the summer of 1975 to file a complaint against the agency and the potential adoptive family. At trial in September 1975, the court determined that Severini’s relinquishment was coerced and that Severini and Sorentino were fit to take custody of the child. The court ordered the child’s immediate transfer to Severini and Sorentino. The agency and potential adoptive family appealed. The appellate court issued a stay on the transfer of custody and then affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The New Jersey Supreme Court continued the stay, with the result that the child was still with the potential adoptive family when the supreme court issued its opinion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence/Dissent (Conford, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.
