Appellate Division Retroactively Applies Foreign Adoption Statute to Adoption of Decedent’s Son, Finds That Adopted Son Is Rightful Intestate Heir Over Decedent’s Brother
In re Estate of R.S., No. A-3452-22 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Oct. 31, 2024)
The defendant appealed an Order appointing the plaintiff as the administrator of the decedent’s estate. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded.
The defendant was adopted by the decedent and his spouse from Russia shortly after he was born in 1993. The decedent and his spouse were New Jersey residents at the time of the adoption. On September 30, 1994, after the defendant was formally adopted under Russian law, he became a U.S. citizen and a certification of citizenship was issued by the United States government and signed by the decedent as the defendant’s father.
The defendant was estranged from the decedent for many years due to a history of sexual abuse. In 2011, the decedent was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The decedent and his spouse divorced the same year, but neither of them terminated their parental rights of the defendant.
After the decedent died in February 2021, the plaintiff — the decedent’s brother — was advised by the defendant’s counsel that the defendant would be the administrator of the decedent’s estate. The plaintiff requested a copy of the defendant’s adoption paperwork to confirm that the decedent was his adoptive father. The defendant provided the certificate of citizenship signed by the decedent as his father. However, the plaintiff was dissatisfied and requested further documentation of the adoption; the defendant provided a copy of the Russian certification of adoption translated into English.
The plaintiff filed a complaint in November 2022 seeking to be declared the decedent’s sole intestate heir and appointed administrator of his estate.
The case was contested. During discovery, the defendant provided even more documentation supporting his adoption by the decedent, including his IR-3 visa, which is an immigrant visa issued to adopted children, a home study completed by the adoption agency, and documentation of termination of birth mother’s parental rights.
The plaintiff asserted that N.J.S.A. 9:3-43.2, the controlling statute addressing the force of final judgment of a foreign adoption, did not apply because the statute went into effect in 2005, long after the defendant was purportedly adopted. The plaintiff thus asserted that there was insufficient proof that the defendant was the decedent’s legal child for inheritance purposes. The trial court agreed with plaintiff, determining that N.J.S.A. 9:3-43.2 did not apply and that the court did not have sufficient information about the adoption to confirm that the defendant was legally adopted.
The defendant appealed.
The Appellate Division first looked to the applicability of N.J.S.A. 9:3-43.2. The court determined that the legislature intended that this statute would clarify New Jersey law regarding foreign adoptions and simplify the process for recognizing adoptions taking place in foreign countries. The statute is silent as to whether it is to be applied retroactively. However, the Appellate Division followed the general legal principle that “a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision,” and that following this principle would not result in manifest injustice or be in opposition with a statute or legislative history to the contrary. R.S. at *8 (citing Phillips v. Curiale, 128 N.J. 608, 616 (1992)).
Thus, the Appellate Division analyzed the matter under N.J.S.A. 9:3-43.2 and found that, to accept a foreign adoption (1) the adopting parent has to be a New Jersey resident, and (2) the foreign adoption must have been verified by the granting of an IR-3 visa or similar visa. The Appellate Division acknowledged that both of these criteria were satisfied based on the documents provided. The defendant did not need to provide a description of the events in Russia, as the plaintiff asserted.
The Appellate Division determined that, even if N.J.S.A. 9:3-43.2 could not be applied retroactively, the New Jersey Supreme Court had previously recognized New Jersey’s public policy favoring the recognition of foreign adoption decrees as they relate to inheritance and distribution of property, in Zanzonico v. Neeld. 17 N.J. 490 (1955). Under Zanzonico, the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that two conditions exist to recognize a foreign adoption decree: (1) the foreign court had jurisdiction to fix the status of the child with respect to the adoptive parents, and (2) the recognition of the foreign decree will not offend the public policy of the state of New Jersey. The Appellate Division determined that both criteria identified in Zanzonico were met through: the documentation that the defendant provided to the plaintiff in discovery; and the plaintiff’s failure to identify any public policy that would be contravened by recognizing the adoption.
Finally, the Appellate Division rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant’s IR-3 visa was not self-authenticating under N.J.R.E. 902 because it did not have an apostille. The trial court did not address whether the IR-3 visa was signed and sealed or sealed and certified such that it would qualify as self-authenticating. The Appellate Division determined that a finding that the visa was self-authenticating under N.J.R.E. 902 was unnecessary because the document was admissible under N.J.R.E. 901, which permits authentication of evidence by presenting “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what its proponent claims.” N.J.R.E. 901. The Appellate Division found that the visa was admissible under this rule given the ample documentation provided by the defendant.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s appointment of the plaintiff as administrator of the decedent’s estate and remanded for further proceedings.