761 S.E.2d 779
S.C. Ct. App.2014Background
- Birth mother Holly Lawrence signed a consent to adopt form; adoptive mother Jennifer Brown sought to proceed with adoption.
- South Carolina law (S.C. Code Ann. § 63-9-340) requires a sworn consent document be signed in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom must be a judge, an attorney (not representing petitioners), or a certified DSS designee.
- The statute also requires each witnessing person to attach written certification that they discussed the document with the consenting person before signing and that consent was voluntary.
- At signing, the attorney-witness was not present in the room, and neither witness observed the required pre-signing discussion with Lawrence.
- The family court found the consent invalid under § 63-9-340; Brown appealed and the appellate court affirmed the invalidation, barring the adoption from proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the consent to adopt satisfied the statutory execution requirements of § 63-9-340 | Brown conceded noncompliance but argued adoption should proceed (or ratification could validate the consent) | Lawrence argued strict statutory compliance required and noncompliance invalidated the consent | The court held strict compliance is required; the consent was invalid due to witness and discussion defects |
| Whether witnesses must personally observe the pre-signing discussion before certifying it | Brown implicitly argued certification should stand despite lack of observed discussion | Lawrence argued certification must be based on witness's personal observation of the discussion before signing | The court held witnesses must have personal knowledge from observing the discussion; certification without observation is invalid |
| Whether the attorney-witness must be physically present when the consenting person signs | Brown argued presence outside the room was sufficient | Lawrence argued the statute requires presence during signing | The court held the attorney-witness must be present when the consenting person signs; absence invalidated execution |
| Whether the invalid consent could be ratified by later acts or whether the order was immediately appealable | Brown sought to proceed or obtain fees after family court ruling | Lawrence maintained invalid consent cannot be ratified and family court order is final and appealable | The court held invalid consent cannot be ratified; family court’s invalidation was a final, appealable order |
Key Cases Cited
- Hucks v. Dolan, 288 S.C. 468 (1986) (adoption is purely statutory and statutory provisions must be strictly construed)
- McCann v. Doe, 377 S.C. 373 (2008) (procedural protections are required to ensure voluntary, uncoerced consents and promote finality)
- Sloan v. Dep’t of Tramp., 379 S.C. 160 (2008) (court will not decide moot questions)
- Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557 (2001) (a case is moot if judgment would have no practical legal effect)
- Terry v. Terry, 400 S.C. 453 (2012) (distinguishing temporary family court orders from final, appealable orders)