Opinion ID: 2520814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relinquishments Must Be Unconditional.

Text: We have recognized that [p]arental termination proceedings were unknown at common law. This means that in the absence of statutory authorization there can be no termination of parental rights and obligations. [15] One way that a parent's rights may be terminated is through a voluntary relinquishment. Relinquishments are regulated by AS 25.23.180(a) and (b) and may occur in or before an adoption proceeding. [16] It obviously is permissible in some cases for relinquishments to occur in the absence of pending adoption cases. [17] As we have explained, the relinquishment procedure established by AS 25.23.180(b) does not contemplate involuntary termination actions, but rather refers to cases in which parents choose to give up their parental rights. [18] However, the statute makes no provision for relinquishment of less than all rights. Moreover, the time frames for a parental change of mind are expressly set out in the statute, [19] and there is no provision allowing a parent to withdraw the relinquishment after those deadlines if certain conditions have not been met. Despite its caption as a relinquishment, the document that Andrea signed in this case was not an unconditional relinquishment; instead, it functioned as a consent to adopt. Andrea did not unconditionally relinquish her parental rights in this case. Indeed, her relinquishment was expressly conditioned on the successful completion of adoption by specified adoptive parents, the Wilsons. Andrea's relinquishment contained the statement: If the adoption [by the Wilsons] is not completed, I understand that this relinquishment will be voided. Yet Alaska's adoption statute does not recognize a relinquishment of parental rights that is less than an absolute and permanent surrender of rights. Alaska's adoption statute provides that  [a]ll rights of a parent with reference to a child ... may be relinquished and the relationship of parent and child terminated by a writing, signed by the parent. [20] Courts in other jurisdictions have concluded that parents may not relinquish their parental rights on condition that specified adoptive parents be granted the child. The South Dakota Supreme Court held in In re Termination of Parental Rights Over J.M.J. that a mother, who relinquished her parental rights and requested that the child be placed with her sister and brother-in-law in Arizona, could not withdraw her relinquishment even though her sister and brother-in-law subsequently requested that J.M.J be removed from their home because of the couple's marital problems. [21] The court concluded that the mother understood the termination to be irrevocable and noted that there can be no conditional relinquishment of parental rights under [South Dakota] statutes. [22] As a result, [i]t follows ... that D.J.'s request to have J.M.J. placed for adoption with the Filipeks cannot in any way be characterized as a condition, the nonfulfillment of which[ ] is fatal to D.J.'s consent to termination of her parental rights. [23] A Colorado Court of Appeals decision similarly concluded that a nineteen-year-old father and seventeen-year-old mother attempted an impermissible partial or conditional relinquishment. [24] In the relinquishment petition, the parents changed the official, generic Colorado relinquishment form and added that possession of the child would be with the child's grandparents. [25] Furthermore, testimony made it clear that the child had been in the care of the grandparents for approximately one year and that the relinquishment proceedings were instituted as part of a family plan that the child would be adopted by the grandparents. [26] The court held that it was apparent from the petition and the testimony that the parents were attempting a `partial' or `conditional relinquishment.' [27] The court found that such a conditional relinquishment was not authorized by the Colorado relinquishment statute which, like the Alaska Statute, mandated that relinquishment shall divest the relinquishing parent or parents of all legal rights and obligations. [28] The concurrence argues that Alaska case law reflects the use of conditional relinquishments. [29] Specifically the concurrence refers to two cases, In re Adoption of F.H. [30] and In re J.L.F. [31] In F.H., the mother of an Indian child consistently expressed a parental preference for the superior court to deviate from the ICWA parental preferences. [32] F.H.'s tribe requested that the court not deviate from the ICWA placement preferences. [33] In ruling that the superior court did not err in finding good cause to deviate from the preferences, we noted that the mother exhibited a consistent preference for deviation. [34] While the mother did sign a purported relinquishment conditioned on a specified couple adopting F.H., the mother never changed her mind about the adoption. [35] Consequently, whether the purported relinquishment was a relinquishment or a consent was immaterial, as either way the adoption would have gone forward. Therefore, our ruling in F.H. did not sanction the use of conditional relinquishments. And J.L.F. does not deal with relinquishments; rather, it is a termination case. [36] There, we held that the trial court erred in concluding that unreasonable withholding of consent to adoption as provided in AS 25.23.180(c)(2) was a ground for termination of parental rights applicable in this case. [37] J.L.F., then, does not directly support the proposition that conditional relinquishments are permissible in Alaska. [38] The Uniform Adoption Act's commentary supports our conclusion: A parent or guardian who makes a direct placement of a minor for adoption must execute a consent for the adoption to go forward. [39] Whereas, [i]f the parent or guardian prefers, instead, to have an agency place the minor and consent to the minor's adoption, the parent or guardian has to relinquish all rights with respect to the minor to the agency. [40] After a parent relinquishes her rights and places a child with an agency, then the agency acts in lieu of the parent or guardian: it acquires custody of the minor and the authority to place the child for adoption. [41] Because Andrea placed Keith directly with the Wilsons, her parental consent was needed and her relinquishment was improper. [42] In summary, a biological parent may not relinquish parental rights conditioned upon successful completion of adoption by specified adoptive parents. Relinquishment requires a permanent and unconditional surrender of parental rights. Consequently, Andrea's initial conditional relinquishment of parental rights was not permitted by statute and was invalid.