Opinion ID: 2519926
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard of Proof of Equitable Adoption

Text: Bean also contends the lower courts erred in applying a standard of clear and convincing proof to the equitable adoption question. We disagree. Most courts that have considered the question require at least clear and convincing evidence in order to prove an equitable adoption. (See Clark, The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States, supra, at p. 927; Rein, supra, 37 Vand. L.Rev. at p. 780.) [7] Several good reasons support the rule. First, the claimant in an equitable adoption case is seeking inheritance outside the ordinary statutory course of intestate succession and without the formalities required by the adoption statutes. As the claim's strength lies in inherent justice ( Wooley v. Shell Petroleum Corporation, supra, 45 P.2d at p. 932), the need in justice for this extraordinary equitable intervention (Rein, supra, 37 Vand. L.Rev. at p. 785) should appear clearly and unequivocally from the facts. Second, the claim involves a relationship with persons who have died and who can, therefore, no longer testify to their intent. As with an alleged contract to make a will (see Crail v. Blakely (1973) 8 Cal.3d 744, 750, fn. 3, 106 Cal.Rptr. 187, 505 P.2d 1027), the law, in order to guard against fraudulent claims, should require more than a bare preponderance of evidence. Where the lips of the alleged adopter have been sealed by death ... proof of the facts essential to invoke the intervention of equity should be clear, unequivocal and convincing. ( Cavanaugh v. Davis (1951) 149 Tex. 573, 235 S.W.2d 972, 978.) Finally, too relaxed a standard could create the danger that a person could not help out a needy child without having a de facto adoption foisted upon him after death. (Rein, supra, 37 Vand. L.Rev. at p. 782.) As pointed out in an early Missouri decision, if the evidentiary burden is lowered too far, then couples, childless or not, will be reluctant to take into their homes orphan children, and for the welfare of such children, as well as for other reasons, the rule should be kept and observed. No one, after he or she has passed on, should be adjudged to have adopted a child unless the evidence is clear, cogent, and convincing.... ( Benjamin v. Cronan (1936) 338 Mo. 1177, 93 S.W.2d 975, 981.) Evidence Code section 115 provides that the burden of proof in civil cases is a preponderance of the evidence [e]xcept as otherwise provided by law. The law providing for a higher standard of proof may include decisional law. ( Weiner v. Fleischman (1991) 54 Cal.3d 476, 483, 286 Cal.Rptr. 40, 816 P.2d 892.) Persuaded by the reasoning of sister-state decisions and commentary, we hold that in order to take as an equitably adopted child from the alleged adoptive parent's intestate estate, the claimant must prove the decedent's intent to adopt by clear and convincing evidence.