Missouri court sides with immigrant in adoption appeal

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that state adoption laws were not followed in terminating the parental rights of a Guatemalan woman who was caught up in a 2007 immigration raid and allowing her son to be adopted by an American couple.

But the decision doesn’t automatically return the now 4-year-old child to his birth mother, Encarnacion Bail Romero. The court instead ordered the completion of mandatory reports about Romero, the adoptive parents and the boy, and a new trial regarding Romero’s parental rights.

Judge Patricia Breckenridge, who wrote the majority opinion for the seven-member court, said another hearing would be required because the evidence in the case suggested abandonment. In a footnote, Breckenridge expressed concern about how the case played out, and three other judges indicated they would have reversed the adoption.

“Every member of this court agrees that this case is a travesty in its egregious procedural errors, its long duration and its impact on mother, adoptive parents and, most importantly, child,” Breckenridge wrote.

Romero was arrested during an immigration sweep at a poultry plant, and sentenced to two years in a federal prison after pleading guilty to aggravated identity theft. Since leaving prison last year, she has been seeking to regain custody of her son, Carlos, who has lived with Seth and Melinda Moser, of Carthage, since he was about 1 year old.

Another couple who had been helping Romero’s family care for Carlos after his mother’s arrest had contacted the Mosers about adopting him. The boy was born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen. Romero was not immediately deported after serving her sentence so she could challenge the adoption, according to her attorneys.

Joe Hensley, an attorney who represented the Mosers in the adoption, said the decision was the next best thing to the Supreme Court upholding the adoption. Hensley said the boy would remain with the Missouri couple until there could be an adoption proceeding.

“The main complaint, I guess, is there were a couple of reports that weren’t filed, and so we’ll get those reports and do it again,” Hensley said.

An attorney who represented Romero did not immediately return messages seeking comment

The Mosers’ attorneys argued that the court terminated Romero’s parental rights after determining she had not tried to maintain contact or provide for the child. Romero’s attorneys contend the mother never abandoned her son and was not given sufficient legal representation before losing custody. They asked the state Supreme Court to consider additional evidence about the quality of Romero’s legal representation and whether the boy was abandoned.

“We’re fundamentally disappointed that the court did not recognize the violation of the child’s rights to his relationship with his mother,” said Jennifer Nagda, associate director of the Immigrant Child Advocacy project at the University of Chicago, which submitted a brief in the case.

“I think there’s a real danger in beginning the procedures anew,” she said. “(A new trial) may skew in favor of the existing relationship between the putative adoptive parents as opposed to the constitutionally protected relationship between a parent and child.”

The court’s judges were mixed about the case. In a separate opinion, three judges said they would have reversed the adoption without a hearing, except to determine how to transition the boy back to Romero’s custody, because there was not clear evidence that Romero abandoned her son.

“Repeated, open, obvious and evident errors, combined with the ineffective assistance of counsel, set the stage for the factually erroneous judgment depriving the mother of her relationship with her son,” Judge Laura Denvir Stith wrote.

The case has generated widespread interest. The Guatemalan consulate, the American Civil Liberties Union and several other groups submitted written arguments to the state Supreme Court. Guatemala’s ambassador to the U.S., Francisco Villagran, watched the November oral arguments and sat near Romero in the courtroom. He said later that the dispute was the result of unclear American immigration rules.

John De Leon, a lawyer for the Guatemalan foreign ministry, praised Tuesday’s decision but said his office had hoped that there would be no need for further court proceedings.

“The court has recognized that immigrants have rights, the same rights as anyone else, to raise their children,” he said.

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

News Tribune - comments