revocation period where the parent consents a second time after revoking a prior consent within the previous year for that child (Sections 5-3A-19(b), 5- 3B-21(b)). Where the parent consents again, this consent cannot be revoked.4 These are just some of the more


beneficial changes to the code that were made by the subcommittee and the legislature.


The Rules Lag,


But Also Move Forward As these changes to the statute went


into effect, it was realized that many of the existing rules governing these cases found in Maryland Rules, Rule 9-101 et seq. conflicted with the new law. Fortunately, a number of the original subcommittee members worked with the Rules Committee of the Court of Appeals to make the necessary changes. Unfortunately, once the rules were reviewed in depth, it became clear that the changes required other rules be completely rewritten also. Therefore, over the next 18 months, the group and the Rules Committee labored to produce a major rewrite of the rules.5


Finally, the


new rules reflecting the revised code were approved and issued by the Court of Appeals on July 1, 2007. In general, the rules tracked changes in the code, giving much more distinction between the types of proceedings – public agency, private agency and independent. The most notable change in the rules now probably is the rejection of the prior two form consents which were included to be used in all cases. The group recognized that one size did not fit all when it came to these consents: agency termination of parental rights involved different issues than independent adoptions; periods of revocation of consents were different;


5


Unfortunately, pending the revision of the Rules, practitioners and courts were in a difficult situation with the Statute varying dramatically from what was outlined in the existing Rules. It was difficult in many cases to know what applied. During this period there was much confusion.


50


and there could be proceedings where the parents’ rights could be preserved after adoption, such as in a stepparent adoption. The new rules were redrawn to offer five separate consents to be used by parents and two consents to be used by children in the various circumstances and procedures (Md. Rules, Rule 9-102.1 et seq.). The practitioner now merely has to go to that consent which is appli- cable to the type of case before him. As a result, there is little or no re-drafting required to obtain a consent specific to that proceeding. Also, the different consents were


importantly revised in a manner that makes them much more user friendly and understandable for the parent. They now include clear basic instructions and information the parent can under- stand, followed by the part the parent executes.


The Future of Adoption Law in Maryland


While this revision of the Adoption


Code is a giant step forward, there are many issues that were not resolved that will continue to be debated and possibly changed by the legislature in the future. For example, will Maryland continue to have one of the longest parental revoca- tion of consent periods in the United States? This has been a contentious issue within the legislature in the past and certainly will be in the future. The changes made to the language by this code revision have been a step forward, however many would argue that the rule is still too inflexible. It is argued that a parent should be permitted to waive the right to revoke the consent if they choose. Often, the parent (and the adoptive parent) find the 30-day period very difficult. Therefore, should the legislature choose to allow waiver of the revocation period or even reduce the revocation period from 30 days to a lesser time such as 15 days? These issues no doubt will continue to be debated. Other issues will certainly be debated


in the near future. On the horizon is the question of whether Maryland should


Trial Reporter


establish what is known as a putative fathers’ registry. The legislatures in more than 30 states have enacted such legislation that creates a form of state registry which protects the rights of an unwed father. In these states, when a man believes he may have fathered a child out of wedlock, he may protect his rights to the child by filing a notice with the appropriate state agency within the statutory notification period. So long as the “putative” father files as required, he is allowed to challenge the adoption. Unlike Maryland, where the onus is on the adoption agency or the adoptive par- ents pursuing the adoption to locate the father and give notification, these states place the obligation on the alleged father to protect his own rights. If the putative father sleeps on his rights and does not take action to protect his rights, he loses them. A putative fathers’ registry will doubt-


lessly be the subject of increasing concern in the future with more states creating similar statutes. This development will also hasten legislation advancing in Congress for a national putative fathers’ registry. Many commentators believe that in order to protect fathers’ rights in our increasingly mobile society, the es- tablishment of interlinking or a national database of linked registries is called for. See, Beck, Toward a National Putative Fathers’ Registry Database (Adoptions), Harvard Law Review (Summer 2002). Maryland will certainly be faced with considering this as congressional sup- port for a national database is increasing and legislation in Washington, known as the Proud Fathers’ Act, is moving forward and will soon be introduced. Another important question for the


future is whether the code is too restric- tive in limiting what can be paid to a parent when there is an adoption – only legal fees, counseling and medical. With many states allowing payment of living expenses such as rent for a set period, generally with court approval, is Mary- land too limited? Is it fair to prohibit Maryland adoptive parents from provid- ing such expense payments with court approval when out of state citizens are


Winter 2008


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64