## Facts

- Wylanda Clark, an unmarried 22-year-old, signed a written consent/relinquishment on January 25, 1994, purporting to relinquish parental rights to her unborn child to allow adoption by John and Jane Doe.
- Clark gave birth on January 30, 1994.
- Before discharge from the hospital on January 31, 1994, Clark signed a hospital document stating she consented to adoption and authorizing the hospital to release the infant to the Does’ attorney.
- On February 1, 1994, when the Does attempted to take custody, the hospital learned Clark and her father sought to take the infant home; the infant remained at the hospital pending a court ruling.
- At a February 2, 1994 family-court hearing initiated by the Does, Clark stated she had changed her mind and wanted to keep the baby; she had no lawyer, and no guardian ad litem was appointed for the infant.
- The family court ruled the pre-birth consent valid, found it reaffirmed by the hospital document, refused to set it aside, and ordered the infant released to the Does for adoptive placement.
- After a March 10, 1994 hearing on Clark’s motion to void consent or reconsider, the family court again denied relief; Clark appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether South Carolina’s Adoption Act implicitly requires a mother’s consent to adoption to be executed after the child’s birth, making a pre-birth consent invalid.
2. Whether a consent/relinquishment that omits information required by statute (including the child’s date of birth and sex) is void.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the family court and set aside the purported consent/relinquishment.
- The court held the Adoption Act contemplates consent to adoption of a child “in being,” so a pre-birth consent is not valid under the statutory scheme.
- The court held the consent was also defective because it failed to include statutorily required identifying information (including the child’s date of birth and sex).
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s statutory construction.

## Legal Principles

- Adoption consents must comply with statutory requirements; noncompliance renders the consent ineffective to terminate parental rights.
- The Adoption Act’s structure and language link consent to a child already born, including by requiring consent of the mother of a “child born” when the mother was not married.
- A consent/relinquishment form must include the information mandated by statute, including the adoptee’s date of birth, race, and sex; missing required items is a substantive defect.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the biological mother’s pre-birth consent and rejected enforcement of a consent form lacking required child-identifying information, holding that South Carolina’s Adoption Act requires post-birth, statutorily complete consent before parental rights may be relinquished for adoption.


Doe v. Clark, 318 S.C. 274, 457 S.E.2d 336 (S.C. 1995)