Backus v. Reynolds

Parke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Cornelia H. Clemens was born on February 4th, 1925. Her mother, Catherine Clemens, had then been deserted by the husband, from whom she later obtained an absolute divorce. The wife was obliged to work and did not keep house, which made it necessary for her to secure some one to undertake the care and custody of the baby.

In response to an advertisement she finally obtained care, board, and lodging for the child in the home of Vernon K. Reynolds and Helen Reynolds, his wife, the defendants, at the rate of five dollars a week, with the privilege of visiting her infant. The arrangement did not prove satisfactory to the defendants, and the parent was notified that she must find another home for her baby. Eventually it was agreed that the baby should be formally adopted by the defendants. This was done on July ⁶⁰³ 26th, 1929.

The mother married John Backus on November 28th, 1929, and she and her second husband instituted the present proceedings on December 10th, 1929, to have the decree of adoption annulled on the alleged grounds of mistake, fraud, duress, and a noncompliance with the requirements of the statute of adoption. The chancellor heard the evidence in open court and dismissed the bill of complaint. The verified petition for adoption was in conformity with the statute, and the chancelor passed a decree making the infant the adopted child of the defendants and changing her surname to theirs. The parties all lived in Baltimore city; the parents had notice of the proceedings and their written consent to the adoption wras filed with the petition, which set forth that the petitioners possessed ample means to provide for the proper support and maintenance and adoption of the infant and toassxxre her future welfare and happiness; and that the petitioners had become greatly attached to the child.

In addition, the petition gave the tender age of the child, her parentage, and the divorce of her natural father and mother, and the placing of the child with the petitioners by the mother. Under these circumstances and procedure, the court had jurisdiction to pass the decree of adoption. Miller’s Equity, see. 269; Code, art. 16, secs. 74-79. The pending bill of complaint to annul the decree was filed after its enrollment.

So, in the absence of fraud, surprise, mistake, or irregularity in obtaining the decree, it will not be annulled after enrollment. Miller’s Equity, secs. 287, 284, 300; Phelps, Juridical Equity, sec. 76; United Lines v. Stevens, 67 Md. 156, 158 ; Straus v. Rost, 67 Md. 465, 479