Opinion ID: 1921038
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: surrender

Text: This is to certify that I, Louise Lavigue, being the mother, and Joe Lavigne, being the father of the female child, Diane Lavigne, born March 5, 1949 in Berkeley, California, do hereby voluntarily surrender and entrust said child to the Family and Children's Society of Elizabeth, Union County, New Jersey, from this date forever. I do hereby give and authorize said Society to use and have full power and control of said child and to make and sign all necessary papers for the future care and keeping and maintenance, education and adoption of said child. I promise not to interfere or encourage or allow anyone else to interfere with plans made by said Society for the said child. (signed) Louise Lavigne Joe Lavigne. This instrument was formally acknowledged by the plaintiffs. The representatives of the Society testified that they explained their views of the irrevocable effect of the instrument the Lavignes were signing. At the trial 14 months later Lavigne testified that he thought that he might be able to regain the custody of the child even after executing the surrender. On the other hand, he also testified, No, we were not told that we could take the child back, and that he had told his mother of their intention to give up Diane before he signed the surrender. His own psychiatrist testified, they said they signed the paper and finally decided to give the child away for adoption because it seemed Mr. Lavigne was unable to cope with the situation and rejected the child in the beginning and was so disturbed by the presence of the child. Likewise Mrs. Lavigne testified that Mrs. Reiner, a social worker of the defendant Society read the paper out loud and explained that it was irrevocable or that it was a strong bond. Mrs. Reiner was even more clear: I took the opportunity to point out that surrender was as final as death, that it was the end and it broke the tie completely and forever. That was clearly understood that morning. There can be no doubt that in fact the Lavignes understood fully the nature of their act in signing the surrender and that it was in fact the consummation of a purpose determined upon by them months before. The defendant Society is licensed by the Department of Institutions and Agencies of this State for the purpose of making suitable adoption. It sought out a suitable home for Diane, then a year and a half old, and ultimately placed her for adoption in August 1950 with Professor and Mrs. Henry C. Torrey, of Highland Park, who have a boy nine years old. In April 1951 Lavigne called at the office of the Society and requested that the child be returned to him. He was informed that the surrender of Diane to the Society was irrevocable. He then consulted the Legal Aid Society of Union County, where he was referred by it to his present counsel, and the action now under review was instituted in June 1951. At the trial the Society presented the testimony of its two case workers. Each stated that in their first interviews with the parents Lavigne wished to place the child for permanent adoption while Mrs. Lavigne was more inclined to a temporary removal of the child from the house. After the child had been placed temporarily with the foster parents, however, it became obvious that Mrs. Lavigne did not miss the child, felt no maternal instincts toward it, and chose to keep her husband in preference to her child. The plaintiffs now reside in California, where Lavigne has a teaching position from which he has a sufficient income to support his wife and child. They have saved $775 in order to repay the Society for its expenses in connection with the child. Both admitted that they had made a great mistake and insisted that they were quite capable now of providing the child with a suitable home. The psychiatrist appearing for them testified that Lavigne was now well adjusted, sincere and required no treatment though he had suffered from what we call a mild or moderately severe character neurosis, but the danger of a relapse is not too serious. On the other hand, the defendant's psychiatrist testified that the father was either psychotic or suffering from a deep-seated character neurosis and that it was extremely unlikely that he has been cured. He considered it unsafe and unfair to the child to return her to the plaintiffs; What is risked is a disaster for the child. The plaintiffs do not dispute the fitness of the adoptive parents or their capacity or desire to care for Diane. When it was suggested at the oral argument that it might be desirable to remand the case to the trial court for taking testimony as to the conditions under which Diane was living with the Torreys so that the court would be in a better position to judge what would be best for Diane, the plaintiffs took the position that this would be useless as the Torreys were good people and were giving Diane a good home. The Torreys did not seek to intervene in the trial court, not because of any lack of interest in the matter but because the defendant Society requested them not to do so but to leave the defense to it, it being the policy of the Society, for the good of the child, not to let the natural parents know who the adoptive parents were.