GROVES V. CLARK 982 P.2d 446 (1999) CASE BRIEF

GROVES V. CLARK

982 P.2d 446 (1999)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Clark (D) sought review of an order that allowed Groves (P), birth mother, monthly weekend visitation and weekly telephone contract.

FACTS: L.C. was three years old when P signed a document terminating her parental rights to L.C., relinquishing custody of L.C. to Lutheran Social Services (LSS), and consenting to adoption. P and D signed a written visitation agreement which provided the following: P would have unrestricted visitation with L.C. so long as she gave D two days notice; P would have unrestricted telephone contact with L.C.; and P would have the right to take L.C. out of school in the event she had to 'go to Butte for some emergency.' This agreement was drafted by the LSS and neither party consulted an attorney before signing it. The District Court entered an order terminating P's parental rights to L.C. and awarding custody of L.C. to LSS. In September 1994, D legally adopted L.C. On June 5, 1995, when P notified D that she wanted to take L.C. to Butte for the weekend, D refused. P was welcome to visit L.C. in D's home, but could not take L.C. on extended out-of-town trips. P filed a petition requesting specific performance of the visitation agreement. The court held that the document whereby P terminated her parental rights and relinquished custody of L.C. to LSS constituted the final, controlling agreement concerning relations between P and L.C. Because that document did not reserve any visitation, the court concluded that P was not entitled to post-adoption visitation. The appeals Court reversed the District Court. P and D specifically bargained for the right of visitation and voluntarily signed a written notarized agreement which provided the terms of the visitation arrangement. Birth parents and prospective adoptive parents are free to contract for post-adoption visitation and . . . trial courts must give effect to such contracts when continued visitation is in the best interest of the child. On remand the court determined it was in the best interest to give P one weekend per month of unsupervised visitation and one telephone conversation per week. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner