Only one reported opinion dealt with the subject of adoption during the survey period.' In this case the petitioners had contracted with the Department of Public Welfare to keep the subject child on a foster-home-care basis. When the Department sought custody of the child from them, however, they had become very attached to her and refused to surrender custody. Pursuant to the statute then in effect, they filed a petition to the county court to adopt the child. The petition was denied, and on appeal the decision was affirmed. Immediately thereafter, petitioners filed the present suite in chancery, seeking to adopt the child. The chancellor held the prior proceedings to be res judicata and also held that petitioners were estopped to claim the child because of the foster-home contract. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the enactment of a new adoption law did not affect proceedings under the former statutes, and that the two cases involved identical parties and identical issues.
William J. Harbison,
Domestic Relations -- 1956 Tennessee Survey,
9 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol9/iss5/10