291 So.3d 809
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- B.R. was born in 2012 to Rhonda; Rhonda’s then-husband Ricky Raab was listed on the birth certificate. Rhonda died in April 2017.
- Daniel and Nicole Smith petitioned to adopt B.R. in May 2017; Ricky signed a sworn “Voluntary Release of All Parental Rights and Consent to Adoption,” claiming to be B.R.’s legal and biological father. Adoption decree entered June 13, 2017.
- Gary Wayne Stacks alleges he is B.R.’s biological father, lived with and cared for B.R. until she was four, and was incarcerated Aug 2016–Oct 2017 (when the adoption occurred). He was not notified of the adoption.
- Stacks filed a petition Dec 20, 2017 (six months and seven days after the decree) to set aside the adoption, alleging fraud on the court and lack of notice; parties later agreed to DNA testing, which showed 99.99% probability that Stacks is the father.
- The chancery court dismissed Stacks’s petition as time-barred under Miss. Code Ann. § 93-17-15 and held he lacked standing/notice because Ricky was the legal/presumptive father who consented.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that alleged fraud on the court and allegations of a pre-adoption substantial parental relationship, if proven, can overcome the six‑month limitations bar and require a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stacks’s petition is barred by the six‑month adoption statute | Stacks: limitations do not bar relief because adoption was procured by fraud on the court and/or jurisdictional defect (no notice) | Smiths/Ricky: petition filed after six months, so time‑barred | Reversed: fraud-on-the-court or a jurisdictional lack-of-notice arising from a substantial pre-adoption relationship can defeat the six‑month bar; remand for hearing |
| Whether fraud-on-the-court claim was procedurally barred for failing to cite Rule 60(b) | Stacks: pleading adequately alleged fraud on the court; no rule citation required because courts have inherent power | Smiths/Ricky: Stacks waived Rule 60(b) relief by not citing it below | Held for Stacks: claim not procedurally barred; court’s inherent power allows an independent action for fraud on the court |
| Whether an unestablished biological father is entitled to notice of adoption | Stacks: he had a substantial relationship and was known to parties, so he had constitutional right to notice | Smiths/Ricky: Stacks had not legally established paternity pre-adoption; only presumptive/legal father (Ricky) was entitled to notice | Reversed in part: factual dispute about substantial relationship requires hearing; if proven, failure to give notice is a jurisdictional defect that voids decree |
| Whether dismissal without evidentiary hearing was proper | Stacks: factual disputes (fraud, relationship, notice) require evidentiary hearing | Smiths/Ricky: questions were pure law; dismissal appropriate | Reversed: dismissal improper; remand for evidentiary hearing and findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Smith, 200 So. 3d 1028 (Miss. 2016) (authorizes independent action to set aside an adoption obtained by fraud on the court)
- In re Adoption of M.D.T., 722 So. 2d 702 (Miss. 1998) (failure to join a parent is a jurisdictional defect that can overcome the six‑month limitation)
- Smith v. Malouf, 722 So. 2d 490 (Miss. 1998) (an unwed biological father may have a right to notice if he has established a substantial relationship)
- Trim v. Trim, 33 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2010) (court’s equitable/inherent power to set aside judgments procured by fraud)
- Hazel‑Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford‑Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1944) (recognition of inherent judicial power to vacate judgments obtained by fraud on the court)
- Universal Oil Prod. Co. v. Root Ref. Co., 328 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1946) (historical recognition of courts’ inherent authority to set aside fraudulently obtained judgments)