## Facts

- A married New Jersey couple (N.P. and F.P.) sought to adopt a minor child born March 30, 1978, in Santiago, Chile.
- The child’s natural mother relinquished custody for adoption to a Chilean hospital social services unit on the day of birth.
- After learning of Chilean children available for adoption through a newspaper article, the couple contacted sources connected to that information and retained a Chilean attorney to obtain a child for adoption placement in New Jersey.
- The couple paid funds described as covering foreign legal and court expenses, transportation of the child, and an escort’s travel to a New York airport.
- The child was not placed through an “approved agency,” prompting a preliminary hearing under New Jersey adoption procedures.
- An agency submitted a report, and the court took testimony from the petitioners regarding their home and intent to adopt permanently.
- The court found no evidence the petitioners were unfit; the court’s concern centered on the legality of the placement method and payments.
- The court identified possible violations of statutes restricting use of intermediaries and limiting consideration paid in connection with child placement.

## Issues

1. Whether retaining a foreign attorney to secure a child abroad for placement in a New Jersey home constitutes acting as an unlawful intermediary under N.J.S.A. 9:3-39.
2. Whether payments to a foreign attorney and others for foreign legal/court costs and child/escort transportation constitute prohibited consideration under N.J.S.A. 9:3-54.
3. If statutory violations occurred, whether they require denial of the adoption petition or instead may be addressed through separate enforcement while the adoption proceeds based on parental fitness and the child’s best interests.

## Decision

- The court entered a preliminary order in favor of the petitioners, permitting the adoption matter to continue through the required statutory steps.
- The court held that suspected illegality in the child’s acquisition or placement, including potential violations of intermediary and payment restrictions, does not automatically bar finalization of an adoption.
- The court concluded the petitioners may have violated N.J.S.A. 9:3-39 and N.J.S.A. 9:3-54 and referred the matter to the county prosecutor under N.J.S.A. 9:3-55(b) for investigation and possible prosecution.
- The court emphasized that the civil adoption determination should focus on the petitioners’ fitness and the child’s welfare, rather than using denial of adoption as the remedy for suspected statutory violations.

## Legal Principles

- Adoption may be finalized even when a child was illegally placed, so long as statutory adoption requirements are met and the adoption serves the child’s best interests.
- The central inquiry at the adoption stage remains whether the petitioners are unfit under the adoption statute and whether the placement provides a stable and appropriate permanent home.
- Statutory prohibitions on intermediaries and improper payments are enforced through criminal or prosecutorial mechanisms; suspected violations should be referred for investigation rather than resolved by denying an otherwise beneficial adoption.
- The child should not be penalized by loss of a permanent family placement due to alleged misconduct by adults involved in securing the placement.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the adoption proceeding to move forward because the petitioners were not shown unfit and the child’s best interests controlled, while separately referring suspected violations of intermediary and payment restrictions to the prosecutor for potential enforcement.


In re Adoption of a Child by N.P. & F.P., 165 N.J. Super. 591, 398 A.2d 937 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1979)