Angelic Adoptions and Domestic Placement of Congolese Immigrant’s Baby

World Relief resettles a pregnant teenager originally from DRC (and more recently from Tanzanian refugee camp) to Jacksonville,Florida. The 16 year old girl was raped in Tanzania and only speaks Swahili.

When she gives birth on November 2, 2010 she is approached in the hospital to place her child for adoption. She did not consent. On BOTH November 4 and November 5, 2010, she is taken to an unnamed law office in order to consent to adoption. She does NOT consent on either day.

Then on November 15, 2010, she and her sister were escorted to the law office of Charlene Francis, who is also executive director of Angelic Adoptions, Inc. A World Relief representative also was there. Her sister was supposed to serve as an interpreter, but her sister had only just enrolled in an English as a second language course three weeks prior and did not have a command of the English language yet. The mother ended up signing the adoption papers and that was filed in trial court along with termination of parental rights. (The mother was NOT notified of the termination of parental rights as she unknowingly signed a waiver of notice.) [ This is just outrageous!]

A pro bono lawyer filed to vacate the consent on February 14, 2011.

““Subsequent amendments to the initial motions culminated in the mother’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Terminating Mother’s Parental Rights and Amended Motion to Vacate and Set Aside the Consent to Adoption filed on December 5, 2011. Angelic Adoptions filed its Motion to Dismiss, which was granted by the trial court after legal argument by counsel and without an evidentiary hearing. During the court proceedings, an interpreter was provided to translate the proceedings into Swahili so the mother could participate. In thanking the interpreter at the conclusion of the hearing, the court explained that the cause had been reassigned to the circuit court’s dependency division for the reason that the family law division, where the case began, did not have interpreters and “it was a little chaotic because a lot of people showed up in [the family law judge’s] chambers and no one spoke English and no one in court admin[istration] spoke Swahili . . .”
 

Appeals court rules in mother’s favor by requiring an evidentiary hearing. This opinion was filed on May 21, 2012.

“In the order, the court found the mother’s request for relief to be “void” of any allegation of fraud by overt act; her allegations of the totality of the circumstances amounting to duress to be “unsupported by any authority”; and her motions to be lacking any allegations that her consent was involuntary and was not an “exercise of free choice or will,” or that her state of mind was caused by any improper or coercive conduct of Angelic Adoptions. (An additional paragraph contained in the order was an unintelligible sentence fragment which prevented any conscientious review.) We conclude the trial court’s order is legally without merit.
Appellant’s allegations of fraud, duress, and coercion were properly before the trial court and were sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing. Indeed, the mother alleged not only fraud but misrepresentation arising from Angelic Adoption’s failure “to provide a translation of the nature, effect, and consequence of the `Consent to Adoption’ paperwork in a language [the mother] understood . . ..” The pleading of misrepresentation is a separate and distinct basis for a motion for relief from judgment under rule 1.540(b)(3), along with “other misconduct by an adverse party.” In addition, we also conclude the mother’s allegation of duress based on section 63.082(7)(f), Florida Statutes (2010), and arising from the circumstances attendant to her signing of the Consent to Adoption, was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. If proven true, the lack of a proper translation of documents into a language the mother could comprehend not only potentially undermined the foundation of her consent to adoption, but the fundamental fairness of the entire proceedings.
An evidentiary hearing should have been held; basic tenets of due process require nothing less. In this regard, the United States Supreme Court’s decisions “have by now made plain beyond the need for multiple citation that a parent’s desire for and right to `the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children’ is an important interest that `undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.'” Lassiter v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981) (quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972)). Deference to that right was never afforded the mother in the present case. We understand that `”[r]elief from judgment . . . is directed to the sound discretion of the court and cannot be invoked as a matter of right.'” In re Adoption of Baby Girl “C”, 511 So.2d 345, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, 289 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)). However, we conclude the trial court below unquestionably abused that discretion in dismissing appellant’s motions without a full evidentiary hearing.
The cause is hereby REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Further proceedings are to be prioritized. BENTON, C.J., and THOMAS, J., CONCUR.”

See the case Leagle.com Case No. 1D12-16.

REFORM Puzzle Piece

 Hat tip to a reader for this information!