*1 county requested occu- certificate of had the issued moot because pancy points party. property Cleland to a third was sold only estoppel specified during collateral the court specifies moot- order decision, the court’s written for its a basis (although summary judgment ground dismis- for ness as disposition appeal). After the writ- of moot sal for reconsideration entered, Cleland moved ten order was basing intent the court on mootness decision upon hearing. The acted Cleland’s court has not declared at the based its decision on motion, and must conclude that estoppel. ground as collateral of mootness as well against injunction issuance of This not a in which an case sought. Compare occupancy Branch relief certificate of v. Housing Atlanta, Auth. &c. against restraining asking for a addition certificate, judgment sought declaratory Cleland issuance of the iousness, litig- zoning meaning ordinance, fees for stubborn property. damages sur- of her These claims value is not moot. certificate so the action below vive the issuance J., J, Smith, P. concur. reversed. Judge pro Rodatus, hac vice.

Stanley appellant. Kreimer, Jr., E.

Caryl Stephens Webb, Sumner, Thomas, II, V. Karen G. Michael appel Anthony Powell, Powell, Wilson, J. O. L. Tanner lees. HICKS et al. v. et al. STARGEL

Andrews, Chief Stephen trial court’s Order adopt Adoption granting Stargels’ petition Final Hicks. to revoke their consent Jonathan ten-day was outside the the limit this revocation provided for in OCGA 19-8-9. The court found surrender of of Hickses had shown no parental rights reason affirm the and consent to the trial court. Stargels instituted the son, Jonathan, in care. their ten-month-old Hickses left staying time,

At the with relatives because longer afford to live on their left own. Stargel, Stephen cousin, Jonathan because Kim- Hicks’ berly spending all Hicks hurt her back and Hicks was his looking time for work. adopt Jonathan wanted to and asked up adoption couples lawyer, papers.

draw Both met with the and the *2 signed rights Hickses a surrender of and release for It is undisputed attorney explained that the the documents and had both parents parents signing. attorney explained read them before The also days.

that withdraw surrender within ten days later, Twelve the Hickses their consent. withdraw hearing petition adoption a court held at which represented by both the and Hickses were counsel. Follow- ing petition. hearing, the court entered an order

The court found that the Hickses were informed import signing content and the of the documents and also sufficiently intelligent that both read and understand the surrender and release. (b) provides parent OCGA that has the parental rights days; however,

withdraw a surrender of within ten “[a]fter days, may ten a surrender not be withdrawn.” This Court has recently rejected reasoning may that a surrender be withdrawn ten-day period ‘good and sufficient cause.’ In the Inter- D., est B. G. ingly, Accord- surrendering parent must show fraud or signing surrender, when then, contracts, all with the con- sent is invalidated and the surrender becomes Id. at voidable. 128- argue

Here, the Hickses the surrender was invalid because there conflicting regarding temporary was about “discussions cus- tody, agreement whether there was an visitation, for continued any hurry whether there was to conclude the whether the appointment [and] [the attorney] adoption custody, an or for by Stargels.”

whether the fear of DFCS was known deciding issues, these the trial court did fairly adop- not or scrutinize the tive given determining

The trial court is wide discretion matters in adoption proceedings, opportu- here, and when as the court has the nity question parties, and observe the “if the court’s supported by clearly erroneous, and is not (Citations punctuation court is not authorized to set it aside.” omitted.) Sexton, Schumacher v. 216 348) (1995), grounds, disapproved other on G. ofB. supra given at 128. The reasons the Hickses for inca- above, no evidence of consent, pacity show as set out Mrs. Hicks testified the consent. to invalidate attorney’s sign- in the office husband were that she and her adoption papers going She ing hour and half. for an over the copies given the attor- the documents before stated papers ney Mr. and Mrs. Hicks them. Both went over questioned signing. they Kimberly The court documents before read the could read whether as whether she Hicks detail replied Hicks and release. she understood graduate. questioned high she When school she was admitted gave up she wanted and then later decided she the child lawyer explained that this anwas also admitted the him back. She temporary. permanent, and that was through grade in tes- tenth school he went testified that tified that he read the

adoption papers. papers prepared he stated that who twice, once with of the documents went over the contents Stephen. as to He testified that there was no confusion and once with permanent adoption meant, and not tem- that it was what porary. pressure the Hickses to He also stated that sign comment he the document. The testified *3 adoptive parents in that context was that if the heard make child, them take and raise the then it would have Hickses wanted to be done to legally they Hickses to come because did want the away. Accordingly, cor- back later and take the child court rectly determined that there was no reason to revoke parental rights. surrender of Hickses’ improperly

