Informed Consent and Standing in Child Custody: Regina Moore v. Asente

Informed Consent and Standing in Child Custody: Regina Moore v. Asente

Introduction

Regina Moore and Jerry Dorning v. Richard and Cheryl Asente is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, adjudicated on August 12, 2003. This case arises from the complexities of a private adoption arrangement that ultimately unraveled, leading to a dispute over the custody of Justin Moore. The primary parties involved are the birth parents, Regina Moore and Jerry Dorning, and the prospective adoptive parents, Richard and Cheryl Asente. The case delves into critical issues surrounding the validity of adoption consents, the standing of non-parents in custody disputes, and the standards employed by courts in determining the best interests of the child.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case from the Court of Appeals, which had previously reversed the trial court's decision regarding the custody of Justin Moore. The central issues pertained to whether the consents provided by Moore and Dorning for adoption were valid and whether the Asentes had the standing to pursue custody of Justin. The Supreme Court held that the consents were invalid due to misinformation provided by the birth parents' attorney, rendering them not knowingly given. Consequently, the Asentes were deemed to have standing based on having the "physical custody" of Justin as defined under Kentucky law. The court further established that custody determinations should pivot on the best interests of the child rather than solely on the fitness of the parents or the standing of the non-parents.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases that have shaped Kentucky's approach to child custody and adoption. Notably:

  • BERRIER v. BIZER: Highlighted the limits of collateral estoppel, emphasizing that it only applies if the opposing party had a fair opportunity to litigate the issue.
  • COMMONWEALTH v. GROSS: Addressed jurisdictional issues in termination proceedings.
  • Van Wey v. Van Weir: Established that once a consent for adoption is signed, the biological parent's rights are generally terminated.
  • POSEY v. POWELL: Discussed the nuances of standing in custody cases involving non-parents.

These precedents were instrumental in guiding the court's reasoning, particularly in distinguishing between mere physical possession and the legal concept of "physical custody" that confers standing.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on two pivotal aspects: the validity of the consents and the standing of the Asentes.

  • Validity of Consents: Under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 199.500(1), consents to adoption must be voluntary and informed. The court found that Moore and Dorning were misinformed by their attorney regarding the irrevocability period of their consents, thus rendering them not knowingly given and, therefore, invalid.
  • Standing of the Asentes: KRS 403.420(4)(b) defines "physical custody" as more than mere possession. The court determined that because Moore and Dorning had intended to relinquish custody for adoption, and had been absent in nurturing Justin's life with the Asentes for an extended period, the Asentes held "physical custody" in the legal sense, thereby granting them standing to pursue custody.

Additionally, the court reconsidered the standards applied in custody disputes, advocating for the "best interest of the child" standard over solely evaluating parental unfitness.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future adoption and custody cases in Kentucky:

  • Informed Consent: Establishes that legal counsel must ensure that birth parents are fully informed about the implications and irrevocability of their consents to adoption.
  • Definition of Physical Custody: Clarifies that standing for non-parents in custody disputes requires demonstrating a more profound legal custody relationship than mere possession.
  • Best Interest Standard: Reinforces the primacy of the child's best interest in custody determinations, potentially broadening considerations beyond parental fitness.

These clarifications aim to protect the rights of birth parents while also recognizing the legal positions of adoptive parents.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Voluntary and Informed Consent

Means that the birth parents willingly agreed to the adoption with a full understanding of its legal consequences. If they were misinformed or coerced, their consent can be deemed invalid.

Physical Custody

In this context, "physical custody" refers to the legal control and care of the child, not just temporary possession. It involves a stable and ongoing custodial relationship.

Standing

The legal right to bring a case to court. For non-parents like the Asentes, standing in custody cases requires showing that they have a significant custodial relationship with the child beyond mere possession.

Best Interest of the Child

A standard used by courts to make custody decisions, focusing on what arrangement will most benefit the child's well-being, considering factors like stability, care, and emotional needs.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Kentucky's decision in Regina Moore v. Richard and Cheryl Asente underscores the crucial importance of ensuring that consents to adoption are genuinely informed and voluntary. By redefining "physical custody" for the purposes of standing in custody disputes, the court provided clarity on when non-parents can legitimately seek custody of a child. Furthermore, by emphasizing the "best interest of the child" standard, the judgment aligns custody determinations with the child's overall well-being, transcending the binary evaluation of parental fitness. This case serves as a pivotal reference point for future adoption and custody proceedings, balancing the rights of birth parents with the legitimate claims of adoptive parents, all while prioritizing the welfare of the child.

Case Details

Year: 2003
Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Judge(s)

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice, Concurring

Attorney(S)

Glenda Harrison, Northern Kentucky Legal Aid Society, Inc., Covington, Stephanie Dietz, O'Hara, Ruberg, Taylor, Sloan Sergent, Crestview Hills, Counsel for Appellant/Cross-Appellees, Regina Moore and Jerry Dorning. Mitchell A. Charney, Stephanie Morgan-White, Goldberg Simpson, PSC, Louisville, Counsel for Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Richard Asente and Cheryl Asente. Thomas R. Willenborg, Covington, Counsel for Appellee, Justin Lee Moore. W. Kimble Moore, Jr., General Counsel, Office of Counsel, Cabinet for Families and Children, Frankfort, Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Amicus Curiae, Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children. William Waverly Townes, Ackerson, Mosley Yann, Louisville, Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Amicus Curiae, American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. Andrew J. Ruzicho, Lexington, Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Amicus Curiae, Justice for Children Project. Michael Ryan Voorhees, Phillips Law Firm, Inc., Cincinnati, OH, Suellyn Scarnecchia, University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI, Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Amicus Curiae, Hear My Voice.

Comments