Opinion ID: 1151153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Application of our decision to other cases

Text: In recognition of the importance of prompt resolution of adoption proceedings, we find it necessary to explain the applicability of our decision in this action to other cases. (13) The general rule that judicial decisions are given retroactive effect is basic in our legal tradition. ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973, 978 [258 Cal. Rptr. 592, 772 P.2d 1059].) We have also recognized, however, that narrow exceptions to the general rule of retroactivity may sometimes be justified for compelling reasons of fairness and public policy. ( Id., at p. 983.) No such reasons warrant any exception to a retroactive effect of our present decision. Our decision shall be given retroactive effect as to all cases not yet final as of the date this decision is filed. Of course, even retroactive decisions generally do not extend to cases in which final judgments have already been entered. ( Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp., supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 993 [allowing retroactive effect in cases not yet final]; In re Marriage of Brown (1976) 15 Cal.3d 838, 851 [126 Cal. Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 561, 94 A.L.R.3d 164] [declining to apply new rule of law to final adjudications].) In such a case the time for an appeal will have passed, so there can be no direct attack on the judgment. Similarly, [H]abeas corpus may not be used to collaterally attack a final nonmodifiable judgment in an adoption-related action where the trial court had jurisdiction to render the final judgment. ( Adoption of Alexander S. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 857, 867-868 [245 Cal. Rptr. 1, 750 P.2d 778]; see also Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services (1982) 458 U.S. 502, 513-514 [73 L.Ed.2d 928, 938-939, 102 S.Ct. 3231] [holding that federal habeas corpus could not be used to litigate constitutional claims in child custody matters].) Our decision shall therefore have no effect in adoption proceedings in which a final judgment has been entered. Such judgments cannot be challenged either directly or collaterally.