A recent adoption case, decided on the basis of La.R.S. 9:422.3 et seq., although correctly decided, has produced some much unneeded confusion into the law of private adoptions. The case, In re CDT, 415 So.2d 315 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1982), was characterized by some bad facts, prominent among them being: (1) the natural mother executed an undated act of surrender before a notary and two witnesses before the child was born; (2) the mother executed the act in her maiden name and stated untruthfully that she was unmarried; (3) the written consent for the adoptive couple to remove the baby from the hospital when it was one day old untruthfully recited the mother was unmarried; (4) the natural mother's husband executed an authentic act of surrender, although the date of execution is not stated in the opinion; (5) neither the natural mother nor husband were represented by an attorney at the execution of the acts of surrender; (6) the adoptive parents were not identified in the act of surrender executed before the child was born; and (7) the date of the birth of the child was not stated because the date was not known at the time the act was executed. After reciting the above facts, the Court held "the act executed in the insta

Arguably, La.R.S. 9:429 recognizes that parental consent to a private adoption may validly be given in a notarial act that fails to meet all the requirements of La.R.S. 9:422.3. In re RLV, 484 So.2d 206, 210-17 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1986) (citing In re CDT: The Need for Greater Clarity in Private Adoption, 44 La.L.Rev. 845, 854 n. 46 (1984)); contra In re CDT, 415 So.2d 315, 317-18 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1982). The natural parent who asserts that the act of surrender is null, or that it has been modified or extinguished, must prove the facts or acts giving rise to the nullity, modification or extinction.

The act of surrender is therefore without effect. See, In re CDT, 415 So.2d 315 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1982). Accordingly, for the reasons assigned herein, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

See In re Ackenhausen, 244 La. 730, 154 So.2d 380 (La. 1963). This court held a defective surrender of a child for adoption to be without effect because it failed to comply with the specific, exclusive means as set forth in the statute in In re CDT, 415 So.2d 315 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1982), stating: Adoption laws, being in derogation of natural rights, are strictly construed in favor of parents.

Strict compliance with the statute is necessary in order to obtain the protection of that statute. Appellate courts have held various substantive discrepancies in the the authentic act of surrender render the surrender invalid under La.R.S. 9:422.6. Among those substantive discrepancies are the failure to recite that the biological mother was under the age of 18 which would thus require the parent(s) of the biological mother to join in the surrender, Adoption of Vest, 427 So.2d 1359 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1983); the act was undated, executed prior to the child's birth, in the maiden name of the mother, although she was legally married at the time, and recited untruthfully that the mother was unmarried at the time of surrender, In re CDT, 415 So.2d 315 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1982); consent to the adoption was not express and could not be supplied by implication, In re G.O., 433 So.2d 1115 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1983); the failure to recite the marital status of the biological mother, the address of the person(s) to whom the surrender was made and the accurate age of the mother, In re RLV, 484 So.2d 206 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1986). A hypertechnical, nonsubstantive discrepancy such as failure to give the address of the attorney to whom the surrender was made has been held not to invalidate the surrender under La.R.S. 9:422.6 because the parties were not prejudiced by a nonsubstantive discrepancy.

Petitioner contends that these violations render the entire adoption a nullity. The Second Circuit, in In re CDT, 415 So.2d 315 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1982), held that failure to comply with the required procedures effectively invalidates an adoption. The Court in CDT, supra, concluded that when a notarial act executed is so deficient it cannot serve as an authentic act of voluntary surrender.

In support of her position, plaintiff cites a number of cases which require strict construction of the adoption laws. In re CTD, 415 So.2d 315 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1982); In re G.O., 433 So.2d 1115 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1983). As defendants point out in brief to this court, the cases relied upon by plaintiff involve failure of the act of surrender in a more substantive sense.

Adoption laws, being in derogation of natural rights must be strictly construed in favor of the natural parents. In re CDT, 415 So.2d 315 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1982). Upon full and thorough review of the document, and based upon all evidence presented, we find that the guidelines of LSA-R.S. 9:422 et seq. have been complied with, strict juris.

Adoption laws, being in derogation of natural rights, are strictly construed in favor of the natural parents. In re CDT, 415 So.2d 315 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1982). We find no error in the judgment of the trial court finding the act of surrender invalid.