The following story was. . .related
to (International Social Service) by a county judge.
In 1950 the County Juvenile Court had occasion to make an investigation
relative to the background history of a couple who had made application
to the court, for adoption. The investigation of the court revealed
that Mr. M., the prospective adoptive father, drank excessively,
was unstable in his employment, and was suffering from a physical
disorder. Investigation concerning the prospective adoptive mother
revealed her to be an extremely tense and high-strung individual
with a prior history of nervous breakdowns. Marital discord was
noted in the family situation and there were several separations
between the prospective parents as a result of this marital discord.
As a result of this information, these people were rejected as prospective
adoptive parents by this court on the basis of marital instability.
This couple, at a later date, applied to still another adoption
agency, and after making an independent investigation the agency
arrived at the same conclusion and also turned this couple down
as prospective adoptive parents. At still a later date the couple
again made application with a third agency and that agency, based
upon the investigation material obtained during the prior two investigations,
plus a review of their own, turned down the family.
Approximately one year and a half ago, a local newspaper carried
in it a feature story on the placement of a child of Japanese birth
with a couple in that area. It was quickly learned that the adopting
couple was the very same couple that had been rejected by the court
as being unsuitable. Investigation revealed that the adoptive parents
had adopted the child by proxy in a proceeding in the country of
Japan and that no local court or unit of state government had in
any way been consulted relative to the desireability of this adoptive
placement. In view of this situation, and its prior history with
this court, the matter was presented to the attorney general’s
office of the State, for a ruling. After considerable delay and
with some degree of hesitation on the part of the attorney general,
it was finally his decision that there was nothing that any local
or State unit of government could do with regard to this particular
type of placement.