Adoption of Pior

43 Cal.2d 472 (1954) Adoption of DONNA LYNN PIOR, a Minor, RALPH BENNETT et al., Appellants,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE OF THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, Respondent.

S. F. No. 19046. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

Oct. 15, 1954. Ralph Moradian for Appellants.

Elsie M. Farris and Elizabeth Cochran as Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellants.

Robert M. Wash, County Counsel (Fresno), John E. Loomis and Maurice E. Smith, Assistant County Counsel, for Respondent.

Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Richard L. Mayers, Deputy Attorney General, Clock, Waestman & Clock, Loeb & Loeb, Edward W. Sheridan and Herman F. Selvin as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondent. [473]

TRAYNOR, J.

On September 5, 1951, Ralph and Mary Bennett filed a petition to adopt Donna Lynn Pior, a 4-year-old niece of Mary Bennett. The petition alleged that the child's mother, sister of Mary Bennett, was killed in an accident in April, 1951, that the child's father was divorced from his wife and was living in New Mexico, and that he had given his consent to the adoption. The matter was referred to the Department of Welfare of the County of Fresno, the licensed county adoption agency, for investigation and report. The agency submitted a detailed report setting forth the results of its investigation and the reasons for its determination that petitioners' home was not suitable and recommending that the adoption be denied. The facts set forth in the report support the recommendation. [fn. *] At the hearing, however, 19 witnesses testified to the fitness of petitioners to be adoptive parents of the child. A telegram from the father consenting to petitioners' having temporary custody and letters from him stating that he would sign the necessary papers to give petitioners permanent custody were introduced. The evidence also shows, however, that the father subsequently signed a refusal to consent to the adoption and removed the child from petitioners' home. Apart from the foregoing evidence regarding the father's consent, the record discloses, and petitioners concede, that they have not obtained the formal consent of the child's father as required by Civil Code, section 226. [fn. ]