Opinion ID: 1882329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the lower court erred in denying the motion of the biological father to withdraw his consent to adopt.

Text: ¶ 14. Lori and Derek (collectively the grandparents) argue that Jason, the biological father, should be allowed to withdraw his consent to adopt based on the assertion that this consent was procured through misrepresentation. Presumably since the grandparents do not have standing to assert Jason's rights, Jason has joined this appeal. The grandparents assert in their brief that Jason was lied to by [Jeff] to secure his signature, i.e., that Jeff and [the mother] were getting married and that they were living together at the time, and that it was [her] wish. ¶ 15. Miss.Code Ann. § 93-15-103(2) (Supp.2000) states that the rights of a birth parent may be relinquished and the relationship of the parent and child terminated by the execution of a written voluntary release, signed by the parent.... We have repeatedly held that a consent is valid and irrevocable unless the parent can establish either fraud, duress, or undue influence by clear and convincing evidence. See Grafe v. Olds, 556 So.2d 690 (Miss.1990); C.C.I. v. Natural Parents, 398 So.2d 220 (Miss.1981). We have also concluded that whether consent may be withdrawn is to be determined on a case-by-case basis ... always keeping in mind that the best interest of the child is paramount. Grafe, 556 So.2d at 696. ¶ 16. On two separate occasions the chancellor upheld Jason's consent, finding no fraud, duress, or undue influence in the procurement of that consent. This Court will not overturn a chancellor's findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence unless an erroneous legal standard is applied or is manifestly wrong. Id. at 692. ¶ 17. It is undisputed that at the time the consent was given both Jason and the mother agreed to the adoption of the child by Jeff. Jason testified that he signed the consent and relinquished his rights at the request of the mother. Only after this litigation between Jeff and the grandparents ensued did Jason decide he wanted to take back his rights so that he could give those rights to the grandparents. He has not voiced an intention to keep parental rights himself. It is clear that he intends to avoid his own parental responsibilities. He testified expressly that he does not want custody of the child. He wants Lori to have custody. Jason's apparent intentions have been honored to the extent that Lori has become the adoptive mother of the child and has been granted primary custody. Jason has suffered no harm and proved no fraud. ¶ 18. The chancellor's findings are supported by substantial evidence. The chancellor did not commit manifest error in finding no fraud, duress, or undue influence in the procurement of the biological father's consent. We find no merit to this assignment of error.