Opinion ID: 2514340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District Court's Ruling on the Adoption

Text: After trial, the district court refused to set aside the adoption decree. The court found, inter alia, that the adoption agency and adoptive parents had acted in good faith in the adoption proceeding. The court also found that M.P. had not abandoned N.T. during her pregnancy and that M.P. had not learned of A.A.T.'s birth until December 24 or 25, 2004. Still, the court further found that M.P. should have known and did suspect [N.T.] was still pregnant with his child and she gave birth to his child. Under these circumstances, M.P. should have taken action to determine whether [N.T.] had had an abortion or was still pregnant ... and... gave birth to his child. The district court ruled against M.P. on his argument under K.S.A. 59-2213, which provides that a court shall have continuing control over its own probate orders, judgments, and decrees for 30 days. Under this statute, the court held M.P.'s effort to set aside the adoption decree was time-barred. The district court also rebuffed M.P.'s arguments under K.S.A. 60-260(b), which controls vacation or modification of probate judgments after the 30-day time limit of K.S.A. 59-2213 has passed. Under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(2), the court refused to set aside the adoption decree based on newly discovered evidence because M.P. should have taken action to verify whether N.T. had an abortion. Under subsection (b)(3), which allows a judgment to be set aside for fraud, the district court ruled that N.T. was not an adverse party and that fraud justifying relief must have been committed by an adverse party. The court also rejected subsection (b)(4) as a basis for setting aside the adoption decree as void; in the court's view, although M.P. did not have notice of the adoption proceeding, the decree was not void because, again, [M.P.] should have taken action to protect his parental rights. Finally, the court considered the so-called catch-all provision of subsection (b)(6) and determined M.P. was not entitled to relief under that provision.