Court Opinion

ID: 9767413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:18:58.623184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:31.078360
License: Public Domain

GLASSMAN, Justice,
joined by ROBERTS and LIPEZ, Justices, dissenting.
Because I do not agree with the Court that the adoption of the child severed Sabattus’s *173parental rights but not his parental responsibilities, I respectfully dissent. Well established principles of statutory construction require that words must be given their plain meaning and “ ‘statute[s] must be construed as a whole in order to effectuate the legislative intent.’ ” McGillivray v. Royal Ins. Co., 675 A.2d 524, 526 (Me.1996) (quoting Fernald v. Maine State Parole Bd., 447 A.2d 1236, 1238 (Me.1982)). In so doing, the court must be mindful of the “whole statutory scheme .... so that a harmonious result may be achieved.” Daniels v. Tew Mac Aero Services, Inc., 675 A.2d 984, 987 (Me.1996) (citing Thibeault v. Larson, 666 A.2d 112, 114 (Me.1995)). In addition to failing to apply these principles, by its decision the Court approves a construction of the statute that could have serious implications affecting an adopting parent’s ability to obtain the consent of the natural parent(s) if consent means that all parental rights are relinquished, but all parental financial responsibilities remain. Such public policy determinations are more properly reserved to the Legislature.
Because the Department of Human Services neither appealed from, nor initiated an action to set aside, the 1991 adoption decree, I agree with the Court that the adoption is valid. We are asked here to determine the effect of the provisions of the adoption statute as they relate to the obligations of a natural parent who consents to an adoption. The Court answers this query by focusing on the first sentence of 19 M.R.S.A. § 535 (1981), repealed by P.L.1993, ch. 686, § 3 (effective Aug. 1, 1994), finding dispositive the language divesting the natural parent’s legal rights and the absence of language expressly removing the natural parent’s legal responsibilities. Reading the statute as a whole, however, as we must, McGillivray, 675 A.2d at 526, it becomes clear that such an interpretation does not give effect to the plain meaning of the words of the Legislature.
At the time of Kathy H.’s petition, the provision within our adoption statute setting forth the legal effect of an adoption, 19 M.R.S.A. § 535, provided in pertinent part:
By such decree the natural parents are divested of all legal rights in respect to such child and he is freed from all legal obligations of obedience and maintenance in respect to them. He is, for the custody of the person and right of obedience and maintenance, to all intents and purposes the child of his adopters....
(Emphasis added). The emphasized language establishes that, as of the effective date of the adoption, Kathy H. became the sole legal parent of the child, acquiring not only the sole parental rights to the child, but also all of the responsibilities as well.3 Because the adoption had the effect of terminating Sabattus’s parental rights, Porter v. Hoffman, 592 A.2d 482, 486 (Me.1991), the provisions of the adoption statute at' issue must be construed in conjunction with the provisions of the statutes governing the termination of parental rights, 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 4050-4058 (1992 & Supp.1995), to avoid inconsistent results. Daniels, 675 A.2d at 987. Section 4055 of Title 22 permits the court to order the termination of parental rights, inter alia, if “[t]he petition has been filed as part of an adoption proceeding in Title 19, [sections 531-538]; and ... [t]he parent consents to the termination.” Once approved by the court, “[a]n order terminating parental rights divests the parent and child of all legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties and obligations to each other as parent and child_” 22 M.R.S.A. § 4056 (emphasis added). The Court’s construction of 19 M.R.S.A. § 535, terminating parental rights without terminating parental responsibilities, is impermissibly at odds with 22 M.R.S.A. § 4056 and cannot survive our precedents governing statutory construction.
Nor may the Department, having failed to challenge the adoption, now seek to impose *174the financial obligations for the child on one who is no longer legally a parent of the child. Cf. 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 271, 272 (establishing the obligations of a father and the Department’s and/or mother’s right to enforce those obligations against the father). This conclusion is not inconsistent with our decision in Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Webster, 398 A.2d 792, 794 (Me.1979). In Webster, the natural parents of the child entered into a court-approved agreement in settlement of a paternity suit filed by the mother that purported to release the father from any further financial obligation for the child. Because “the child was being supported by the State through the program for Aid to Families with Dependent Children,” the State brought a petition against the father to enforce his parental support obligations. Id. at 792-93. By his answer, the father relied on 19 M.R.S.A. § 283 (1981) that provides: “An agreement of settlement with the alleged father is binding only when approved by the court.” Finding in favor of the Department, we held that the interests of the mother were divergent from the interests of the State and of the child and the settlement by the mother and father was not binding on the State. Id. at 794.
The dispositive distinction between Webster and the instant case is that following the court’s approval of the settlement between the parents, the child in Webster legally continued to have two parents. Here, by contrast, following the judgment of adoption, the child legally had only one parent: Kathy H. Although Sabattus remains obligated for the amounts expended by the State in support of the child for the period prior to the effective date of the adoption and within the time limits provided in 19 M.R.S.A. § 273 (Supp. 1995),4 his parental rights, as well as his financial responsibilities, terminated with the judgment of adoption.5 I would vacate the decision of the Superior Court and remand this case to the District Court for a determination of Sabattus’s financial obligations as articulated herein.

. By her petition for the adoption of the child, Kathy H. asserted, inter alia, that she “ha[s] the ability to provide for the adopted child.” Before granting her petition, the court must have been satisfied, inter alia, of the "ability of [Kathy H.] to bring up and educate the child properly, having reference to the degree and condition of [Kathy H.] and of the fitness and propriety of such adoption.” 19 M.R.S.A. § 533. Having availed herself of the provisions of the adoption statute, thereby attaining sole parental rights to the child, she cannot now take the benefit of that order while casting aside the responsibilities that go with it.

. 19 M.R.S.A. § 273 (Supp.1995) provides in pertinent part:
The father's liabilities for past education and necessary support are limited to a period of 6 years next preceding the commencement of an action.

. The Department does not allege, and the record would not support, that the adoption proceeding was a sham to implement an agreement between Sabattus and Kathy H. to reduce their financial child support obligations.