Opinion ID: 2520814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Andrea's Invalid Relinquishment Functioned as a Consent To Adopt.

Text: Although Andrea's conditional relinquishment of parental rights was invalid in that it was contingent on the successful adoption of Keith by the Wilsons, the document that she filed did function as a consent to adoption. Parental consent lies at the foundation of the adoption process. [43] A parent may consent to adoption by specific adoptive parents, whose identities may or may not be known to the biological parents. [44] Under AS 25.23.060, a parent's consent ordinarily delegates to the adoptive parents all powers permitted under AS 13.26.020, including the powers regarding care, custody, or property of the minor child or ward. [45] While Andrea signed a document purporting to relinquish her parental rights on condition that the Wilsons successfully adopt Keith, [46] and while a proper relinquishment eliminates the need for parental consent in an adoption proceeding, we look at the function and not the title of documents to determine their purpose. In S.O. v. W.S ., we examined a similar document purporting to relinquish parental rights and held that regardless of its caption, the relinquishment in question was actually an attempt to consent to adoption. [47] S.O. was a pregnant woman expecting to take a job on the North Slope and desiring to locate adoptive parents for her unborn child. [48] With the help of the paternal grandmother and the grandmother's spouse, S.O. located a prospective couple but requested that the couple's identity not be disclosed to her. [49] The day after the child's birth, S.O. signed a document entitled Relinquishment of Parental Rights, which purported to relinquish her rights and granted custody to her attorney, who was to take all steps necessary for the child's adoption by the prospective adoptive couple. [50] About a week after giving birth, S.O. changed her mind about going to the North Slope and giving up her child for adoption. She argued that any adoption proceeding would be invalid because she never consented to an adoption. [51] Unpersuaded by this argument, we stated that we think it abundantly clear that S.O. did in fact intend to consent to her son's adoption. That the document purports to be a relinquishment is not controlling. [52] The document signed in this case, like that in S.O., was an attempt to consent to a particular adoption. Thus, the superior court's reliance upon it in terminating the mother's parental rights was erroneous.