Court Opinion

ID: 9741275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:52:37.476389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.234706
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
dissenting.
I find that I must dissent from the majority in this case. We have today decided the case of Kellie v. *793Lutheran Family & Social Services, ante p. 767, 305 N.W.2d 874 (1981). In the Kellie case we held that if the adoption involved a licensed agency a natural parent could revoke an earlier executed relinquishment of her child if done before the adopting agency had accepted full responsibility for the child as required by statute. In doing so, we said at 772, 305 N.W.2d at 877: “Basic principles of offer and acceptance, as well as the statute, dictate that result.”
In the instant case, we have now, in effect, held that while what we said in Kellie may be true with regard to a licensed agency, the situation with regard to a private placement is otherwise. I think the distinction is not valid.
The obvious intent of the statute with regard to the licensed agency is to ensure that the licensed agency accepts'the responsibility of caring for the child once the child’s custody is taken by the agency. Even if the agency is unable to find an appropriate home and adoptive parents for the child, it will remain responsible for the child.
Why do we require something less when dealing with a private adoption? If, as the majority in Kellie has suggested, principles of contract such as “offer and acceptance” apply, then why should we not also impose principles of contract such as “mutuality”? Under the majority view in this case, if the proposed adoptive parents change their minds prior to the time that the county court enters an order approving the adoption, the proposed parents incur no liability or responsibility and, at their option, may either return the child to the natural parent or turn the child over to the state as a child without parent or home. How can the natural parent, on the one hand, be bound while the adoptive parent, on the other, is without any binding obligation? I would hold that the natural parent in a private placement has the right to withdraw the relinquishment until the county court has approved the adoption and made the adop*794tive parents responsible for the child. I am not unmindful of the fact that this would introduce a measure of uncertainty into the private placement as opposed to the certainty of the licensed agency. That, in and of itself, may not be such a bad result for either the natural parents who are giving up their child or the child itself, both of whom should be assured that under any circumstance the person or entity selected by the natural parents will remain legally responsible for the child until another person or entity is approved by the county court. I would have found for the appellant and held that the attempt to revoke the relinquishment was effective.