*1 jury. sound discretion of we past, wrongful
As
have said in the
it is
where a
death
verdict is such that it can be accounted for
on the basis of
passion
prejudice
part
jury
on the
of a
that this court will
Fitch,
interfere. Caradori v.
Considering the nature and duration of the relationship between decedent and his widow and expectancy, decedent’s life we conclude that the widow’s loss of decedent’s companionship, alone, counseling, and portion advice the verdict for other out-of-pocket expenses than the is not so excessiveas to warrant our interference. This conclusion makes further discussion of the unnecessary. amount of the verdict sustaining
The record Freightways’ none of Consolidated assignments error, judgment of the trial court affirmed.
Affirmed. Auman, Auman, Jane mother of Ann Marie Toomey appellant, Toomey, v. Carol Ann and Michael J. May 24, Filed 1985. No. 84-741. *2 Norman, appellant. for Van Laureen Anderson, Berry, Creager &
Craig of D. Wittstruck Wittstruck, for Caporale, C.J., White, Hastings,
Krivosha, Boslaugh, Grant, Shanahan, and JJ.
Boslaugh, J. Auman, 1,1984, executed May Jane petitioner,
On consent to a written and delivered Marie, daughter, by respondents, Ann adoption of Toomey. The child has been Toomey Ann and Michael J. Carol custody since that date. respondents of the 18, 1984, a written May petitioner On executed commenced this of the revocation to corpus a writ of proceeding on June for habeas found that the the child. The trial court obtain adoption by the to executed and consent of the petitioner was valid and that it was in best interests respondents, and child that remain in the she petition. petitioner appealed. dismissed the by petitioner presented whether The issue she executed was valid. relinquishment and consent 30, 1984, April The record shows that Statmore, Clay an attorney, an and made contacted day appointment adoption procedures discuss for the next child, old. informed for the was then 22 months Statmore who represented adopting in a child. couple her he interested father, May 1,1984, On and the child’s At the Squires, with Statmore on two occasions. Scott met he could not morning informed them meeting Statmore they speak right had a represent in that them this matter and they adopt out their attorney. wanted to to an He asked them if year thinking it for a about child. said temporarily asked,-neither was interested and a half. When relatives, placing the responsibility caring child with as the for her would still be with them. gathering necessary information,
After all the Statmore told them he would contact them later checking that afternoon after prospective adoptive parents. with the He informed them that they signed relinquishment, once Up it would be final. until point they that change could their minds. couple again
That afternoon the met with Statmore and his associate, repeated Dana London. Statmore several times that them, represent he did not the document relinquished child, all of their to the and that it was final and irrevocable. He also advised them of availability temporary foster right attorney. care and of their to an Both the relinquishment, read the had no questions, the documents. The relinquishment was witnessed Dana acknowledged London and before Statmore, notary public. then made arrangements for Statmore to collect the child and her belongings evening. night That Statmore delivered the *3 respondents. child to the 4,May 1984,
On petitioner the returned to Statmore’s office requested daughter. the return of their relinquishment Statmore told them the was final and that court action way was the to recover the child. they He told them would get need to their attorney own represented because he the respondents. 14,1984,
On June petitioner the filed this alleging action relinquishment and consent to involuntary and, and had been therefore, made under duress was invalid. prayed She custody that the of the child be returned to her. petitioner At trial the testified relinquished that she her child personal due to problems. and financial Both she and they testified were under impression they signed when relinquishment that there waiting was a 2-week period before the relinquishment final, during would be which get could daughter their back.
A therapist who had counseled the period over a of 9, 1984, time beginning May testified in opinion impaired judgment had at the time she
73 correctly assess relinquishment and was unable petitioner’s The sister also consequences of her behavior. April state on 30. as to the “dazed” testified voluntary relinquishment was that the The trial court found child that she it was in the best interests of the and valid and that respondents. remain errors, assigned three all which center relinquishment to finding whether the district court erred voluntarily have been executed and valid. involving of a corpus
A decision in a habeas case the record. Where the child is reviewed this court de novo on conflict, findings of evidence is in irreconcilable we consider State, 338, N.W.2d the trial court. McCormick v. 218 Neb. 354 Maxwell, 385, (1984); Gray 206 Neb. (1980). validity parent challenging
The burden is on a natural of relinquishment prove voluntarily given. a it that was not Mattley, (1981); Lum v. 208 Neb. State v. 255, 143 Society, Nebraska Children’s Home N.W. 203 (1913). threats, coercion, fraud, duress,
In the absence of or properly relinquishment parental rights executed adoption signed by consent parent knowingly, a natural McCormick, Lum, intelligently, voluntarily is valid. supra; Services, supra; Kane v. United Catholic Social However, 191N.W.2d 824 conditioned upon parental the retention of some is invalid. McCormick, supra.
