## Facts

- Dawn B., an 18-year-old unmarried woman, gave birth to a child while working a minimum-wage job and living with her mother and stepfather.
- Dawn was economically dependent on her mother and stepfather, who told her they would not help her raise the baby and would not allow her to bring the child home.
- A private adoption was arranged through an attorney who placed the child with prospective adoptive parents and handled the adoption proceeding without charge; the attorney had strong anti-abortion beliefs and had provided similar services in other cases.
- Shortly after the birth, the infant was released from the hospital to the prospective adoptive parents, Mr. and Mrs. J.M.P., who had a large home and substantial savings.
- About a week later, Dawn met at her home with the placing attorney and the placing attorney’s law partner, who served as Dawn’s attorney for the surrender.
- Dawn executed an act of surrender terminating her parental rights after being advised of the consequences and of the statutory right to revoke within the prescribed period.
- Within 30 days of the act of surrender, Dawn sent written notice revoking her consent and sought to regain custody and stop the adoption.
- The trial court held that Dawn’s surrender was valid, finding her consent was not vitiated by duress arising from her family’s refusal to assist her.
- The trial court then conducted a best-interests hearing and ruled that the adoption should proceed, relying largely on the adoptive couple’s “traditional” family structure and financial security.
- The court of appeal affirmed the surrender’s validity and the best-interests ruling.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the natural mother’s act of surrender was invalid because her consent was vitiated by duress based on her family’s refusal to help her raise the child or allow the child to live in their home.
2. Whether the surrender should be set aside because the mother’s attorney was the law partner of the attorney who arranged the placement and handled the adoption, allegedly creating a conflict that rendered counsel ineffective and affected consent.
3. Whether the best-interests determination in a private adoption was legally adequate when it focused primarily on the adoptive applicants’ financial condition and family structure, with an underdeveloped record on psychological attachment and insufficient attention to the biological relationship.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the validity of the act of surrender.
- The Court held that the natural mother’s consent was not vitiated by duress merely because her family refused to assist her in rearing the child or refused to allow the child to live in the family home.
- The Court rejected setting aside the surrender based on the attorney relationship, concluding that (under the standard applicable at the time) the mother had reasonably effective representation and there was no showing that counsel induced a consent-affecting error.
- The Court vacated the lower courts’ judgments on the adoption/best-interests determination.
- The Court remanded for a new best-interests hearing because the trial court’s reasons indicated that it largely weighed only caregiver “fitness” in the sense of comparative stability and finances, while the record was insufficiently developed on psychological attachment and the biological relationship was not given meaningful consideration.

## Legal Principles

- Duress sufficient to vitiate an adult parent’s surrender requires unlawful or wrongful pressure; a family’s refusal to provide housing or support, standing alone, is not unlawful duress that nullifies consent.
- A potential conflict arising from an attorney’s relationship to the placement/adoption lawyer does not automatically invalidate a surrender; absent proof that counsel’s conduct caused an error influencing consent, the surrender stands.
- In private adoption disputes, the child’s best interests require consideration of three central factors: (1) the fitness of the competing caregivers, (2) the child’s psychological attachment(s), and (3) the child’s biological relationship to the natural parent.
- A best-interests ruling is deficient when it effectively selects the household with greater wealth or a more conventional structure without adequate consideration of psychological bonds and the biological tie.
- When the record lacks sufficient evidence on psychological attachment to permit meaningful review, the proper remedy is to vacate and remand for a new best-interests hearing.

## Conclusion

In re J.M.P. upheld an 18-year-old mother’s act of surrender against challenges based on family pressure and an asserted attorney conflict, but vacated the adoption judgment because the best-interests analysis relied too heavily on comparative stability and finances and lacked adequate development and consideration of psychological attachment and the biological relationship, requiring a remand for a new hearing.


In re J.M.P., 528 So.2d 1002 (La. 1998)