174 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y F AMI L Y L A W

) A DOPT I ON

) A TTORNEYS

) U NAUTHORIZ ED P RA CT I CE OF L A W

) V AL I DI T Y OF C ONS E NT T O A DOPT I ON W HE N S OCIAL W ORKE R I NFOR MS B I RT H P AR E NT OF R I GH TS

M ar ch 7, 1994

T he Hon orab l e Kenn eth C

. Mon t ag ue, Jr. H ous e of D el egat es Y o u h av e r eques t ed ouropi ni on on t w o i s s ues r el at i ng t o t he p r o c e s s o f a d o p t i o n : ( i ) w h e t h e r a s o c i a l w o r k e r e m p l o ye d b y a lice n se d c h ild p lac e m e n t a g e n c y “ p ra c tice s law w ith o u t a lic e n se ” if t he social w o rk e r i nfo rm s a bi rth p arentof h i s or herl egal r i gh t s, i ncl udi ng t he r i ghtt o r evoke c ons entt o an adopt i on; and ( i i ) w hether a c o n se n t g ra n ted a f

ter a so c ial w o rk e r or o th e r em p lo y e e o f a c h ild p lac e m e n t ag e n c yin f

o rm s th e b irth p a re n t o f h is o r h e r rig h ts is l egal l yval i d. F or t he reasons st at ed b el ow , w e con cl ud e as foll ow s: 1. A s oci al w or kerempl oy ed bya chi l d pl ace m entagenc y d o e s n o t p ra c tice law w ith o u t a lice n se m e re lyb yin f o rm in g a b irth par ent o f h is or hers t atut or yr i ght s , i ncl udi ng t he r i ghtt o r evoke cons ent t o an adopt i on. T he s oci al w or ker m us t r efr ain from offe r i ng comm ent s ab o u t t he l egal cons equenc es of anypar t i cul ar c o u rse o f a c tio n o r oth e rw ise g iv in g leg a l a d v ice a b o u t t h e b irth p are n t’ s ri g h ts, h o w ev er. 2. I f t he bi r t h par ent i s an adul t , t he m er e fac tt hatt he par ent w as i nfor m ed of hi s orherr i ght s bya s oci al w o r kerorot her empl oy ee of

a chi l d pl ace m entagenc y does not cal l i nt o ques t i on t he leg a l v a lid ityo f

th e c o n se n t.G en. 174] 175

This opinion uses the preferre d term “birth pa rent,”rathe r than 1 thestatut or

y te rm “ natura l pa

rent. ” Th e te rm s a

resy no ny mou s. Consent is not required i n cer tain fore ign adoptions. FL§5- 2 313.1. I

C onse nt t o A dopti on U nder§5- 311( a) of t he F ami l y L aw ( “FL ”) A r t i cl e, M ary l and C o d e , b irth p a re n ts g e n e ra llyh a v e a ri g h t to d e c id e w h e th e r th e ir 1 chil dren are t o b e placed for ado pti on : “U nles s t he nat ural parent s’ r i ght s have been t er m i nat ed bya j udi ci al pr ocee di ng, an i ndi vi dual m aynotbe adopt ed w i t houtt he cons entof .

. . t h e n atural m ot her [ a n d ] t h e n a tu ra l f

a th e r ....” Se e al

so F L § 5- 317( c) ( 2) ( r equi r i ng 2 co n sen t of

b irth p are n ts t o g u ard ians h ip). O nce the bi r t h par ent s h av e cons ent ed t o an adopt i on, t hey have a l i m i t ed r i ght t o change t hei r m i nds

. FL §5- 311( c) ( 1) pr ovi des t hat , “w i t h i n 30 cal endarday s aft ert he r equi r ed cons entt o an adopt i on i s fi l ed undert hi s s ect i on, orany t i m e befor e a fi nal decr ee o f a d o p tio n is e n te re d , w h ic h e v e r o c c u rs f ir s t, th e in d iv i d u a l ... exec ut i ng t he cons entm ayr evoke the cons ent

