Adoption of Runyon

California Court of Appeal Jan 21, 1969Published

Before: Bray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Civil Code section 224n, which restricts the right to file an adoption petition for a child relinquished to an agency to only those prospective parents selected by that agency, is constitutional. The statute represents a reasonable legislative classification designed to ensure the orderly placement of children and prevent the frustration of agency adoption processes.

Issues

Is section 224n of the Civil Code, which limits the filing of adoption petitions for agency-relinquished children to agency-selected parents, constitutional?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The provision in section 224n which prohibits anyone but the prospective adoptive parents selected by the adoption agency from adopting a child relinquished to such agency is a reasonable one.”

“In view of our determination that section 224n is constitutional, we deem it unnecessary to determine respondent's contention that by reason of the San Joaquin County adoption decree this proceeding has become moot.”

268 Cal.App.2d 918 (1969) Adoption of JAMES RUNYON, a Minor. CLIFFORD CALLAHAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, Defendant and Respondent.

California Court of Appeals.

Jan. 21, 1969. DeCristoforo & DeCristoforo and Daniel J. Sullivan for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

John B. Heinrich, County Counsel, and Robert Galgani, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.

BRAY, J. [fn. *]

Appeal from judgment dismissing the petition of Clifford and Dorothy Callahan for the adoption of James Runyon, also known as Tony Callahan, a minor.

Question Presented

Is section 224n of the Civil Code depriving the superior court of jurisdiction to entertain a petition for adoption by foster parents constitutional?

Record

James Runyon, also known as Tony Callahan, as minor, was born on August 17, 1959, and validly relinquished immediately thereafter to the Sacramento County Social Welfare Department. He was placed in the home of the Callahans as a foster child for observation and care and not for adoption on August 20. Three weeks later a representative of the welfare department informed the Callahans that the minor had an enlarged heart with a hole in it. They were given the option to return him or to continue caring for him. They chose to retain him and saw him through heart surgery. The welfare department had informed petitioners prior to the surgery that the child was not adoptable.

In 1967 the welfare department removed Tony from the Callahans' home and placed him in the home of prospective adoptive parents. Shortly thereafter, the Callahans filed a petition for his adoption in the Sacramento County Superior Court. A motion filed by the welfare department to dismiss their petition was granted by the court, concluding that section [920] 224n of the Civil Code barred the Callahans from adopting Tony. Judgment was entered accordingly.petitioners appeal.

In the meantime, the Department of Social Welfare of the County of Sacramento approved a petition for adoption of Tony by prospective adoptive parents in San Joaquin County. On August 2, 1968, the superior court of that county granted the petition. No appeal has been taken from that decree of adoption.

Adoption of Runyon

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief