Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions
239 Ariz. 184
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Frank (California resident) and Rachel (California resident) had a relationship; Rachel traveled to Arizona to place her newborn, E.E., for adoption through Mother Goose (an Arizona adoption agency). Rachel signed affidavits saying she did not know the father and consented to adoption; Mother Goose filed a severance petition in Arizona shortly after E.E.’s birth.
- Frank learned of the Arizona birth only after seeing a photo and filing a California paternity petition; Arizona proceedings had already been initiated and an ICPC placement sent E.E. to Tennessee with adoptive parents.
- Mother Goose filed an amended severance petition asserting termination under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(6) based on Frank’s failure to file a notice of claim of paternity under the Arizona putative fathers registry, A.R.S. § 8-106.01.
- The juvenile court (after UCCJEA coordination with California) found Frank was E.E.’s father (DNA confirmed), concluded Frank could not have registered before he learned of the Arizona birth but that he failed to register within thirty days after he reasonably could have, and terminated his parental rights under § 8-533(B)(6); the court found termination was in the child’s best interest.
- The court also found Rachel’s and Mother Goose’s conduct deceitful; Mother Goose’s cross-appeal (challenging rejection of abandonment ground) was withdrawn. The appellate court affirmed the severance but sanctioned Mother Goose for a frivolous cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Frank's Argument | Mother Goose's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona’s putative fathers registry (§ 8-106.01) can apply to an out-of-state father | Registry shouldn’t apply because Frank and mother were California residents and he had no reason to expect Arizona jurisdiction; mother’s fraud prevented notice | Registry applies to out-of-state fathers; legislature intended bright-line rule to protect adoptions’ finality | Court: Registry may apply to out-of-state fathers; Arizona had jurisdiction under child-in-state and UCCJEA rules and could apply § 8-106.01 |
| Whether applying § 8-106.01 to Frank violated due process given mother’s fraud and lack of notice | Due process violated; California law should control or Frank’s filings in California suffice; mother’s deception excused strict registry compliance | Due process satisfied because statute contains an impossibility exception; Frank had opportunity to register after discovery and did not | Court: No due process violation — court applied § 8-106.01(E) (impossibility exception) to start the 30-day period upon discovery; Frank still failed to register within the applicable 30-day window |
| Whether filing a paternity action in another state (California) or substantial compliance can substitute for filing in Arizona’s registry | Frank’s timely California petition and pro se response constituted substantial/substitute compliance; registry filing would be futile after notice | § 8-533(B)(6) and § 8-106.01 require strict compliance; filing in another state does not replace Arizona registry filing for severance | Court: Strict compliance required for severance under § 8-533(B)(6); out-of-state paternity action did not satisfy Arizona registry requirement |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | Frank argued his fit-parent status and efforts to assert paternity favored preserving his rights | Mother Goose argued severance appropriate to secure permanency with adoptive parents | Court: Juvenile court’s best-interest finding supported by record and not clearly erroneous; affirmed severance |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (upheld constitutionality of putative-fathers registry; biological link alone does not create full constitutional parental rights)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are fundamental but may be terminated consistent with due process)
- In re Pima Cty. Juvenile Action No. S-114487, 179 Ariz. 86 (Ariz. 1994) (discusses inchoate rights of putative fathers and rationale for registry)
- Marco C. v. Sean C., 218 Ariz. 216 (App. 2008) (Arizona court holds § 8-106.01(B) deadline must be strictly applied)
- David C. v. Alexis S., 238 Ariz. 174 (App. 2015) (division suggested registry supplements but does not supplant paternity action; distinguishable on severance grounds)
- Beltran v. Allan, 926 P.2d 892 (Utah Ct.App. 1996) (applied putative-fathers registry strictly to out-of-state father)
- Heidbreder v. Carton, 645 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 2002) (applied Minnesota registry strictly to out-of-state father despite maternal fraud)
- Nevares v. M.L.S., 345 P.3d 719 (Utah 2015) (interprets Utah statute’s impossibility/choice-of-law provision to require application of last-known-state law under certain facts)