Adoption of M.S. - 181 Cal. App. 4th 50, 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 715 (2010)

Rule:

The language of Fam. Code, § 9100, itself, plus the language of a companion statute - Fam. Code, § 9101 - clearly shows that § 9100 is limited to undoing adoptions that were granted by California state courts.

Facts:

In early 2003, Appellants Eleanor P. and Martin S. began the process to adopt a foreign-born child. Appellants engaged a California lawyer and a private California adoption agency, Heartsent Adoptions, Inc. (Heartsent). In late 2003, Appellants spent several weeks in Ukraine for the adoption. On December 15, 2003, by decree of a Ukrainian court, Appellants adopted M.S., a three-year-old Ukrainian girl. The Ukrainian court decree stated in part: “It was found out from the case documents that the child's [biological] mother is mentally sick. She left the child at the hospital and never visited her. The place of father's residence was not identified. Since February 2002 the child has been made the ward of the government. The medical history of the girl says that she is almost healthy though psychologically delayed.” A hospital record says the mother has epilepsy. Appellants' declarations assert they believed M.S. was healthy, were not aware of this medical background information until after the adoption was finalized, and the documents were not translated for them until after the adoption was completed. Appellants brought M.S. to live in their Davis home. They did not “readopt” M.S. in California, as authorized by section 8919. In California, various evaluations were performed due to M.S.'s low level of functioning. Health care professionals diagnosed her with spastic cerebral palsy, reactive attachment disorder, oppositional defiance disorder, moderate mental retardation, global developmental delay, ataxia, fetal alcohol syndrome or effect, microcephaly, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Appellants assert M.S. cannot live in a normal home environment, is unadoptable, and has been living in intensive foster care placement in Arizona since 2005. On May 20, 2008, Appellants filed a “MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF ADOPTION UNDER FAMILY CODE SECTION 9100” (the petition). This petition was served on the Department, which filed an opposition. The opposition argued section 9100 is inapplicable to intercountry adoptions; the statutory remedy is not appropriate because the child could not be returned to Ukraine; the records gave notice of potential problems; and the Department did not have access to underlying investigative reports or documentation it would need to fulfill its obligation to make a full report to the court. The superior court denied the petition.

Appellants appealed and contended that the trial court erred in construing Family Code section 9100, which authorizes the court to vacate adoptions, as inapplicable to an “intercountry adoption” completed in Ukraine. 

Issue:

Did the trial court err in concluding that § 9100 could not be used to undo the Ukrainian adoption?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that § 9100 applies only to adoptions granted by a California state court. A petition to vacate an adoption must be filed with the court that granted the adoption petition. If a petition to vacate could be filed in any court, then reference to "the court that granted the adoption petition" in § 9100 would be unnecessary. Moreover, since plaintiffs' petition sought to unadopt the child, it was only reasonable to require the petition to be filed in the court that had the records of the original adoption. The trial court correctly concluded that § 9100 could not be used to undo the Ukrainian adoption.