Opinion ID: 2212708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: adoption proceeding

Text: Petitioner in opposing the order directing an investigation of the adoption proceedings urges that the power to decree an adoption is purely statutory, the applicable statutes were complied with, and no appeal was taken. In further support of this position, counsel cites Kenning v. Reichel, 148 Minn. 433, 182 N.W. 517 (1921), which held under the circumstances of that case that an adoption decree could not be collaterally attacked. Kenning v. Reichel, supra , has no application, however, if by competent evidence it can be established that there was fraud in the procurement of the adoption decree. See Annotation, 2 A.L.R.2d 887, 897. Respondent Stetson suggests that if time limitations in Rule 60.02, Rules of Civil Procedure, and Minn.St. 548.14 are found applicable, the guardian should be permitted to act now or the right to challenge the adoption decree will be forever lost. In some jurisdictions a presumptive heir or next of kin of an adoptive parent is permitted to maintain a direct proceeding to have an adoptive decree revoked on the grounds of fraud or undue influence on the adoptive parent. See, Annotation, 2 A.L.R.2d 887, 908. In any event, absent a showing that the interest of the ward would be advanced by an action by the guardian to vacate the adoption decree, the county court has no jurisdiction to direct the guardian to bring such an action. The sole beneficiaries of an action to vacate the adoption decree, if successful, would be the presumptive heirs of Mrs. Schober. Therefore, we hold that the guardian cannot bring such an action nor can any costs thereof be chargeable to the estate of the ward.