Moore v. Asente

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky considers a custody dispute arising from the breakdown of a proposed interstate private adoption. The court holds that the birth parents' adoption consents were invalid because they were misinformed about the consents' legal effect, but that the prospective adoptive parents nevertheless had standing to seek custody. Because the birth parents waived their superior custody rights by placing the child for adoption and allowing the prospective adoptive parents to retain physical custody, the court remands for a custody determination based on the child's best interests.

Holdings

1. Kentucky retained jurisdiction over the custody proceeding. The ICPC does not govern jurisdictional conflicts in this case, and the UCCJA authorized Kentucky jurisdiction because Kentucky was the child's home state within six months before commencement and Ohio had previously declined to exercise jurisdiction in favor of Kentucky.
2. The trial court's finding that Moore and Dorning did not knowingly give voluntary and informed adoption consents was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous. The consents were therefore invalid and unenforceable.
3. The Asentes had standing to pursue custody because Justin was in their physical custody, rather than the physical custody of a parent, when the custody proceeding commenced.
4. The birth parents waived their superior custodial rights by voluntarily placing Justin with the Asentes for adoption, signing adoption consents and a voluntary termination petition, and delaying nearly six months before seeking judicial return. Custody must therefore be determined under the best-interest-of-the-child standard rather than an unfitness standard.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Kentucky retained jurisdiction over the custody dispute under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
2. Whether the birth parents' adoption consents were valid and enforceable when they were misinformed about the legal effect and revocability of the consents.
3. Whether the Asentes had standing under KRS 403.420(4)(b) to seek custody despite the invalidity of the adoption consents.
4. Whether custody should be determined under an unfitness standard or the best-interest-of-the-child standard after the birth parents waived their superior custodial rights.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded