545 S.W.3d 830
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Kristal Thompson left her one-year-old daughter N.R.D. with Amber Biggerstaff temporarily while she got financially stable; Amber presented a document on Jan. 27, 2017 that Kristal signed believing it to create a temporary guardianship.
- Text messages between Kristal and Amber show Amber urging Kristal to allow Amber to file for adoption to block the biological father; Kristal agreed by text but later expressed she thought she would retain parental rights/joint custody and asked for her child back.
- A "Relinquishment of Parent and Child Relationship and Consent to Guardianship and Adoption" bearing Kristal’s signature (dated Jan. 27) and notarizations (one by Jessica Martin and one later by Amber) was attached to an adoption petition filed by Luke and Amber Brunck; an adoption decree was entered Feb. 27, 2017.
- Kristal moved to set aside the adoption alleging fraud, misrepresentation, forgery, and that she did not voluntarily execute a relinquishment because she thought the document was temporary guardianship; she introduced the text messages and deposition testimony supporting her claim.
- The circuit court denied relief, finding Kristal had signed the consent in Amber’s presence, Amber’s post-consent misrepresentations were legally irrelevant because Kristal’s revocation period had passed, and Amber’s later notarization did not invalidate the consent.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Kristal proved the relinquishment was procured by fraud/misrepresentation and the circuit court clearly erred in refusing to set aside the adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Kristal's Argument | Bruncks' / Amber's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of relinquishment/consent | Kristal argues she did not voluntarily execute a relinquishment; she thought she signed temporary guardianship and was misled into consenting. | The Bruncks argue the signed, notarized form is valid; Kristal’s inaction after the revocation period makes Amber’s statements irrelevant. | Court held the relinquishment was procured by fraud/misrepresentation and was not voluntary; adoption set aside. |
| Fraud upon the court (procurement of decree) | Kristal contends document and notarization were used to procure the decree through deception (premature notarization, scanned signature, or substitution). | Bruncks contend any wrongdoing by Amber is not imputed to them and the decree stands absent direct fraud on the court by them. | Court found sufficient extrinsic fraud/misrepresentation in procurement to set aside the adoption despite Bruncks’ nonparticipation in misrepresentations. |
| Relevance of post-consent misrepresentations | Kristal says Amber’s texts and oral statements induced her misunderstanding of the document’s effect and permanence; those contextual facts are relevant. | Bruncks argue misrepresentations after Feb. 1 (end of revocation period) are legally irrelevant to undo consent. | Court rejected irrelevance claim: contextual misrepresentations and special confidential relationship made Amber’s statements material and actionable. |
| Notarization and formal defects | Kristal alleges improper notarization (notary Martin did not witness signing; Amber notarized later and may have altered document). | Bruncks/court below treated Amber’s later notarization as validating the consent; no objection to form’s face validity. | Court held the improper notarization and surrounding facts supported finding of fraud/misrepresentation and undermined the consent’s validity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridges v. Bush, 93 Ark. App. 461, 220 S.W.3d 259 (review standard for adoption appeals) (appellate review de novo but circuit court credibility findings given weight in child cases)
- In re Adoption of Parsons, 302 Ark. 427, 791 S.W.2d 681 (statutes permitting adoption construed strictly; preservation of parent-child relation)
- Roberts v. Swim, 268 Ark. 917, 597 S.W.2d 840 (strict compliance required for consent to adoption)
- Dale v. Franklin, 22 Ark. App. 98, 733 S.W.2d 747 (consent to adopt may be withdrawn for fraud, duress, or intimidation)
- McAdams v. McAdams, 353 Ark. 494, 109 S.W.3d 649 (fraud to impeach a judgment must be extrinsic and relate to procurement of the decree)
- Ducharme v. Gregory, 2014 Ark. App. 268, 435 S.W.3d 14 (adoption statutes interpreted favoring natural parents' rights)