E.G. v. A.G.
195 Cal. App. 4th 913
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mother gave birth to a son; at age 2 the child was adopted by the grandmother and stepgrandfather, who renamed him B.C., Jr.
- In 2005 the mother signed a written consent to the adoption; the Department supported the petition and the court granted it in November 2005.
- In May 2010 the mother moved to set aside the adoption order on extrinsic fraud grounds, claiming she was misled to believe a temporary guardianship was the purpose of her consent.
- The trial court held the motion time-barred under Family Code section 9102; the mother appealed.
- The respondent grandparents and the Department argued 9102 applies to fraud-based challenges and, under the statute’s history, includes extrinsic fraud; the mother argued 9102 does not apply to extrinsic fraud and that due process would be violated.
- The court ultimately held that 9102 applies to extrinsic fraud and is constitutional under due process, affirming the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 9102 apply to actions to set aside an adoption based on extrinsic fraud | Mother: 9102 does not apply to extrinsic fraud. | Grandparents/Department: 9102 applies to fraud-based challenges. | Yes; 9102 applies to extrinsic fraud. |
| Is 9102(b)’s fraud limitation compatible with due process | Mother: applying 9102(b) to lack-of-notice cases violates due process. | Respondents: statute provides a reasonable time and preserves finality; no due process violation. | Yes; 9102(b) does not violate due process. |
| Should the discovery rule apply to when 9102(b) begins running | Mother: discovery of fraud should trigger the clock. | Court should run from entry of the adoption order. | Clock runs from entry of the adoption order; discovery rule does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walter v. August, 186 Cal.App.2d 395 (Cal. App. 2d 1960) (extrinsic fraud/voidability of adoption; limits by statute of limitations)
- County of San Diego v. Gorham, 186 Cal.App.4th 1215 (Cal. App. 4th 2010) (trial court equity to set aside void orders despite limitations)
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Secara, 193 Cal. 755 (Cal. 1924) (due process and notice; limitations can cure lack of notice in some contexts)
- David B. v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal. App. 4th 1994) (Mathews v. Eldridge factors; due process in dependency/adoption context)
- Adoption of Sewall, 242 Cal.App.2d 208 (Cal. App. 2d 1966) (discusses discovery of fraud and timing in adult v. minor adoption contexts)
- Kaufman v. Gross & Co., 23 Cal.3d 750 (Cal. 1979) (jurisdictional defects and notice; limitations can bar void-decree challenges)
- In re B. G., 11 Cal.3d 679 (Cal. 1974) (parental rights and due process considerations in child custody)