848 S.E.2d 620
Va. Ct. App.2020Background
- Mother (Shannon Lively) signed a notarized consent to her son T.S.’s adoption by his maternal grandparents (Paulette and Link) in May 2011 while incarcerated; the circuit court entered a final adoption order on August 16, 2011.
- Mother was incarcerated as a felon at the time; she later claimed she did not understand the permanency of the adoption and that consent was procured without adequate notice or counsel.
- Mother was released in Sept. 2012, had some contact with T.S., but did not seek to challenge the adoption until filing suit in June 2018 (after unsuccessfully seeking custody in 2015).
- The circuit court found a guardian ad litem should have been appointed for mother (a person under disability) and that her due process and equal protection rights were violated, but held Code § 63.2-1216 (six‑month finality bar on attacking adoptions) was not unconstitutional as applied given the facts.
- The circuit court dismissed mother’s complaint; the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning mother understood the adoption’s purpose and permanence, and finality/stability interests outweighed her late challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Code § 63.2‑1216’s six‑month bar is unconstitutional as applied given mother’s lack of understanding/denial of due process | Mother: As an incarcerated felon (a person under a disability) she lacked a guardian ad litem and did not understand the permanent effect of her consent; strict scrutiny should allow challenge | Paulette: Mother consented, knew adoption goals, and waited years before challenging—statute serves compelling interest in finality/stability and is constitutional as applied | Court: Statute is not unconstitutional as applied; mother’s conduct and communications show she understood adoption’s nature and delay undermines her claim |
| Whether failure to appoint a guardian ad litem rendered adoption voidable outside the six‑month period | Mother: Failure to appoint a GAL violated due process and equal protection and should permit collateral attack | Paulette: Even if omission was error, mother’s understanding and subsequent conduct negate relief | Held: Court agreed GAL should have been appointed (rights violated) but held that, on the facts, that violation does not render § 63.2‑1216 unconstitutional as applied and dismissal stands |
| Whether mother’s consent was procured by fraud or extrinsic misrepresentation comparable to F.E. v. G.F.M. | Mother: Consent was procured without meaningful notice of legal consequences; analogous to F.E. | Paulette: No extrinsic fraud or notice failures like F.E.; mother corresponded with counsel and discussed adoption | Held: Distinguished from F.E.; no extrinsic fraud or language/notice barrier here |
| Whether mother’s delay in seeking relief bars equitable relief despite procedural defects | Mother: Delay does not cure constitutional defects in consent process | Paulette: Long delay (years) supports finality interest and forecloses late collateral attack | Held: Delay significant; supports upholding statutory finality and affirming dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- F.E. v. G.F.M., 35 Va. App. 648 (2001) (en banc) (extrinsic fraud and lack of notice can make statutory finality unconstitutional as applied)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (strict scrutiny applies when a law interferes with fundamental parental rights)
- L.F. v. Breit, 285 Va. 163 (2013) (recognition that parent–child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest)
- Nelson v. Middlesex Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 69 Va. App. 496 (2018) (statutory finality of adoption promotes child stability and is a strong state interest)