Spence-Chapin Adoption Service v. Polk, 29 N.Y.2d 196 (1971)

An unwed mother has a paramount right to the custody of her child, which can only be superseded by proof of abandonment, formal surrender of the child for adoption, or a showing of unfitness.

Summary

This case addresses the rights of an unwed mother to regain custody of her child after initially placing the child in foster care. The New York Court of Appeals held that absent abandonment, a valid surrender for adoption, or a showing of unfitness, the unwed mother has a paramount right to the custody of her child. The court rejected the foster parents’ claim to custody, emphasizing that the state’s power to remove a child from its parent is limited and should not be based on a comparison of which party could provide a “better” upbringing.

Facts

An unwed mother of Chinese descent gave birth to a child in 1968. Because of her family circumstances, she initially placed the child with the New York City Commissioner of Social Services for temporary care, but not for adoption. The Spence-Chapin agency then placed the child with the Polks as foster parents. The mother visited the child regularly. Later, the agency persuaded the mother to execute a written surrender of the child for adoption, conditioned on placement with parents of Chinese extraction. When the agency demanded the child’s return for adoption placement, the Polks refused, seeking to adopt the child themselves. The mother then demanded the return of the child, and the Commissioner of Social Services consented.

Procedural History

Spence-Chapin Adoption Service initiated proceedings to recover the child from the Polks. The mother also filed a proceeding to regain custody. The Family Court ruled in favor of the Polks, believing it was in the child’s best interest. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that absent abandonment, surrender, or unfitness, the mother was entitled to custody. The Polks appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether, absent abandonment, statutory surrender, or a finding of parental unfitness, can a court deprive a natural mother of the custody of her child based solely on a determination of the child’s best interests in the custody of foster parents?

Holding

No, because absent abandonment, a valid surrender, or a showing of parental unfitness, the natural mother is entitled to the custody of her child.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized the fundamental right of a parent to the custody of their child, stating, “Child and parent are entitled to be together, unless compelling reason stemming from dire circumstances or gross misconduct forbid it in the paramount interest of the child, or there is abandonment or surrender by the parent.” The court found no evidence of abandonment or unfitness on the part of the mother. The court highlighted that the mother’s surrender had been nullified by the Commissioner’s consent to return custody to her. The court rejected the argument that the Polks could provide a better upbringing, stating that the issue is not about comparing the quality of love or which family background is “best”. The court also underscored the importance of foster parents fulfilling their obligation to return the child on demand, as the Polks had breached their trust. The court quoted People ex rel. Kropp v. Shepsky, 305 N.Y. 465, 469, stating that “the burden rests, not, for instance, upon the mother to show that the child’s welfare would be advanced by being returned to her, but rather upon the non-parents to prove that the mother is unfit to have her child and that the latter’s well-being requires its separation from its mother.” The court further emphasized that absent a finding of unfitness, the mother’s consent is essential for adoption, and that the Polks being granted custody does not guarantee adoption. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, returning the child to her mother.