. ” See a l so FL §5- 317( e) ( r evoca t i on of cons entt o guar di ans hi p)

. T hi s t i m e- l i m i t ed re v o c a tio n p r o v isio n re f lec ts th e G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly ’s d e sire to p ro tec t b o th th e b irth p a re n ts, o n w h o m th e d e c is io n to c o n se n t to ado pti on m i gh tw ei gh heav i ly , an d the chi l d an d ad op t i ve p arent s, fo r w h o m cert ai nt yaboutt hei rnew fami l ys t atus i s es s ent i al

. T he cons entof a bi r t h par ent “i s not val i d unl es s t he cons entcont ai ns an ex p ress n o ti ce o f th e righ t t o rev o k e c o n sen t .

. . . ” F L § 5 -31 4 (a). II P ract i ce of

L aw W ith e x c e p tio n s th a t ar e n o t p e rtin e n t h e re , o n lyin d iv id u a ls a d m itt e d to th e B a r b yth e C o u r t o f A p p e a ls m a yp ra c tice law in M ary l and. §§10- 206 and 10- 601 of t he B us i n ess O ccupa t i ons and Pr ofes s i ons ( “B O P”) A r t i cl e, M ary l and C ode. U n author i zed pr act i ce of la w i s a mi s demeanorand i s al s o s ubj ectt o i nj unct i on. B O P §§ 10 -606(a) and 10 -406. “Th e go al of t he prohi bit i on against unaut hor i zed pr act i ce i s t o pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om bei ng p r ey ed upon176 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y b yt h o s e n o tc o mpe t e n tt o p r a c t i c e l a w )f ro m in c o m p e ten t, unethi cal , ori r r es pons i bl e r ep r es ent at i on. ” I n r e Appl i cat i on of R

. G

. S. , 3 1 2 M d

. 6 2 6 , 6 3 8 , 5 4 1 A

. 2 d 9 7 7 (19 8 8 ). T he t er m “pr act i ce l aw ” i s not pr eci s el y defi ned i n t he s t atut e. Iten co m p asse s “g iving lega l ad v ice,” rep rese n ti n g so m eo n e b ef o re a cour t or gover nm ent agenc y , or “per for m i ng any ot hers er vi ce that t he C our t of A ppeal s defi nes as pr act i ci ng l aw . ” B O P §10- 1 0 1 (h )(1 )(i). T h e ter m in c lu d e s “ g iv in g a d v ice a b o u t a c a se th a t is o r m ayb e f

il ed in a c o u rt

. ” B O P § 1 0 -10 1 (h)(2 )(i v ). For t he mostpar t , bot h t he cas e l aw i n M ary l and and opi ni ons of t hi s offi ce ha ve addr es s ed unauthor i zed pr act i ce of l aw ques t i ons t hatar os e i n admi ni s t r at i ve age ncy pr ocee di ngs of one ki nd or a n o th e r. See, e. g. , P ubl i c Ser vi ce Com m ’ n v. H ahn Trans

. C o. , 253 M d . 5 7 1 , 2 5 3 A .2 d 8 4 5 (1 9 6 9 ); L u ka s v. B a r A ss’n , 35 M d. A pp. 4 4 2 , 3 7 1 A .2 d 6 6 9 , cer t

. deni ed , 280 M d. 733 ( 1977) ; 76 O pi ni ons of the At t or ney G ener al41 ( 1991) ; 65 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney Gen e r al 2 8 (1980). A s faras w e know , no M ary l and ca s e has sq u a re lyc o n sid e re d th e m e re c o n v e y in g o f in f o rm a tio n a b o u t a pr ovi s i on of l aw . H ow ever , one opi ni on of t hi s offi ce, l at err efe r r ed t o w i t h appr oval byt he C our tof A ppeal s , di d obs er ve t hata R egi s t er of W i l l s w o u ld notengage i n t he unauthor i zed pr act i ce of l aw m erel yby“the furni s hi ng of form s and i nfor m at i on” aboutt he o p en ing of es t at es . 42 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al3 3 8 , 340 (1 9 5 7 ). See Ri ddl eber

