A. If, after consideration of the evidence, the circuit court finds that the valid consent of any person or agency whose consent is required is withheld contrary to the best interests of the child as set forth in § 63.2-1205, or is unobtainable, the circuit court may grant the petition without such consent:
1. Fifteen days after personal service of notice of petition on the party or parties whose consent is required by this section;
2. If personal service is unobtainable, 10 days after the completion of the execution of an order of publication against the party or parties whose consent is required by this section concerning the petition;
3. If a birth parent is deceased, upon the filing of a death certificate for a deceased birth parent with the court; or
4. If the judge certifies on the record that the identity of any person whose consent is hereinabove required is not reasonably ascertainable.
An affidavit of the birth mother that the identity of the birth father is not reasonably ascertainable shall be sufficient evidence of this fact, provided there is no other evidence before the circuit court that would refute such an affidavit. The absence of such an affidavit shall not be deemed evidence that the identity of the birth father is reasonably ascertainable. For purposes of determining whether the identity of the birth father is reasonably ascertainable, the standard of what is reasonable under the circumstances shall control, taking into account the relative interests of the child, the birth mother and the birth father.
B. If the child is not in the custody of a child-placing agency and both parents are deceased, the circuit court, after hearing evidence to that effect, may grant the petition without the filing of any consent.
C. In an adoption proceeding where the consent of a birth parent is required, but the petition for adoption alleges that the birth parent is withholding consent to the adoption, the court shall provide written notice to the birth parent of his right to be represented by counsel prior to any hearing or decision on the petition. Upon request, the court shall appoint counsel for any such birth parent if such parent has been determined to be indigent by the court pursuant to § 19.2-159.
Code 1950, § 63-351; 1954, c. 489; 1956, c. 300; 1960, c. 331; 1962, c. 603; 1968, c. 578, § 63.1-225; 1972, cc. 73, 475, 823; 1974, c. 620; 1978, cc. 730, 735, 744; 1985, c. 18; 1986, c. 387; 1989, c. 647; 1993, c. 553; 1995, cc. 772, 826; 1999, c. 1028; 2000, c. 830, § 63.1-219.11; 2002, c. 747; 2009, c. 805; 2012, c. 425.
Notes of Decisions
Copeland v. Todd, 715 S.E.2d 11 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 12× “2-1202(H) and, in the alternative, that Todd had withheld her consent contrary to the child's best interests as provided in Code §§ 63.2-1203 and -1205. Code § 63.2-1202(H) states that an adoption may proceed without a birth parent's consent when the prospective adoptive parent…”
Todd v. Copeland, 689 S.E.2d 784 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 31× “2-1202(H) and, in the alternative, that Todd had withheld her consent contrary to the child’s best interests as provided in Code §§ 63.2-1203 and -1205. This appeal followed.”
Gray v. Bourne, 614 S.E.2d 661 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “" Code § 63.2-1203. In determining whether a birth parent's consent is being withheld contrary to the best interests of the child, the trial court "shall consider whether *664 the failure to grant the petition pending before it would be detrimental to the child.”
T.S.G. v. B.A.S., 665 S.E.2d 854 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “2-1203 sets forth the alternative requirements for service of process of a petition for adoption upon “any person or agency whose consent is required [but] is withheld contrary to the best interests of the child ... or is unobtainable.”
Gooch v. Harris, 662 S.E.2d 95 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Gooch argues that the court erroneously concluded she withheld consent for the adoption contrary to the best interests of the child under Code § 63.2-1203(A) without specifically finding that continuing the parent-child relationship would be “detrimental” to the child.”
TSG v. Bas, 665 S.E.2d 854 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “[1] Code § 63.2-1203 sets forth the alternative requirements for service of process of a petition for adoption upon "any person or agency whose consent is required [but] is withheld contrary to the best interests of the child .”
Ashley Stone Cousins v. John William Brandt & Beverley Anne Brandt (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “Consequently, “the Supreme Court concluded that an adoption that occurs over a parent’s objection pursuant to Code §§ 63.2-1203 and 63.2-1205 survives ‘constitutional due process scrutiny because [the statutory requirements] encompass far more than mere consideration of the…”
Joshua Johnson v. Sabrina Lowe (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “The circuit court cited Code § 63.2-1203 in holding that father’s withholding of consent to the adoption was not in the best interest of the child.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1203(2) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1203(A) — 10 cases
Gooch v. Harris, 662 S.E.2d 95 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“Gooch argues that the court erroneously concluded she withheld consent for the adoption contrary to the best interests of the child under Code § 63.2-1203(A) without specifically finding that continuing the parent-child relationship would be “detrimental” to the child.”
T.S.G. v. B.A.S., 665 S.E.2d 854 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“2-1203 sets forth the alternative requirements for service of process of a petition for adoption upon “any person or agency whose consent is required [but] is withheld contrary to the best interests of the child ... or is unobtainable.”
Ashley Stone Cousins v. John William Brandt & Beverley Anne Brandt (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
“Consequently, “the Supreme Court concluded that an adoption that occurs over a parent’s objection pursuant to Code §§ 63.2-1203 and 63.2-1205 survives ‘constitutional due process scrutiny because [the statutory requirements] encompass far more than mere consideration of the…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1203(A)(1) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.