David C., Kim C. v. Alexis S., A.C.
240 Ariz. 53
| Ariz. | 2016Background
- Child A.C. was born after mother signed an affidavit falsely listing the father as unknown and signed consent to adoption; petitioners (David and Kim C.) received the child for adoption.
- Petitioners searched the DHS putative-fathers registry and, finding no claim, filed for adoption and published a John Doe notice as required.
- The biological father (Alexis S.) filed a paternity action the same day the John Doe notice was first published and served the mother two days later; mother did not inform petitioners of the paternity suit.
- The juvenile court granted the adoption without personal notice to father; after learning of the adoption, father amended his paternity petition and genetic testing confirmed paternity.
- Father sought to set aside the adoption; juvenile court and court of appeals set aside the adoption, concluding father had timely filed and served a paternity action despite never registering with the DHS putative-fathers registry.
- Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether failure to timely register under A.R.S. § 8-106.01(E) bars a father from contesting adoption when he timely files and serves a Title 25 paternity action under A.R.S. § 8-106(J).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to file a putative-father registry claim under A.R.S. § 8-106.01(A)-(B) automatically bars a biological father from contesting an adoption | Petitioners: Father waived right to notice and to contest adoption by not registering; Marco C. requires registration as prerequisite | Father: Timely filing and service of a paternity action under Title 25 preserved his rights despite non-registration | Held: Timely filing and service of a paternity action within 30 days of § 8-106(G) notice preserves right to establish paternity and contest adoption; registry filing is not an absolute prerequisite |
| Whether A.R.S. §§ 8-106 and 8-106.01 must be read together or whether § 8-106.01 supplants § 8-106 | Petitioners: Registry statute supplants and is required to trigger notice/hearing rights | Father: Statutes are complementary; § 8-106(G) governs notice to potential fathers and allows contest if paternity action timely filed | Held: Statutes harmonized: § 8-106(G) (potential-father notice) and § 8-106.01 (putative-father registration) serve different but complementary functions; failure to register waives notice only when the registrant had opportunity to register and did not satisfy § 8-106(G) timeframes |
Key Cases Cited
- Marco C. v. Sean C., 218 Ariz. 216 (App. 2008) (addressed effect of failure to timely register as putative father on necessity of father’s consent to adoption)
- Leslie C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Juvenile Court, 193 Ariz. 134 (App. 1997) (standard of review for adoption orders)
- BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC, 236 Ariz. 363 (2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)