When Dr. R. Jay Thomas's report was completed on Nov 30, 1994, Kelly's attorney, Stephen Hutchinson filed a "Motion for Summary Judgement Declaring the Consent of Kelly Jean Helton and Timothy Allen Hoyle Invalid, Dismiss the Adoption Proceeding and Reinstate Custody".
Under item I. Facts and Procedure: The judge states, "The child is now 2 years and 4 months of age and the need for permanent resolution of custody and parental responsibility for this child has reached critical importance." (page 1)
"This case has been in the court system for nearly two years and this court believes that a quick and final resolution of this matter is in order." (page 2)
Under item II. Issue(s) Before the Court 1. Whether the consent to adoption given by Ms. Helton in open court was based on deceit and misinformation and should therefore be considered void?
2. Whether the consent form signed by the natural father of the child, Mr. Hoyle was fatally flawed therefore making it void?
3. Whether it is in the best interest of this child to remain with the petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Hanes or whether the child's interest would be better served by having her custody returned to her biological mother, Ms. Helton.
Under item III. Discussion
"In resolving this issue this court has been asked to decide whether the consent to adoption of Ms. Helton should be declared void as a matter of law. This court has been asked to grant summary judgement on this matter. Hoverer, it is evident from the court record that the facts relating to this issue are disputed. In light of this it would be improper for this court to grant summary judgement on this issue. This court will decline to rule on this matter because it does not believe resolution of this sub- issue is critical to the final resolution of the adoption proceeding." (page 3 , second paragraph)
"..the evidence which has been presented to this court does not indicate that Mr. Hoyle is interested in being a parent to this child. In fact, it is apparent that Mr. Hoyle would not have become involved in this case in any way if Ms. Helton had not chosen to contest this adoption. Once again this court will decline to decide the validity of Mr. Hoyle's consent.." (page 3&4) "In the instant case this court finds, based upon the recommendation of the preplacement study, that it is not in the best interest of the child to be adopted by the petitioners Mr, and Mrs, Hanes. This court will therefore grant Ms. Helton's motion for summary judgement based exclusively upon the best interest of the child. It finds that although the consent of Ms. Helton and Mr. Hoyle can be presumed to have been valid for purposes of this case, that with the dismissal of the petition for adoption the point is moot. This court finds that it is in the best interest of Zenith that she be returned to the custody of Kelly Jean Helton and will order full reinstatement of her parental rights regarding this child." (page 5)
Under item IV Conclusion
1. The petition for adoption filed by Mr. and Mrs. Hanes is dismissed based upon the best interests of the child and the findings of the preplacement study. (page 6)