Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions
CV-16-0051-PR
| Ariz. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- Frank R. and Rachel had a brief relationship; Rachel became pregnant and later traveled to Arizona, concealed the birth location, and sought to place the baby (E.E.) for adoption through Mother Goose Adoptions.
- Rachel signed an affidavit falsely stating no man claimed paternity; Mother Goose published notice in Arizona to an unnamed "John Doe." Frank learned of the birth only after seeing the child on Facebook and then filed a California paternity petition.
- Mother Goose filed for termination of parental rights in Arizona; the juvenile court initially terminated "John Doe" and the mother and relinquished jurisdiction, then later reasserted jurisdiction and amended to include Frank.
- DNA testing established Frank as the father; during severance proceedings the juvenile court found Frank failed to register with Arizona’s putative fathers registry (A.R.S. § 8-106.01) and terminated his parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(6).
- Frank argued his filing of a paternity action and actual notice fulfilled the registry statute’s purpose and that he should be excused because Rachel and Mother Goose misled him; the court rejected that argument and affirmed severance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to file with the Arizona putative fathers registry can be excused when father filed a paternity action or had actual notice | Frank: filing to establish paternity and actual notice fulfilled the statute’s purpose; registry filing would have been futile given mother’s fraud | Mother Goose: strict compliance required by A.R.S. § 8-106.01 and § 8-533(B)(6); filing elsewhere or actual notice does not substitute | Held: Strict compliance required; failure to register is independent ground for severance and is not excused by filing a paternity action or actual notice |
| Whether due process required service under § 8-106(G) to start the registration clock | Frank: the registration period should run from proper service of § 8-106(G) notice | Mother Goose: actual notice and opportunity to register sufficed; service requirement does not delay registry deadline | Held: No due process violation where father had actual notice and opportunity to register; court identified date when requirement ran (when counsel appointed) |
| Whether misconduct by the mother and agency excuses registry noncompliance | Frank: his failure was caused by mother and agency fraud, so he should be excused | Mother Goose: statutory deadline remains regardless of third-party misconduct; registry preserves adoption finality | Held: Misconduct does not excuse failure to register; father must register promptly upon discovery to avoid severance |
| Whether earlier case law (David C.) requires a different outcome | Frank: David C. supports excusing registry noncompliance when paternity action was timely filed | Mother Goose: David C. involved different statutory scheme (adoption notice), not severance under § 8-533(B)(6) | Held: David C. is distinguishable; timely paternity action preserved rights in adoption context but does not excuse failure to register as ground for severance |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (upholding constitutionality of putative father registry as means to expedite adoptions)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (holding unconstitutional a conclusive presumption denying parental rights to unmarried fathers)
- David C. v. Alexis S., 240 Ariz. 53 (Ariz. 2016) (distinguishing registration requirement from timely paternity actions in adoption-notice context)
- Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2016) (standard of review for juvenile severance orders)
- In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, 179 Ariz. 86 (Ariz. 1994) (emphasizing prompt finality and child’s interest in stable permanent placement)