Adoption of Irby

226 Cal.App.2d 238 (1964) Adoption of BABY BOY IRBY, a Minor. LEROY R. ELLIS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, Defendant and Respondent; JIMMY ANTHONY BRYANT, Intervener and Appellant.

Civ. No. 7477. California Court of Appeals. Fourth Dist.

April 8, 1964. Henry A. Fox for Intervener and Appellant.

Harold A. McCabe for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, Harold B. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, and Edward M. Belasco, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent.

GRIFFIN, P. J.

Appellant, Jimmy Anthony Bryant, father of the child, intervened in an adoption proceeding brought by respondents and asked that the proceeding be dismissed. The Department of Social Welfare and the adoptive parents filed an answer to the complaint in intervention and after the trial the court decided that appellant had not legitimized the child and the consent of appellant was therefore [239] not necessary to the adoption. The appellant appeals from this judgment.

The evidence at the trial indicates that in October 1961 appellant, who was then 17, discovered that Sue, who was then 14, was pregnant with his child. They decided to go to Las Vegas and get married, but stopped in Indio where they spent the night. The next morning they called their parents and disclosed the situation to them. Both then returned to their respective homes. Appellant made an effort to discuss the situation with Sue but his attempts were rebuffed by her parents. Appellant then faked a suicide attempt in an effort to persuade Sue and her parents to go through with the marriage. He was placed in the hands of the juvenile authorities as a result of this escapade. He was placed on probation for approximately two months and then went to Texas where he lived with relatives in Dallas. He returned from Texas before the baby was born and again his efforts to communicate with Sue were unsuccessful. The trial court found that appellant offered to pay the expenses relating to the birth of the child and that he desired to make a home for the child, but that these offers were rejected. The actual date of the child's birth and Sue's whereabouts at the time were concealed from appellant. Immediately after the child was born Sue placed the child for adoption with respondents. Appellant was not requested to support the child and he furnished no support for the child. Appellant publicly declared that he was the father of the child, but his efforts to legitimize the child by taking it into his family were unsuccessful, because of Sue's objections. The trial court found therefore that the appellant did not legitimize the child under Civil Code, section 230, and that his consent was not necessary for the child's adoption.