2. The Hickses intervened parents. complain adopting on behalf of the court’s adoptive the trial questions designed to to the elicit evidence favorable totally unsupported by is cita- This enumeration Although appellants’ to that an attach- tions the record. brief states transcript court, ment lists citations of comments to certainly Moreover, it for the find attachment. any questions it nec- in this to ask and all deemed State, as factfinder essary e.g., See, to Haralson v. reach decision. (479 115) (1996) (trial judge App. to SE2d purpose developing question case). witnesses for the the truth of they enumeration, In the Hickses claim their last by payments food, to and child in the form of induced surrender their (a) transportation. lodging, OCGA 19-8-24 makes unlawful part anyone chil- to to with their to hold out inducements indi- ‘inducement’ include direct or dren. defines term except ‘payment of the or reimbursement rect financial assistance expenses directly pregnancy medical related to the mother’s and hos- pitalization for the birth child and medical care for the child.’ Douglas State, 263 Ga. living At the time of with Mrs. Stargel’s mother, who was also Hicks’ aunt. The Hickses claim that it is not to find that this was done with the unduly Hickses, intent influence but rather that it reflected on inability parties length agreement. to reach an arm’s disagree. The law that financial assistance must be part Douglas, supra order to induce the child. at offering it can While shelter to the Hickses is form of indirect assistance, financial part They point

was to no as an offered inducement to with their child. Id. showing the record that Mr. Hicks’ aunt took them give up in on the condition that (the point Stargels’ testimony The Hickses also Stargels) buying baby’s diapers, milk, clothes, and bottles. baby But, the Hickses admit left the with the before the care and and asked them to care him. Since the request, they

feeding was done at the Hickses’ cannot now claim that it was an inducement to with the child. 893) See (1989) (other Y., In the Interest A. M. 189 Ga. assumption obligation provide than of the financial care for the there was no financial inducement or consideration mother). flowing petitioner biological Beasley, specially. J., concurs affirmed. judgment only. J.,P. concurs in the Judge, concurring specially.

Beasley, judgment, following qualifications. I concur in with the respect 1. The measures provided by their reasons for consent, the test law for revocation of surrender of their son. The states that (presumably by preponderance) Hickses must show evidence "of invalidate their consent.” In B. G. 124, *4 of (1996), agreed (by whole court that a can if set aside evidence) preponderating it was fraud, "based grounds or other which address the voluntariness of the consent.” We keep language; should the exact is a as it court-created rather than statutory legal repeatedly, test, it will be used and it is crucial to the finality adoptions. of Further, states that “the

[shelter] was offered as an to requirement inducement with their child.” As authority proof for the establishment of this of of fact Douglas proof, State, v. and burden of 361) say (1994), that “In order does in that case is cited. The (a) (2), assistance must be . . . the financial to violate ‘part’ there their child.” The Court is to induce interpreting construing mean that the it to statute and a criminal prove statute doubt. This this fact reasonable State must proceeding implications well, in as in the context of put requirement proof on the sur- fact that the same rendering purpose. State, for a different but as surrendering parents prove a criminal act. The The State seeks prove, evidence, was not vol- that the surrender this same seek illegally untary That induced. as law because was a matter of supra. grounds” referred to in B. G. of the “other would be one helps put known that in context when proceeding began April was a when the September. 17, 1995. The child born October and concluded Judge Stevens. appellants. Pickett, Mathis, for Thurmond, & Janice L. Mathis appellees. Swan, Swan, Jr., B. Knox William HASH v. THE STATE. Ruffin, by receiving. jury guilty In his sole A found Hash theft argues error, that the evidence was insufficient enumeration of Hash support follow, For which we affirm. his conviction. reasons conviction, evidence must be “‘On from a criminal light [Hash] no verdict, viewed most favorable longer enjoys presumption innocence; moreover, an or witness does not determine is sufficient under determines whether the evidence Virginia, LE2d 443 U. SC standard of Jackson v. S. 560) ((1979)). competent long is some ... As there support to make out contradicted, each fact Leigh [Cit.]” jury’s upheld.’ will be . . . State’s verdict (2) (478 State, favorably support verdict, record Construed most dating following. Fries, her Hash Merri who lived with shows Georgia. County, Phillip, While at son, in a trailer home in Cherokee evening, Phillip Merri trailer one Hash and decided visit home nearby men drove in where she The two Waffle House worked.