David C., Kim C. v. Alexis S., A.C.
238 Ariz. 174
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Child A.C. born Sept. 23, 2013; biological mother signed affidavit claiming father unknown and consented to adoption; child released to adoptive petitioners, who filed to adopt.
- Adoptive petitioners searched Arizona putative fathers registry; no claim appeared as of 30 days after birth; they served a John Doe notice by publication.
- Biological father (Alexis S.) had dated the mother, learned of the birth in October/November 2013, and on Nov. 25, 2013 (the day the John Doe notice published) filed a paternity action and personally served the mother two days later—within the 30-day window described in the John Doe notice.
- The family court initially continued the paternity petition for insufficient child information; juvenile court finalized the adoption on Jan. 15, 2014, unaware of the paternity suit.
- After discovering the John Doe notice, biological father amended and pursued the paternity action; testing confirmed paternity. The juvenile court set aside the adoption, finding the father had satisfied A.R.S. § 8-106(G) notice/paternity requirements despite not registering with the putative fathers registry (A.R.S. § 8-106.01).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to file with the putative fathers registry bars a father who timely files a paternity action after John Doe notice from opposing adoption | Adoptive petitioners: § 8-106.01(E) waiver applies; failure to register within 30 days after birth bars notice/consent rights | Biological father: registry is supplemental; timely filing and service of a paternity action after statutory John Doe notice satisfies § 8-106(G) rights | Held for biological father: registry does not supplant right to file paternity action; timely filing/service under § 8-106(G) preserved rights despite no registry filing |
| Whether service by publication (John Doe notice) triggered the 30-day paternity-action deadline and obligation | Adoptive petitioners: publication notice satisfied statutory notice; father’s later actions insufficient absent registry filing | Biological father: he complied with the publication notice by filing the same day and serving within two days; diligently pursued paternity | Held: publication service triggered the deadlines in § 8-106(G); father met them and diligently pursued the action |
| Whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction to finalize the adoption given the father's subsequent paternity action | Adoptive petitioners: finalized adoption was valid because registry search showed no claim and no direct notice was given | Biological father: lack of direct notice owed to mother’s false affidavit/publication; his compliance with § 8-106(G) means adoption order lacked jurisdictional finality | Held: juvenile court lacked authority to finalize adoption under these facts; setting aside the adoption was appropriate |
| Precedential effect of Marco C. (timely registry filing requirement) | Adoptive petitioners: Marco C. supports strict enforcement of registry timing to bar late claims | Biological father: Marco C. is distinguishable; here father timely served mother and diligently pursued paternity, so registry lapse is not dispositive | Held: Court distinguished Marco C. and disagreed with its broader reasoning; timely pursuit under § 8-106(G) controls in this situation |
Key Cases Cited
- Marco C. v. Sean C., 218 Ariz. 216, 181 P.3d 1137 (court previously held late registry filing barred notice/consent)
- Martin v. Martin, 182 Ariz. 11, 896 P.2d 11 (standard of review and principles on setting aside judgments)
- Duckstein v. Wolf, 230 Ariz. 227, 282 P.3d 428 (discussing review of void judgments)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 110 P.3d 1013 (de novo review of statutory interpretation)