Bidwell V Mcsorely Case Study

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Attorney s appearing for the Case E. Bivins, A. Jeffery Bivins, Newport News, for defendant in error. Jerold M. Bidwell and Marjorie McKie Bidwell, husband and wife defendants in the trial court prosecute this appeal alleging that they are aggrieved by a final order of the trial court entered on October 1,revoking an interlocutory order of adoption. The Bidwells filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Elizabeth City county on Bidwell V Mcsorely Case Study 7,seeking the adoption and change of name of "Baby Gary", the infant son of Viola McSorley, who had executed a consent agreement for the adoption.

The usual order of reference descriptive essay entered on January 12,and after an investigation the Welfare Department made its report to the court. The report was favorable and recommended the entry of the interlocutory order which was accordingly entered on April 14, The order was pursuant to sectionVirginia Code,1 and the applicable provisions of this section were included therein.

On July 12,Viola McSorley, the mother of the infant, gave notice that she would file a petition seeking to have the interlocutory order vacated.

Roe V. Wade Abortion Case Study

On cross-examination Miss McSorley stated that she told Dr. Jones prior to the birth that https://modernalternativemama.com/wp-content/custom/personal-statement/hsc-belonging-peter-skrzynecki-and-ben-heine.php wished to conceal the birth; that while it was a hard thing to do, The American Identity was for the welfare of the baby that it be placed for adoption; that she decided on August 23,to pursue this Bidwell V Mcsorely Case Study that she had made no provision for clothing the baby as she expected to leave it at the hospital; that she checked out of the hospital between and p.

She further stated that her home was in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that her mother lived there; that she came to Newport News by bus for the purpose of giving birth to the baby and where she could be with a Mrs. Vick, an Army nurse friend; that the father of the baby was a boy she had gone with for three years, that she thought he was not married but "don't know if he was or not"; that she was a registered nurse and had served overseas with the Army Nursing Corps. When asked how she would provide for the baby if the court returned it to her, she stated that her mother had agreed to come from Milwaukee to attend Bidwell V Mcsorely Case Study the baby while she worked; that she was engaged to a Naval man now stationed in Trinidad, that his tour of duty would continue for two more years and they could not marry until he returned to the States in the spring of ; that her prospective husband knew the circumstances regarding the baby and desired to adopt the child as he was not physically capable, due link an accident, of having children of his own.

Dolly Hughes Vick testified for Miss McSorley and stated that she did not think Miss McSorley realized the purport of the adoption agreement when she signed it at p. However, she admitted that on August 23,while in Dr. Jones' office, Miss McSorley made a definite decision to place the baby for adoption and for this reason the baby was never shown to its mother. Jones, called as a witness for the Bidwells, testified that Miss McSorley was referred to him Bidwell V Mcsorely Case Study Mrs. Vick; that as she was a trained nurse he made no charge for his services; that the placing of the baby for adoption was discussed with him by the mother days before its birth; that the mother had made up her mind to so place the baby and that she knew what she was signing when the consent for adoption was executed; that she discussed the signing of the consent after its execution and said she had done so for the best interests of the child.

The doctor's evidence as to Miss McSorley's condition is fully corroborated by the notary public who took the acknowledgment to the consent for adoption and also the trained nurse who was present when it was signed.]

Recommend: Bidwell V Mcsorely Case Study

ROBOTIC SURGERY ESSAY	991
Bidwell V Mcsorely Case Study	Influential people
Free revision	Opinion for Bidwell v. McSorley, Va. — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. BIDWELL v. McSORLEY Email \| Print \| Comments (0) View Case; Citing Case ; 72 S.E.2d () Va. BIDWELL et ux. v. McSORLEY. Supreme Court The case was heard ore tenus and a memorandum of opinion was filed by the court. On October 1, Jul 21, · Page 72 S.E.2d (Va. ) Va. JEROLD M. BIDWELL AND MARJORIE MCKIE BIDWELL. v. VIOLA MCSORLEY. No. Supreme Court of Virginia. September 10,

Bidwell V Mcsorely Case Study.

Bidwell V Mcsorely Case Study - have

Bivins and A Jeffery Bivins, for the defendant in error. Present, Hudgins, C. Appellants instituted a proceeding for the purpose of adopting a small child and an interlocutory order of adoption had been entered, when appellee, the mother of the infant, filed her petition seeking to have the interlocutory order vacated. She alleged that she gave her consent to the adoption only a few hours after the birth of the child while she was still under the influence of the drugs and that she had executed the same without realizing the character of her act. The evidence indicated, however, that the signing of the consent was simply carrying into effect a preconceived plan to conceal the birth of this illegitimate child and to place it for adoption. No legal reason was established for disturbing the interlocutory order and it could not be set aside simply because the consenting mother had changed her mind. The interlocutory order of adoption contemplated by of the Code of Virginia of is for the purpose of giving the Welfare Department an opportunity to visit the home of the adopting parents, to see that the child is being properly cared for, thereby forming some opinion as to the child's future should it be permitted to remain in the home. The expression, "for good cause shown" employed by of the Code of Virginia of providing for the revocation of an interlocutory order of adoption means that the court may take into consideration matters discovered during the pendency of the order, and if there is an unfavorable change in the situation and good cause is shown as to why the adoption should not be consummated, then the statute may be employed and the interlocutory order vacated. The expression "for good cause shown" employed by of the Code of Virginia of providing for the revocation of an interlocutory order of adoption, means more than the simple changing of the mind by the parent who has given consent to the adoption. Where the consent has been freely and knowingly given and where it has been acted upon, it cannot be arbitrarily revoked.