State of West Virginia ex rel. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Child Support Division, on Behalf of Laura F. M. and Joseph Charles C. v. Honorable Danny O. Cline, Judge of the Circuit Court of Braxton County, and Mark Edward C., No. 23411 (W. Va. July 8, 1996) (Workman, J.):
Prohibiting DNA testing where the father had signed an affidavit of paternity at the time of the child's birth, the Court held that (1) a written acknowledgment of paternity, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 48A-6-6(b), shall include (i) filing instructions, (ii) the social security numbers and addresses of the parents, and (iii) a statement regarding the rights and obligations of the man acknowledging paternity, including, but not limited to, the duty to support the child; (2) failure to include all of the information statutorily required in an acknowledgment of paternity will not affect its validity in the absence of evidence of fraud and/or duress; and (3) an written, notarized acknowledgment of paternity by both the man and the mother, in the absence of fraud or duress, that the man is the biological father of the child establishes, legally and irrevocably, the man as the father of the child for all purposes, including child support.
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ex rel. Brenda Wright, Social Service Worker v. Doris S. and Rosalee S. and West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ex rel. Brenda Wright, Social Service Worker v. Melissa C., Brian "S." C., Larry "M." C., Joseph E., David E., and any known and unknown putative father or fathers of the infant children, Brian "S."C. and Larry "M."C., David E., No. 23156 and West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ex rel. Brenda Wright, Social Service Worker v. Doris S. and Rosalee S. and West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources ex rel. Brenda Wright, Social Service Worker v. Melissa C., Brian "S." C., Larry "M." C., Joseph E., David E., and any known and unknown putative father or fathers of the infant children, Brian "S."C. and Larry "M."C., Melissa C. and Doris S., No. 23157 (W. Va. July 8, 1996) (Workman, J.):
Affirming the termination of parental rights where no one present in a home at the time of another infant's death could explain the possible cause of such death, the Court held that (1) an abused child includes one whose parent fails to cooperate with authorities in identifying the perpetrator of physical abuse of the child or another child in the abused child's household; (2) a parent's silence in the face of competent evidence of abuse and/or neglect may create an inference of of such parent's guilt; (3) child abuse and/or neglect includes permitting another adult in the parent's household to abuse and/or neglect other children in the household, regardless of the familial relationships among the parties; (4) the term "knowingly" in W. Va. Code § 49-1-3(a)(1) includes not only actual knowledge, but where the parent should have known that abuse has occurred; and (5) parental rights can be terminated where (i) there is clear and convincing evidence that a parent "knowingly" allowed another adult to inflict serious physical injury on another child living in the household, regardless of the familial relationships among the parties, and (ii) where there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected because the perpetrator has not been identified and the parent has not cooperated with authorities in their attempts to identify the perpetrator.
State of West Virginia ex rel. Roy Allen S. v. Honorable Robert B. Stone, Judge of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, Thomas S., and Tina Marie P.S., No. 23355 (W. Va. June 14, 1996) (Cleckley, J.):
Establishing the right of a putative biological father to institute paternity proceedings although the child was born during the mother's marriage to another man, the Court held (1) when an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by coming forward to participate in the rearing of his child, his interest in personal contact with his child warrants substantial protection under the due process provisions of the federal and state constitutions; (2) in the absence of special circumstances, a petition by a putative biological father seeking to establish his paternity of a child born during the mother's marriage to another man, if such petition is contested, may not proceed unless it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that (i) he has established a substantial paternal relationship with the child and (ii) the child will not be harmed by allowing the paternity action to proceed; (3) when a putative biological father institutes a paternity action, the child must be joined as a party and a guardian ad litem appointed; (4) when a paternity action is filed under these circumstances, the circuit court should conduct a preliminary hearing to determine whether the preconditions to such action are present; (5) in determining whether to order blood testing under these circumstances, the most important factor is the child's best interests; (6) circuit court decisions regarding the propriety of these types of paternity actions and the need for blood testing will be subject to abuse of discretion appellate review; and (7) because these proceedings are equitable in nature, equitable defenses, such as the doctrine of laches, are available, and attorney fees may be imposed for vexatious or groundless actions.