Here, there facially is no claim that the statutory invalid or requirement fails to meet acknowledgment. (Reissue Neb. Rev. Stat. 1984). 43-106 § claims that the was not voluntary incompetence due to her mental at the time of impression and the she had that she had weeks from the time *4 signing change in which to her mind. executed, relinquishment At the time the was the only employed. was not married or Her of income was source very stamps. support ADC benefits and food She received little too, he, from the child’s natural father because was without rendered her work. She claims her financial stress at the time relinquish her child. The incompetent to make the decision to stresses, motivation, present were in this and circumstances that present many do not form a basis for case are such cases and Kane, supra. revocation. See
Here, relinquish the the evidence discloses decision to by made the herself without outside influence or pressure anyone. thought relinquishing from She had about adoption child for since the time of her birth. She initiated the proceedings by contacting setting up Statmore and the initial appointment. relinquish She did not discuss intention to parents, against child for with her who in fact were only Squires appointment idea. She informed of the after she had made it. meetings
At the with Statmore she was coherent and participated actively in the conversation. She understood the finality relinquishment and declined advice that she attorney. rejected needed suggestions an She of alternate placement as unworkable. She the document after reading rejected destroy it. She Statmore’s final offer to signing, document after if she relinquishing was unsure of arrangement child. She then delivering made the the child to evening. procedure by Statmore that used Statmore was proper, testimony informative and his was corroborated associate, his London. petitioner changed
The evidence indicates the her mind and succumbed to the influence of relatives after signed. change had been A of attitude subsequent is insufficient Society, invalidate it. See Batt v. Nebraska Children’s Home 124, 174 185Neb. N.W.2d executed,
After the parents opposition attempted regain voiced their Squires’ parents of the child on their own. offered to take years couple child for 5 to allow the problems. to work out their Prompted by parents, their approached Statmore the second time to revoke the relinquishment. During meeting, this uttered but one word and try was silent while stated his intent to
75 regain custody. and petitioner’s relinquishment
The claim that by misleading believing they them had a 2-week obtained into waiting period supported by is the record. not vague
Both Jane and recollections that had waiting during period Statmore mentioned a 2-week However, May afternoon session on 1. neither was able to recall Further, regard. exactly what Statmore had said in that neither testimony nor Statmore’s that of his associate made mention of waiting light a In period. 2-week admission final, that she understood the was this claim is merit. without whole,
When the record is considered as a the evidence is prove insufficient to was coerced or misled unintelligently into or that it was or involuntarily made. remaining question
The what is best interests of the State, 338, child. McCormick v. Maxwell, Gray 385,
(1984);
v.
There is no respondents evidence that the are unfit fact, to have testimony of the child. In reveals the happy adjusted. child is respondents well She refers to the “Daddy” as “Mom” and progressed physically both mentally. support finding is no There evidence to that the by uprooting interests be child’s would best served her after Lum, approximately year present in her environment. See supra. judgment of the district court is affirmed. Affirmed. J., dissenting. C.
Krivosha, consistency hobgoblin said It is is the of small minds. my hobgoblins, it is While not desire to run with the consistency nevertheless I do believe that in this case is dissent in Lum fully my For reasons more set out in desirable. Mattley, 208 Neb. (1981), I likewise Perhaps dissent in this case. problem the solution to the and the apparent inconsistency Legislature. lies with the position agencies inconsistent we have created between licensed private not, on the one hand placement on the other does my view, legally make much policy. sense either or as a matter of *6 Belsky County Dodge , appellants, Lawrence et al. al., appellees. et
369N.W.2d 46 May 31, 1985. Filed No. 83-870. Hurt, Flores, appellants. Gallant & for Skokan, Dean Dodge County Attorney, JJ., Boslaugh, Hastings, Caporale, Shanahan, Colwell, D.J., Retired.