## Facts

- Herlinda Marie Acedo, an 18-year-old unmarried high school graduate, gave birth on February 3, 1972.
- Before the birth, Acedo consulted the County Department of Public Welfare and decided to place the child for adoption.
- After the birth, Acedo initially kept the child and lived with her parents; around August 13, 1972, she moved out with the baby despite having minimal resources.
- On August 14, 1972, Acedo returned to the welfare department to discuss adoption again.
- On August 15, 1972, a welfare worker met Acedo, discussed adoption, and took her to the agency office.
- Acedo was given a written “Consent to Place Child for Adoption” form to read; after reading it, she stated she understood it and signed it.
- The adoption process was explained, including that an adoption is not final until six months after an adoption petition is filed; there was no discussion about any right to regain custody before finalization.
- The child was placed in an adoptive home pursuant to the signed consent.
- Shortly after placement, Acedo sought return of the child, claiming she believed she could change her mind within six months.
- Acedo filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking the child’s return; the trial court denied relief and found no fraud, coercion, or other wrongful conduct by the agency.

## Issues

1. Whether a natural mother who voluntarily signed a written consent authorizing placement of her child for adoption may regain custody after placement solely because of an unexpressed, unilateral misunderstanding of the consent’s legal effect, not caused by improper conduct of the adoption agency.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
- A voluntary, informed consent to placement for adoption could not be set aside after placement based only on the mother’s uncommunicated misconception about the legal consequences.
- Absent fraud, coercion, or other wrongful conduct, the agency’s refusal to return the child did not justify judicial intervention to undo the placement.

## Legal Principles

- A knowingly and voluntarily executed consent to place a child for adoption is not revocable after the child has been placed in an adoptive home merely because the parent later regrets the decision or held an unexpressed misunderstanding of its legal effect.
- Revocation after placement generally requires proof that consent was not voluntary or informed, or that it was procured through fraud, coercion, undue influence, or comparable wrongful conduct.
- Stability in adoptive placements is a strong policy consideration once placement has occurred in reliance on a valid consent.

## Conclusion

The court held that a natural mother could not regain custody after an adoptive placement based solely on her private, unilateral misconception that she could revoke consent within the six-month period before adoption finalization, where the consent was voluntary and the agency engaged in no wrongful conduct.


Acedo v. State Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 513 P.2d 1350 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973)