State of West Virginia ex rel. Amy M., Shane B., II, Jesse B., Matthew B., and Travis B. v. Hon. Tod J. Kaufman, Judge of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, Betty Jo B., and Shane B., No. 23212 (W. Va. April 8, 1996) (Workman, J.): ___ W. Va. ___, 470 S.E.2d 205:
Issuing a writ of prohibition against a post-adjudicatory improvement period, the Court held a writ of prohibition may be used to restrain courts from granting improvement periods of greater duration than permitted under W. Va. Code §§ 49-6-2(b) and 49-6-5(c).
In the Interest of: Tiffany Marie S., Taylor Brooks S., Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, No. 23198 (W. Va. March 20, 1996) (Cleckley, J.): ___ W. Va. ___, 470 S.E.2d 177:
Affirming the termination of parental rights, the Court held that findings of fact in an abuse and neglect cause will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, i.e., when, though there is evidence to support the findings, the reviewing court is convinced that a mistake has been committed.
State of West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, et al. v. Robert Morris N., No. 22916 (W. Va. December 15, 1995) (Workman, J.): 195 W.Va. 759, 466 S.E.2d 827:
Reversing an order limiting the retroactivity of a child support award in a paternity action to the date of commencement of the paternity proceedings, the Court held that reimbursement child support should be made retroactive to the child's date of birth, absent proof of laches or another affirmative defense.
In the Matter of Lindsey C., No. 23065 (W. Va. December 14, 1995) (Albright, J.):
Reversing an order terminating parental rights for a mother who was hospitalized for mental illness in another state during the pendency of the proceedings and for whom no guardian ad litem was appointed, the Court held that (1) the appointment of a guardian ad litem is required for parents in abuse and neglect proceedings who are involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness and (2) service of process on a guardian ad litem for a parent involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness, but whose legal capacity has not been terminated by law, cannot serve as a substitute for service on the parent for purposes of an abuse and neglect proceeding.
In the Matter of Brian D., No. 22558 (W. Va. July 19, 1995) (Workman, J.): 194 W.Va. 623, 461 S.E.2d 129:
Reversing a termination of parental rights where no meaningful improvement period was provided, the Court reiterated the importance of the requirement, as well as its recent holding in In re: Christina L., Nos. 22803 and 22804 (W. Va. July 11, 1995), that even where parental rights are ultimately terminated, continued contact between a parent and child may be appropriate where it is in the best interest of the child.
James Garland Casdorph, Jr. v. Shela Gail Casdorph, No. 22687 (W. Va. July 13, 1995) (Workman, J.): 194 W.Va. 490, 460 S.E.2d 736:
Where adult became disabled at age nineteen, the Court affirmed resurrection of a support obligation on the noncustodial parent, holding that a disabled adult's entitlement to financial support by a noncustodial parent is not determined solely by whether the disability occurred before or after the age of majority, but if it can be concluded that the disabled person was never "emancipated" from his parent[s], a court may impose a duty of continued financial support.
In re: Christina L. and Kenneth J.L., Nos. 22803 and 22804. (W. Va. July 11, 1995) (Cleckley, J.): 194 W.Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692:
Reversing and remanding for further proceedings relating to termination of parental rights where the mother did not dispute termination as to one child who was sexually abused by her boyfriend, but did as to another child who was not sexually abused, the Court held (1) where one child has suffered physical and/or sexual abuse, another child residing in the home when the abuse took place, but who was not the direct victim of physical and/or sexual abuse, was nevertheless at risk of being abused and, accordingly, is an abused child under W. Va. Code § 49-1-3(a); (2) where parental rights are terminated, a court may nevertheless order continued visitation or contact if (i) it is in the best interest of the child, (ii) there is a close emotional bond, (iii) the child has expressed a mature wish for continued contact, and (iv) it will not be detrimental to the child's well-being; and (3) where parental rights termination is sought on the ground of abandonment, it should be specifically alleged in the petition and every effort should be made to comply with the notice provisions of W. Va. Code § 49-6-1.
Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., No. 22507 (W. Va. June 21, 1995) (Miller, J.): 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415:
Reversing a ruling that a mother's acknowledgement of another's paternity of her child precluded a subsequent action to establish another man as the father of her child, the Court held that statements by a natural mother in an adoption agreement that the adoptive father acknowledges paternity, when the adoption agreement is not subsequently consummated, does not constitute an acknowledgement of paternity under W. Va. Code § 48A-6-6(b) and, accordingly, does not bar a subsequent proceeding by the natural mother against another man to establish paternity.
State of West Virginia ex rel. David Allen B. v. Honorable A.L. Sommerville, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court of Webster County; West Virginia Department of Human Services; David Lloyd K.; and Edzel and Shirley K., No. 22874 (W. Va. June 15, 1995) (Recht, J.): 194 W.Va. 86, 459 S.E.2d 363:
Prohibiting a DNA test of the acknowledged father of a child ordered at the request of the deceased mother's parents, the Court held (1) once a man and a woman properly acknowledge that the man is the father of a child, absent a challenge to the acknowledgment by a person with standing, no blood testing shall be required to disestablish paternity and (2) although an alleged biological parent has standing to contest paternity, a grandparent has no such right.
State of West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Child Advocate Office ex rel. Travis Wade Cline, Minor Child of Kim Yvonne Cline v. Timothy P. Pentasuglia, No. 22028 (W. Va. April 14, 1995) (Workman, J.): 193 W.Va. 621, 457 S.E.2d 644:
Reversing the dismissal of a paternity action instituted twelve years after the birth of a child during the mother's marriage to another individual who was listed on the birth certificate as the child's biological father and who was ordered to pay child support upon their divorce three years prior to the paternity action, the Court held that (1) URESA permits a mother who resides in one state to establish that a resident of another state is the father of her child; (2) a West Virginia court may adjudicate the issue of paternity under URESA if (i) the West Virginia resident asserts that he is not the father, (ii) the defense is not frivolous, and (iii) the parties are present or the nature of the proof renders their presence unnecessary; (3) prior to dismissing any paternity hearing, a circuit court must order blood grouping tests; (4) when blood grouping tests are inconclusive, the circuit court should consider the equities, convenience, and justice to the parties, and should determine whether to determine paternity in a separate proceeding with all parties present; and (5) URESA may be employed to establish or enforce a support obligation even in the absence of a judicial order of support.
Ronda M. Derrow v. Ronnie Lee Burkey, No. 21935 (W. Va. February 23, 1995) (Fox, J.): 193 W.Va. 309, 456 S.E.2d 36:
Where cohabitant alleged that other cohabitant was not the father of her two children born during the period of their cohabitation, the Court reversed an order awarding custody to the male cohabitant, holding that when paternity of children is contested in a domestic relations proceeding, the family law master must conduct a full and fair hearing on the issue and set forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding paternity.
In the Interest of Renae Ebony W., a child under the age of 18 years, No. 22556 (W. Va. December 21, 1994) (Workman, J.): 192 W.Va. 421, 452 S.E.2d 737:
Reversing a circuit court decision that ratified emergency removal of a child from the custody of her parents, but returned the child to those parents for a three-month improvement period, the Court held that where a child is initially removed from the custody of his or her parents pursuant to W. Va. Code § 49-6-3, and where such emergency removal is ratified upon a finding of imminent danger, the child shall remain in the temporary legal and physical custody of the State or some responsible relative and out of the allegedly abusive home during the improvement period until the circumstances which constitute an imminent danger cease to exist or until the alleged abuser has been precluded from residing in or visiting the home.
Mildred L.M. v. John O.F., No. 22037 (W. Va. December 8, 1994) (Cleckley, J.): 192 W.Va. 345, 452 S.E.2d 436:
Reversing a verdict in a paternity case where a jury apparently did not find persuasive blood test evidence establishing a 99% probability, the Court held (1) where proper testing procedures are established by a preponderance of the evidence and the expert witness who interpreted the results was qualified, courts may take judicial notice of the accuracy and reliability of HLA blood-tissue test results in paternity cases that are introduced pursuant to W. Va. Code § 48A-6-3, and (2) under W. Va. Code § 48A-6-3, undisputed blood or tissue test results indicating a statistical probability of paternity of more than ninety-eight percent are conclusive on the issue of paternity and the trial court should enter judgment accordingly.