gerv. G oel l er , 263 M d. 44, 57, 282 A

. 2d 101 ( 1 9 7 1 ). S ee a lso L u ka s v. B a r A ss’n , 35 M d. A pp. at448 ( “m ere fi l l i ng o u to f

f o r ms . . . o ro t h e rp u r e l yme c h a n i c a l f u n c t i o n s ” not u n a u th o ri z e d p ra c tic e ). T hi s concl us i on )t hats om eone w ho i s nota law y erm ay “ f u r n i s h i n f

o r ma t i o n ” a b o u tt h e l a w )s ur el yacc or ds w i t h comm on p ra c tice a n d c o m m o n s e n se . C o m m e rc e a n d g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld gr i nd t o a hal t i f everypi ece of i nfor m at i on abouta s t atut or yr i ghtor o b l i g a t i o n c o u l d b e c o mm u n i c a t e d o n l yb ya l a wy e r . I n o u rv i e w, t he l i ne of una u tho r i zed pr act i ce i s pot ent i al l ycr os s ed w hen s om eone w ho i s nota l aw y erpurpor t s t o gi ve pr ofes s i onal advi ce aboutanot herper so n ’s l egal s i tuat i on ors ugges t s a cour s e of conductbas ed on an i nt erpr et at i on of t he l aw ; t he l i ne i s notcr os s ed b y t h e u n a d o rn e d p ro v is io n o f in f o rm a tio n . See, e. g. , N

ew Jer s ey St at e Bar Ass ’ n v. D i vor ce Cent erof A t l ant i c C o u n t

y, 19 4 N

. J. S u p e r. 5 3 2 , 4 7 7 A .2 d 4 1 5 , 4 1 8 -1 9 (1 9 8 4 ); St at e Bar v. G uar di an A b s tr a c t & T

itle C o ., In c ., 9 1 N

. M

. 4 3 4 , 5 7 5 P

. 2 d 9 4 3 , 9 4 9 (19 7 8 );G en. 174] 177 O regon Stat e B ar v. G i l chr ist , 272 O r . 552, 538 P. 2d 913, 918 (1 9 7 5 ). S e e g e n e ra lly P a tr ic ia S . L a m k in , A n n o ta tio n , Sa l e o f Fo r ms as P r act i ce of

Law , 7 1 A

. L

. R

. 3 d 1 0 0 0 (19 7 6 ). A p p ly in g th is g e n e r a l v ie w o f th e iss u e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a so c ial w o rk e r w h o s im p lyin f o rm s a b irth p a re n t o f

th e rig h t to r evok e a cons entt o adopt i on i s notengage d i n t he unauthor i zed p r a c t i c e o f

l a w. III

I nf or m e d C ons e nt Y ours econd que s t i on i s w hether a bi r t h par ent ’ s cons ent t o an a d o p tio n is v a lid if

th e b irth p a re n t w a s in f o r m e d o f th e rig h t to r evoke bya soc i al w or keri ns t ead of a l aw y er . I m pl i ci ti n t he q u e stio n is th e su g g e stio n th a t th e c o n se n t w o u ld b e v a lid o n lyif it w er e an i nfor m ed cons ent , and thatt he cons entcoul d notbe an in f o rm e d o n e u n les s th e rig h t w e re e x p lain e d b ya law y e r, w h o c o u ld c o u n se l th e b irth p a re n t. A s a gener al m at t er , w e bel i eve t hat a cons entt o t he adopt i on of one’ s chil d, l i ke otherdeci s i ons w i t h l egal l ys i gni fi cant c o n s e q u e n c e s , i s v a l i d i f i ti s m a d e k n o w i n g l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y. C ons entm eans a “vol unt ary agr eement by a per s on i n t he pos s es s i on and exe r ci s e of s uffi ci entm ent al capa ci t yt o m ake a n i nt el l i gent choi ce t o do s om ethi ng pr o p o sed byanother

