Adoption of Ms
181 Cal.App.4th 50, 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 715 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California Family Code section 9100, which authorizes the vacation of adoptions, applies exclusively to adoptions granted by a California state court and does not extend to intercountry adoptions finalized in a foreign country unless the child has been subsequently readopted in California.
Facts:
- In early 2003, Eleanor P. and Martin S. began the process to adopt a foreign-born child, engaging a California lawyer and a licensed California adoption agency, Heartsent Adoptions, Inc.
- In late 2003, Eleanor P. and Martin S. spent several weeks in Ukraine to finalize the adoption.
- On December 15, 2003, a Ukrainian court decreed the adoption of M.S., a three-year-old Ukrainian girl, by Eleanor P. and Martin S.
- The Ukrainian court decree stated M.S.'s biological mother was mentally sick with epilepsy, had left the child at the hospital, and M.S. had been a ward of the government since February 2002, with her medical history noting she was "almost healthy though psychologically delayed."
- Eleanor P. and Martin S. asserted they believed M.S. was healthy and were unaware of her full medical background until after the adoption was finalized and the documents were translated.
- Eleanor P. and Martin S. brought M.S. to live in their Davis, California home but did not "readopt" M.S. in California under Family Code section 8919.
- In California, M.S. was subsequently diagnosed with multiple serious conditions including spastic cerebral palsy, reactive attachment disorder, moderate mental retardation, and fetal alcohol syndrome, and was determined unable to live in a normal home environment.
- Since 2005, M.S. has been living in intensive foster care placement in Arizona.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 20, 2008, Eleanor P. and Martin S. filed a "MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF ADOPTION UNDER FAMILY CODE SECTION 9100" (the petition) in Yolo County Superior Court (trial court).
- The State Department of Social Services (DSS) filed an opposition to the petition.
- On October 31, 2008, the Yolo County Superior Court issued an "ORDER DENYING PETITION TO SET ASIDE INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION PURSUANT TO FAMILY CODE SECTION 9100," denying the petition on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction (power to act in that specific manner).
- Eleanor P. and Martin S. appealed the superior court's order to the Court of Appeals of California, Third District (appellants), with DSS as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California Family Code section 9100, which allows courts to vacate adoptions, apply to an intercountry adoption finalized in a foreign country where the child was not subsequently readopted in California?
Opinions:
Majority - Sims, J.
No, California Family Code section 9100 does not apply to an intercountry adoption finalized in a foreign country where the child was not subsequently readopted in California. The court held that the language of section 9100, which requires a petition to be filed "with the court that granted the adoption petition," refers exclusively to a California state court. This interpretation is supported by section 9101, a companion statute, which places responsibility for the child's support on "[t]he county in which the proceeding for adoption was had," a provision that would be nonsensical if applied to an adoption finalized in a foreign country. The court clarified that the permissive word "may" in section 9100 grants discretion to adoptive parents on whether to file a petition, but if they choose to do so, it must be filed with the court that granted the adoption petition, which in this context means a California court. The court declined to apply a liberal construction that would enlarge the statute's evident meaning, affirming that the judiciary cannot rewrite statutes to conform to a presumed, unexpressed legislative intention. Given that M.S. was not readopted in California pursuant to Family Code section 8919, the Yolo County Superior Court correctly determined it lacked authority under section 9100 to set aside the Ukrainian adoption.
Concurring - Scotland, P. J.
joined the majority opinion.
Concurring - Hull, J.
joined the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case provides a strict interpretation of California adoption statutes, particularly concerning the vacation of adoptions. It establishes a clear jurisdictional limit for Family Code section 9100, preventing its application to foreign adoptions not subsequently readopted in California. This means parents who finalize adoptions abroad face significant barriers if they later seek to annul the adoption in California due to unforeseen circumstances, highlighting the importance of thorough due diligence and potentially seeking readoption under section 8919 for future protections. The decision emphasizes judicial deference to legislative intent in statutory construction, even in tragic circumstances.