Sharon Alonzo v. Jacqueline F., adult; Rick F., adult; Phillip F., infant; and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, No. 22181 (W. Va. May 20, 1994) (Miller, J.): 191 W.Va. 248, 445 S.E.2d 189:
Rejecting an attempt by a mother to place her child for adoption against the wishes of the Department of Health and Human Resources during the course of abuse and neglect proceedings, the Court held that where an abuse and neglect petition has been filed against a parent, such parent may not confer rights on a third party by executing a consent to adopt during the pendency of the proceedings.
State of West Virginia ex rel. S.C. v. Gretchen Lewis Chafin, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Resources; and James Kirby, Director, Laurel Park Pressley Ridge School, No. 22090 (W. Va. April 22, 1994) (McHugh, J.): 191 W.Va. 184, 444 S.E.2d 62:
Directing Department of Health and Human Resources compliance with statutory provisions designed to protect children, the Court held (1) whether or not a court orders immediate transfer of custody pursuant to W. Va. Code § 49-6-3(a), if the court finds there is imminent danger to a child, it may schedule a preliminary hearing; (2) the court may order that a child be placed in the temporary custody of DHHR or some other person for a period of 60 days if the court finds, following the preliminary hearing, that no alternative less drastic will adequately protect the child; (3) if, in addition to finding no less drastic alternative, the court finds, following the preliminary hearing, that the child has been abused and/or neglected, then the court and DHHR, no later than 60 days after the temporary custody placement, must proceed with disposition of the child in accordance with W. Va. Code § 49-6-5; (4) pursuant to W. Va. Code § 49-6-5(a), DHHR must, in conjunction with parental rights termination proceedings, file with the court a copy of the child's case plan, including the permanency plan for the child; (5) W. Va. Code § 49-6-5(a) defines a case plan as a written document which includes, where applicable, the requirements of a family case plan pursuant to W. Va Code § 49-6D-3, as well as the additional requirements of W. Va. Code § 49-6-5(a); (6) the court must proceed to disposition, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 49-6-5(a), including possible temporary placement with the DHHR if the parent(s) are unwilling or unable to adequately care for the child; (7) DHHR shall file with the court a petition for review, a report detailing efforts to find a permanent placement, and a copy of the child's case plan, if the child has not been placed in permanent foster care, in an adoptive home, or with a natural parent, within one year of the receipt of physical custody, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 49-6-8(a); upon a petition for one-year review, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 49-6-8(a), the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether and under what conditions custody shall continue with DHHR, to determine what efforts are necessary to provide the child with a permanent home, and to enter an appropriate order in accordance with the best interests of the child; (8) a court shall retain jurisdiction as long as a child remains in temporary foster care; and (9) DHHR must file a report with the court, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 49-6-8(d), where any child in its temporary or permanent custody receives more than three placements in one calendar year no later than 30 days after the third placement.
Cleo A.E. v. Rickie Gene E. v. Amber Dawn E. and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, No. 21704 (W. Va. December 16, 1993) (Workman, C.J.): 190 W.Va. 543, 438 S.E.2d 886:
Where parents sought to stipulate to paternity of child, the Court reversed, holding that (1) the parties to a domestic relations proceeding cannot by stipulation agree to bastardize children born during the marriage and (2) a child has a right to independent representation to establish paternity and support.
Georgia Boarman v. Raymond T. Boarman, No. 21814 (W. Va. December 15, 1993) (Workman, C.J.): 190 W.Va. 533, 438 S.E. 2d 876:
Remanding a child custody case for additional proceedings, including the involvement of child protective services, the Court held (1) Rule 34(b) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Family Law provides that where there have been allegations of abuse and neglect in a divorce proceeding, the family law master or circuit judge may order an investigation or home study of one or both of the parties; (2) Rule 34(b) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that when a family law master or circuit judge finds that a child has been neglected or abused, the family law master or the circuit judge shall report the abuse in accordance with the provisions of W. Va. Code 49-6A-2; and (3) when serious allegations of child abuse and neglect are made in a custody case, the family law master or circuit judge should direct the Department of Health and Human Resources to intervene and conduct home studies.