. ” B l ack’s Law D i ct i on ary 3 0 5 (6 th e d . 1 9 9 0 ). A bi r t h par ent , havi ng been i nfor m ed bya s oci al w or kerof t he r i ght t o r evoke cons ent , cert ai nl y has t he oppor tuni t yt o obt ai n l egal advi ce i f nec es s ary . B uta bi r t h par ent ’ s deci s i on bot h t o gr ant cons entand t o l eave t he cons entunr evoked sur el y can be know i ng a n d v o lu n tar ye v e n w ith o u t leg a l co u n se l. O urconcl us i on i n t hi s r egar d i s under s cor ed byFL §5- 314, w hich st at es t he cir cum stan ces und er w hich a con senti s notval i d. O ne cir cum st ance is i f t he co nsent form i t sel f om i t s “an ex press n o t i c e o f t h e r i g h tt o r e v o k e c o n s e n t

. . . . ” F L § 5

- 3 1 4 ( a )

. C o n v e r s e l y, if th e f o rm d o e s c o n tain th e r e q u ir e d n o tice , the c o n se n t is pr es um pt i vel yv a l i d ; th e Gen e r a l As s e mbl yobvi ous l yconcl uded that m os tbi r th p are n t s w oul d be abl e t o under s t and the r i ghtof178 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

Ho us e B ill15 69 , whic h you haveint ro du c e d, wo uld

a c hie vethi s 3 result by amendingFL

§5-323(a)(2) to requireappointment of counse l for a ll b ir th p arents

. r evoca t i on i f t heyw er e s i m pl y pr es ent ed w i t h not i ce of i t w hen they w e re a sk e d to e v id e n c e th e ir c o n se n t. T he ot h er circ um s t ance i s even mor e t el l i ng. FL §5- 314( b) in v a lid a tes th e c o n se n t o f a b irth p a re n t w ho is a m i nor“unl es s t he cons enti s acc om pani ed byan af fi davi tof couns el

. . . t hatt he cons ent of t he mi norpar enti s gi ven know i ngl yand w i l l i ngl y . ” Thus, w hen t he G ener al A ssem bl yhad a c oncern aboutt he ca paci t yof one par t i cul arcl as s of bi r t h par ent s , m i nor s , t o gi ve inf or m ed cons ent w i t houtt he hel p o f a l aw y er , i tl egi s l at ed the l aw y er ’ s r ol e. A ppoi nt m entof couns el l i kew i s e i s r equi red fo r bi r t h par ent s w ho are m ino rs, F L § 5 -32 3 (a)(3), bu t no t fo r ad u ltb irth p are n ts w h o are capa bl e of c ons ent i ng t o an adopt i on and w ho do s o. I n s hor t , a cha nge i n t he law w il l be nee ded i f t he G ener al A ss e m b lyc o n c lu d e s a s a p o licym a tter th a t a ll b irth p a re n ts s h o u ld r ece i ve l egal couns el i ng befor e thei rcons entt o an adopt i on becomes f in a l. 3 IV C oncl usi on I n s um m ary , i t i s our opi ni on t hat a s oci al w or kerempl oy ed by a chi l d pl acem en t agencydoes notengage i n t he unauthor i zed p rac ti ce o f law b yinf

o rm ing a b irth p are n t of the p are n t’ s statutory r i ghtt o r evoke a cons entt o an adopt i on. M or eover , a cons entfr om an ad u ltb irth p are n t i s n o t i n v ali d m ere ly b ec au se a so cial w o rke r, ra th e r th a n a law y e r, in f o rm e d th e p a re n t o f

th e re v o c a tio n rig h t. J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al Ja c k S c h w a rtz C h ief C o u n se l, O pi ni ons & Advi ce