Legal Opinion
In re M.N.M.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 27, 1992No. 90-1395PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
In this appeal we face once again a challenge by the putative natural father (appellant) to a final decree of adoption entered even though, as the trial judge acknowledged, “the natural father was given no notice of the adoption proceedings.” The judge concluded that the putative father’s motion to intervene in the adoption proceeding was barred by the one year statute of limitations governing attempts to invalidate a final decree of adoption. D.C.Code § 16-310 (1989). We hold that appellant had a constitutionally protected interest in fair notice of, and opportunity…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Crowell v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Lehr v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Appeal of H.R.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Matter of Adoption of DoeSupreme Court of Florida · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Williams v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1996
- T.S. v. L.F.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2001
- In re T.M.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- In re Petition of R.E.S.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- In re C.V.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.