State of West Virginia ex rel. Division of Human Services, on Behalf of Breezy R.M., Who Sues by Her Next Friend, Mary C.M. v. Benjamin P.B., No. 21605 (W. Va. October 18, 1993) (Brotherton, J.): 190 W.Va. 81, 436 S.E.2d 627:
Rejecting a putative father's attempt to recover attorney fees from the department of health and human resources after paternity testing revealed that he was not the biological father of the child in question, the Court held that the Child Advocate Office has a duty to assist parents and children in determining paternity and establishing support from the absent parent and must only act with a good faith belief that the petition for paternity or support is based on accurate information.
In re: Lacey, Shanna and Nicholas P., and Michelle S., No. 21528 (W. Va. June 24, 1993) (Brotherton, J.): 189 W.Va. 580, 433 S.E.2d 518:
In a case of alleged neglect in litigation for three years, the Court affirmed the termination of parental rights and assistance to the mother in her wish to be surgically sterilized, the Court held (1) neither W. Va. Code § 49-6-2(b) nor W. Va. Code § 49-6-5(c) mandate an improvement period of twelve months; (2) a trial court may terminate an improvement period before the end of twelve months if it is determined that the parents are not making satisfactory progress; and (3) the only minimum improvement period is the three-months contained in W. Va. Code § 49-6-2(b).
In re: Jeffrey R. L., juvenile, No. 21535 (W. Va. June 14, 1993) (McHugh, J.): 190 W.Va. 24, 435 S.E.2d 163:
Where an infant had clearly been abused, but neither parent admitted the abuse, accused the other parent, or accused any person with access to the infant, the Court terminated their parental rights, holding that (1) parental rights may be terminated where there is clear and convincing evidence of severe physical abuse while in the custody of the parents if there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions which resulted in the abuse can be substantially corrected because the abuser has not been identified and the parents, even in the face of knowledge of the abuse, have taken no action to identify the abuser; (2) every child in an abuse and neglect case has a right to effective assistance of counsel, which includes the presence of counsel at every stage of the proceeding and an independent investigation of the facts; and (3) an attorney who is appointed as a guardian ad litem for a child in an abuse and neglect proceeding should follow guidelines which were adopted in conjunction with this case.
State of West Virginia v. James R., II, No. 20933 (W. Va. October 9, 1992) (Brotherton, J.): 188 W.Va. 44, 422 S.E.2d 521:
Applying W. Va. Code § 49-6-4(a), the Court held that no evidence acquired from a parent or custodian as the result of examinations performed in the course of abuse and neglect proceedings may be used in any subsequent criminal proceedings.
In the Interest of Carlita B., No. 19899 (W. Va. July 29, 1991) (Workman, J.): 185 W.Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365:
Affirming the termination of parental rights of a mother's infant daughter, the Court held (1) the status and progress of child neglect and abuse cases should be monitored by the judicial system; (2) the development of family case plans should be a multidisciplinary effort; (3) child neglect and abuse cases should receive high priority in the judicial system; and, (4) introduction of evidence in parental rights termination cases of prior acts of neglect or abuse toward children in general to show a neglectful or abusive disposition toward children does not violate W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b).
James M., Timothy M., Ike S. M. and Brandon C. M., infants under the age of eighteen years v. Honorable Elliott E. Maynard, Judge of the Circuit Court of Mingo County, and Steve M., No. 19948 (W. Va. July 29, 1991) (Workman, J.): 185 W.Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400:
Overturning the award of an improvement period to the father of four sons, the Court held (1) abandonment of a child constitutes compelling circumstances sufficient to justify the denial of an improvement period; (2) whenever possible, a change in custody of children should be accomplished gradually in order to foster emotional adjustment to the change; (3) whenever parental rights are terminated, siblings should be placed together if it is in their best interests; and, (4) the duties of a guardian ad litem in abuse and neglect proceedings do not end until the child is placed in a permanent home.
