In Re Adoption of "Baby Boy", 233 N.C. App. 493

Birth mother Amy Costin relinquished parental rights to the Agency for adoption of Baby Boy born April 10, 2012; the biological father had already relinquished and did not revoke.
The Agency identified and arranged with a family (the Zugs) for adoption, after the birth mother engaged with the Agency and preferred a closed adoption.
A notary (Ms. Durbin) notarized the relinquishment after a 26-question colloquy conducted by Agency staff in the hospital, with the birth mother signing following the questions.
The relinquishment stated potential revocation within seven days and required revocation in writing to the Agency; the birth mother texted that last day and later reconsidered but did not submit written revocation.
On April 23, 2012, the Agency proceeded with the adoption and the Zugs adopted Baby Boy; the birth mother later moved to void the relinquishment, alleging lack of compliance with statutory requirements.
The trial court voided the relinquishment on the basis that it did not conform to mandatory oath requirements, and the birth mother moved for further proceedings; on appeal, the court reverses, holding the relinquishment was valid under North Carolina law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the relinquishment was valid under § 48-3-702(a) requiring oath	Costin contends the relinquishment wasn’t under oath and thus void	Zugs/Amazing Grace argue substantial compliance and oath satisfied	Relinquishment valid; oath satisfied and notvoid ab initio
Whether the relinquishment could be voided for fraud or duress under § 48-3-707	Costin argues there was fraud/duress in procurement	Agency acted without fraud; consent knowingly given	No clear and convincing evidence of fraud/duress; no grounds to void
Whether the sex omission on the relinquishment affected validity	Costin alleges omission violated § 48-3-703	Omission cured by substantial compliance; not fatal	Omission did not defeat validity; substantial compliance adequate

In re Adoption of Anderson, 165 N.C. App. 413, 598 S.E.2d 638 (2004) (interlocutory protection for birth mother’s consent in adoption matters)
In re Byrd, 137 N.C. App. 623, 529 S.E.2d 465 (2000) (interlocutory review in adoption consent cases)
Boseman v. Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 704 S.E.2d 494 (2010) (interpretation of adoption statutes; substantial compliance)
State v. Carpenter, 173 N.C. 767, 92 S.E. 373 (1917) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)
State v. Knight, 84 N.C. 789 (1881) (oath administration may be delegated; ministerial act)