Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
In Re Adoption of a Minor
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 204 F.2d 55
Argued March 9, 1953.Decided March 26, 1953
Mr. Arthur L. Willcher, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. W. Edwin Cumberland and Donald Cefaratti, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Richard H. Love, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The case was here before in In re Adoption of a Minor, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 107, 194 F.2d 325. We then remanded because of the absence of a definite showing that the District Court had considered and [92 U.S.App.D.C. 164] reached a decision that the consent of the natural father to the adoption, which consent had been withheld, could be dispensed with upon any of the grounds specified in the applicable statute, Sec. 16-202, D.C. Code (1940 and 1951). Our decision left to the sound discretion of the District Court whether the record need be opened for further evidence. In the proceedings consequent upon the remand, now before us, the District Court disposed of the case on the record previously made. It is clear that this was done in the exercise of a sound discretion. No contention to the contrary is made.
The adoption decree is now supported by sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recites that it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the consent of the natural father should be dispensed with for extraordinary cause shown, one of the statutory grounds. The evidence supports the findings and these, with the conclusions of law, support the decree. It is almost inevitable that the outcome of this difficult and trying case, as the court below characterized it, should not be satisfactory to the father; but we find no basis for setting aside the decree. It accordingly is
Affirmed.