In the Matter of Scottie D., Rebecca W., Patsy D., and Crystal D., Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, No. 19676 (W. Va. June 14, 1991) (McHugh, J.): 185 W.Va. 191, 406 S.E.2d 214:
Reversing a trial court's refusal to terminate the parental rights of a father whose children were abused by their mother, the Court held that where one parent knowingly refrains from intervening to prevent the abuse of a child by the other parent or where one parent supports the other parent's version of how a child's injuries occurred despite clear and convincing medical evidence to the contrary, termination of the nonparticipating parent's rights is proper under W. Va. Code § 49-6-1 to 49-6-10. On a procedural issue, the Court further held that a guardian ad litem, appointed pursuant to W. Va. Code § 49-6-2(a) to protect the interests of a child in a parental rights termination case, has a duty to appeal any decision which, in the guardian's reasonable judgment, is contrary to the best interests of the child.
Michael K.T. v. Tina L.T., No. 18989 (W. Va. December 21, 1989) (Workman, J.): 182 W.Va. 399, 387 S.E.2d 866:
Although the Court reaffirmed the common law presumption of legitimacy of children conceived or born during marriage, the Court held that: (1) when an action is initiated to rebut the common law presumption of legitimacy, a guardian ad litem should be appointed to represent the child's interests; (2) when the putative father has represented himself to be the father of the child, he may be equitable estopped, under certain circumstances, from submitted blood test evidence to rebut the presumption of legitimacy; and, (3) blood test evidence may be admitted to rebut the presumption of legitimacy if the facts and circumstances warrant the admission of such evidence.
Leonard Douglas Honaker v. Robert A. Burnside, Jr., Special Appointed Judge of Greenbrier County, West Virginia; and Bradley W. Tuckwiller, No. 19372 (W. Va. December 21, 1989) (Workman, J.): 182 W.Va. 448, 388 S.E.2d 322:
In affirming a circuit court's imposition of a transition period of six months for implementation of an award of custody to the natural father of a three-year-old child whose natural mother was killed in an automobile accident, the Court held that although, in the absence of abandonment or misconduct, custody of a child should rest with the natural parent, visitation to a stepparent or half-sibling may be award if such visitation is in the best interest of the child.
In the Matter of: Jonathan P., No. 19229 (W. Va. November 30, 1989) (Miller, J.): 182 W.Va. 302, 387 S.E.2d 537:
Where custody of six-month old baby was taken from mother after she continued to feed him regular milk, causing diarrhea, and slept in car in sub-freezing weather, despite offers of assistance from the Department of Human Services, the Court held: (1) W. Va. Code § 49-6-3 permits the immediate, temporary taking of custody of a child by the DOH where there exists "an imminent danger to the physical well-being of the child" and there are "no reasonably available alternatives to the removal of the child"; (2) request for an improvement period, under W. Va. Code § 49-6-2(b), must be made "prior to final hearing"; and, (3) termination of parental rights may be employed without the use of intervening less restrictive alternatives when there is no reasonable likelihood that conditions of neglect or abuse can be substantially corrected. Where, in addition to acts of neglect, the mother spent time between initial custody order and final custody hearing hitchhiking from coast-to-coast doing "psychic" research, with particular emphasis on ESP and clairvoyance, and where mother was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, the Court held there was sufficient evidence to support termination of parental rights.
Baby Boy R., an Infant, by His Next Friend, Patricia R. and Patricia R. v. Lori Velas, Protective Service Worker, W. Va. Department of Human Services, et al., No. 19015 (W. Va. November 3, 1989) (Brotherton, C.J.): 182 W.Va. 182, 386 S.E.2d 839:
Where mother executed a form permanently relinquishing parental rights four days after birth of child, but sought return of her baby seven days later, the Court held that "duress of circumstances" was not sufficient to render such relinquishment void, noting that such duress is almost invariably present when a natural parent makes the difficult decision to consent to the adoption of his or her child.