Anastasia Chand v. Joshua Chand
0421164
| Va. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Mother (Anastasia Chand) had adopted her two daughters via stepparent adoption in Sept. 2011; father (Joshua Chand) is biological father. Mother and father also share two sons.
- Mother filed for divorce in April 2015 and, on Dec. 3, 2015, filed petitions to dissolve the adoptions of the daughters, alleging father alienated the girls and that dissolution served the children’s best interests and protected her relationship with the sons.
- Father filed demurrers (Dec. 31, 2015) arguing the petitions failed to state a claim and that the court lacked jurisdiction because statutory procedures govern termination of parental rights.
- The circuit court heard argument on Feb. 1, 2016, sustained the demurrers, and dismissed the petitions, concluding it had no authority to dissolve the adoptions and that dissolution would be against public policy; an amended order dismissed with prejudice except as to fraud.
- Mother appealed, raising multiple procedural and substantive errors (failure to treat facts as admitted, statutory interpretation, reliance on public policy, denial of leave to amend, lack of cited authority).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petitions to dissolve adoptions state a cognizable claim | Chand argued demurrer should be denied; facts show alienation and best-interest grounds for dissolution | Joshua argued petitions fail to state a claim because adoptions are final and statutory termination procedures were not followed | Held: Petitions do not invoke a statutory basis for termination; demurrers properly sustained for failure to show jurisdictional statutory procedure |
| Whether the court must accept petition facts as admitted for demurrer purposes | Chand contended the court should treat pleaded facts as true and decide merits accordingly | Joshua argued demurrer challenges legal sufficiency and jurisdiction; facts cannot cure lack of statutory basis | Held: Court properly reviewed pleadings but lacked jurisdiction under the statutory termination scheme; accepting facts wouldn't confer authority to dissolve adoptions |
| Whether Code § 16.1-283 (statutory termination procedure) or other statutes required | Chand argued statutory provisions (and Code § 8.01-428 per brief) warranted consideration and possible relief | Joshua argued termination requires strict compliance with Code § 16.1-283 and courts lack power to bypass statutory scheme | Held: Termination of parental rights is governed by the statutory scheme and the court lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner did not follow that scheme |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was erroneous | Chand asserted she should be allowed to amend to cure defects | Joshua argued there was no amendable pleading because jurisdictional defect was fatal | Held: Denial was proper; an amendment presupposes a valid pleading and the court lacked jurisdiction so there were no amendable pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Layne v. Layne, 61 Va. App. 32, 733 S.E.2d 139 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory termination scheme is jurisdictional and must be followed)
- Rader v. Montgomery Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 5 Va. App. 523, 365 S.E.2d 234 (Va. Ct. App. 1988) (termination procedures in statute protect parental and child rights)
- Church v. Church, 24 Va. App. 502, 483 S.E.2d 498 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (statutory limits on authority to terminate residual parental rights)
- Willis v. Gamez, 20 Va. App. 75, 455 S.E.2d 274 (Va. Ct. App. 1995) (courts may not bypass statutory procedures by invoking best-interests rationale)
- Kone v. Wilson, 272 Va. 59, 630 S.E.2d 744 (Va. 2006) (an amendment presupposes a valid pleading; jurisdictional defects defeat amendment)
- Sullivan v. Jones, 42 Va. App. 794, 595 S.E.2d 36 (Va. Ct. App. 2004) (on demurrer review, courts accept pleaded facts as true to test legal sufficiency)