Eric K, Gloria K. v. ADES, Kathy B.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ERIC K. and GLORIA K., ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC ) SECURITY, KATHY B., ) ) Appellees. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 05-25-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-JV 09-0210 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G) Ariz.R.P. Juv Ct.; Rule 28 ARCAP) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JA41421 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Eric K. and Gloria K. Appellants in propria persona Phoenix O R O Z C O, Judge ¶1 Eric and Gloria K. (collectively, Appellants) appeal the juvenile court s order denying their motion to reconsider the adoption of A.S. and A.S. (collectively, the Children). reasons that follow, we affirm the juvenile court s order. For the FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 On September 9, 2007, Appellants filed a petition for leave to adopt the Children, their grandchildren. On July 31, 2008, at a status conference on Appellants petition to adopt, both the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) and a guardian ad litem for the children supported a competing petition for adoption by the Children s then foster mother, Kathy B. moved to dismiss Appellants petition to adopt. ADES The court s minute entry reflects that ADES had given its consent for Kathy B. to adopt the Children in the competing adoption proceedings, and that ADES would not consent to the adoption by Appellants. After taking the matter under advisement, the court granted ADES motion to dismiss Appellants petition to adopt. ¶3 Appellants filed a Motion to Review and And [sic] Reconsider Adoption on October 13, 2009 (Motion to Reconsider). After reviewing the motion, the court stated the adoption of the Children by Kathy B. had been granted on August 2, 2008. such, Arizona precluded Revised Appellants Statutes from (A.R.S.) attacking the section adoption 8-123 As (2007) decree and denied Appellants motion. ¶4 Appellants timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235.A (2007), 12-120.21.A.1 and -2101.B (2003). 2 DISCUSSION ¶5 Appellants raise various issues on appeal pertaining to (1) error by the juvenile court in dismissing their Motion to Reconsider; (2) the constitutionality and fairness of the proceedings and applicable statutes; (3) the best interests of the children; and (4) the lack of representation by their attorney.1 ¶6 Any irregularities, with the exception of jurisdiction, in an adoption proceeding are deemed cured after one year from the date the adoption decree is entered. A.R.S. § 8-123; Goclanney v. Desrochers, 135 Ariz. 240, 242, 660 P.2d 491, 493 (App. 1982) (explaining that jurisdiction is not an irregularity under A.R.S. § 8-123 and therefore permitted the mother to attack the jurisdiction of the court that entered the adoption decree). ¶7 2008. In this case, the adoption decree was entered August 2, Appellants filed their Motion to Reconsider on October 13, 2009, more than one year after the entry of the adoption decree. Assuming without deciding that there was error in the court s 1 Both ADES and Kathy B. filed notices of nonparticipation in this appeal, indicating they would not file answering briefs in this matter. Appellants filed a Reply to Notice NonParticipation and Motion to Vacate Adoption Consent urging us to accept this as conceding to the claims of this cause. Although we may treat Appellees failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error as to any debatable issue, in our discretion, we decline to do so. See Guethe v. Truscott, 185 Ariz. 29, 30, 912 P.2d 33, 34 (App. 1995). 3 dismissal of Appellants petition to adopt, any irregularities in the adoption proceedings are deemed cured. A.R.S. § 8-123. Appellants do not contest the jurisdiction of the juvenile court that entered the adoption decree. 242, 660 P.2d at 493. See Goclanney, 135 Ariz. at Accordingly, we find no error in the juvenile court s dismissal of Appellants Motion to Reconsider. CONCLUSION ¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court s order denying Appellants Motion to Reconsider. /S/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ____________________________________ DANIEL A. BARKER, Judge /S/ ____________________________________ LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Judge 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.