Supreme Court hears case of birth father seeking custody of boy adopted 3 years ago

GRAND RAPIDS, MI – The attorney for a couple whose adopted 3-year-old son is at the center of a legal fight told state Supreme Court justices that the family is the only one he knows.

Attorney Liisa Speaker said that the boy, who is nearly 4, must stay with his adoptive parents. They have the same rights as any biological parents, she said.

“They are his family,” she said.

The court is reviewing an appeals court finding that birth father Peter Kruithoff’s parental rights were wrongly terminated – potentially giving him a chance at obtaining custody.

Justice Richard Bernstein said: “This is a very difficult case.”

The adoptive couple, who have not been identified, have cared for the boy almost since birth.

Kruithoff’s then-estranged wife relinquished parental rights shortly after the boy’s Aug. 9, 2018, birth at Spectrum Health Butterworth Hospital.

Under the state’s Safe Delivery of Newborns Law, or SDNL, a parent or parents can safely and legally surrender children up to three days after birth.

Catholic Charities West Michigan placed the boy with his then-prospective adoptive parents. After a generic public notice was published, a Kalamazoo County Circuit Court judge terminated parental rights of the mother and Kruithoff, who is considered a non-surrendering party.

The adoption was finalized on Feb. 12, 2019.

Kruithoff, however, had sought custody in Ottawa County Circuit Court as part of a divorce proceeding that he filed a day before the child’s birth. The judge there ordered DNA testing for “Baby Boy Doe” and prohibited the child’s permanent placement or adoption.

Kruithoff contends that Catholic Charities kept him from the Kalamazoo County case until it was too late. Speaker, attorney for the adoptive parents, blamed Kruithoff for any delay.

She also questioned whether he is the biological father and said no DNA analysis has been done.

Timothy Monsma, attorney for Catholic Charities, said safeguards were built into SDNL, which is intended to protect children. A provision is a requirement that non-surrendering parents have 28 days to challenge the termination of parental rights.

A state Court of Appeals panel said that Kruithoff’s divorce filing, in which he sought custody of the then-unborn child, qualified as a petition for custody.

Monsma disagreed.

“The (appeals) court created a remedy that does not exist,” he said.

Two weeks after the adoption was finalized, an Ottawa County Circuit Court judge, who granted Kruithoff custody, said Kruithoff was entitled to know where the surrender occurred. Kruithoff was given the information months later.

The judge in Kalamazoo County then rejected his request to unseal adoption records in his effort to reinstate parental rights.

Supreme Court judges asked the parties about Kruithoff’s constitutional due-process rights and how he would know that a termination case was pending in Kalamazoo County.

“What more was this father to do?” Justice Brian Zahra asked. “Didn’t the father have to know the child had been surrendered to file a petition?”

Monsma said that Kruithoff was aware that the child would likely be surrendered.

Attorney Saraphoena Koffron, representing Kruithoff with John Moritz and Michael Villar, said he had no way of knowing where the parental-rights termination case was held.

She said that Catholic Charities, which posted a generic public notice in The Grand Rapids Press, would not have provided Kruithoff with information if he had known to ask because adoptions are non-public.

She said his constitutional rights were ignored during the process.

She said that the child is young enough that he would adapt to living with her client.

The Supreme Court will decide, based on Wednesday’s hearing, whether it will accept the case for further arguments.

.