## Facts

- A child was born in August 1956 to Follett (father) and his wife (mother).
- The parents separated in April 1957; the mother left with both the child and the child’s half-sister.
- After police warnings to the mother about mistreatment of the half-sister, the mother asked Follett to take the half-sister; he did and cared for her thereafter.
- The mother told Follett the infant was away visiting and could be picked up the next weekend, but when Follett attempted to do so, the mother and child had disappeared.
- Follett made repeated efforts to locate the mother and the child; the record did not support a finding that he abandoned the child.
- Without notice to Follett, adoptive parents obtained an adoption decree in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City based on the mother’s sworn statements that she was unmarried and did not know the father’s whereabouts, describing him as a “boy friend.”
- In early 1959 Follett learned of the adoption, retained counsel, and sought to set aside the adoption decree for fraud and lack of notice.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the chancellor annulled the adoption decree for fraud and awarded custody to Follett; the adoptive parents appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the adoption decree was properly rescinded because it was procured by fraud that prevented notice to, and participation by, the natural father.
2. Whether the natural father abandoned the child or otherwise forfeited parental rights by failing to locate the child sooner.
3. Whether awarding custody to the natural father, rather than leaving the child with the adoptive parents, was contrary to the child’s best interests.
4. Whether a probation department (or similar) investigation was required before custody could be awarded to the natural father.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the chancellor’s decree.
- The court held the adoption was properly annulled because it was procured by the mother’s fraudulent misrepresentations that deprived the father of notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- The court held the record did not support abandonment by the father.
- The court upheld the custody award to the natural father, finding it was not in derogation of the child’s best interests and welfare.
- The court held a probation department investigation was not mandatory where the chancellor had sufficient evidence to assess fitness and welfare.

## Legal Principles

- An adoption decree may be rescinded when procured through fraud that prevents a natural parent from receiving notice and being heard.
- Abandonment is not inferred from separation alone; sustained efforts to locate and reclaim a child negate abandonment where the other parent concealed the child.
- When a natural parent is fit and has not abandoned the child, custody generally should not be denied absent a showing that placement with the parent would clearly harm the child’s best interests and welfare.
- A formal probation department (or similar) investigative report is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to awarding custody when the trial court has an adequate evidentiary basis to decide fitness and welfare.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed annulment of a fraudulently obtained adoption decree and awarded custody to the natural father, concluding he had not abandoned the child, the custody award was consistent with the child’s welfare, and no mandatory probation-department investigation was required on the record presented.


McLary v. Follett, 226 Md. 436, 174 A.2d 66 (Md. 1961)