C.K. v. N.F.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01059-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-08-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Adoption contest - Statute of limitations - Section 93-17-15 - Section 93-13-1 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Roberts, J., without separate written opinion Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - ADOPTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-01-2009 Appealed from: HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: J. DEWAYNE THOMAS Disposition: MOTION TO SET ASIDE ADOPTION DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE Case Number: AD2007-10181 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Adoption of a Child: C. K. and K. K. |
JAMES ELDRED RENFROE, ROY J. PERILLOUX, MARK C. CARLSON |
||
| Appellee: | N. F. | JOHN M. MOONEY JR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Adoption contest - Statute of limitations - Section 93-17-15 - Section 93-13-1 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Approximately one year after the adoption of a minor child, Z.F., by N.F., the child’s former parents, C.K. and K.K., moved to set aside the adoption and/or terminate N.F.’s parental rights and appoint themselves as guardians for Z.F. N.F. filed a motion to dismiss which the court subsequently granted. C.K. and K.K. then filed a motion to reconsider and again sought termination of N.F.’s parental rights. The chancery court denied the motion, and C.K. and K.K. appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 93-17-15 provides a six-month statute of limitations for challenging adoption actions after the judgment of adoption has been entered. Only upon a showing of jurisdictional defect can a petitioner obviate the six-month time bar and attempt to set aside an adoption. Furthermore, as a matter of public policy, setting aside adoption decrees is disfavored even before six months has expired. In this case, C.K. and K.K. did not contest the adoption of Z.F. until approximately one year after the final entry of adoption. C.K. and K.K. cite section 93-13-1, alleging that N.F. is “unsuitable to discharge the duties of guardianship” and that it is within the court’s discretion to remove an unsuitable guardian at any time, regardless of the time bar. The filing of the case occurred well past the six-month statute of limitations. C.K. and K.K. fail to provide any substantive evidence of a jurisdictional defect that would negate the time bar. Additionally, N.F. is now Z.F.’s parent, not simply his court-appointed guardian. C.K. and K.K. voluntarily surrendered the child to N.F. and joined in the petition for adoption. There is no evidence in the record or in the guardian ad litem’s report which would support setting aside the adoption of Z.F. by N.F., terminating N.F.’s parental rights to the child, or appointing a guardian ad litem for the child. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
