Family law cases are complex. You’re probably quite familiar with this fact if you’re currently in the midst of a family law case. There are plenty of important issues for the family court to consider. Whether those issues be regarding divorce, custody, adoption, etc. When you try these cases, it’s important to have all the facts. When all the facts aren’t there, the verdict can be swayed in one way or another. For this reason, when relevant facts are passed over in family court, there may be a case for extrinsic fraud. For a strong example, we’re going to look into a recent South Carolina case, Roe v. L.C. and X.C, where this exact issue arises…
Extrinsic Fraud in Family Court: Roe v. L.C. and X.C
The Background and Facts:
Nila Carter and her ex-husband Mickey Carter have two young children together. Due to increasing financial and marital distress, they make the tough decision to put their children up for adoption. Together, they sign a consent decree for the private adoption of their children for a couple by the names of John and Mary Roe.
Just eight days after the fact, the Carters file a withdrawal to revoke their consent. They argue that the consent was not valid because they were under emotional distress, and felt pressure to sign the consent decree at the time. They appear before six family court judges, and attend seven separate hearings in hopes of regaining custody of their children. But each time, they are met with a denial. In the meantime, John and Mary Roe finalize adoption on the two Carter children and make the move to dismiss the biological parent’s appeal.
Claiming Involuntary Consent, Duress, Coercion, and Extrinsic Fraud
All six judges deny the Carter’s motions. Many cited the unusual nature of the proceedings, and the relevance of the SC Adoption Act. However, none addressed the actual merits of their claims. At one point, a judge suggests they file a motion alleging extrinsic fraud. Six days later, the Carters filed a motion requesting relief from the final adoption order. They argued that their consent was involuntary, and the product of duress, coercion, and extrinsic fraud.
The court defines fraud as something that prevents a person from presenting their case, or deprives them of the opportunity for a court to hear their case.
In the case of Roe v. L.C. and X.C, the Court of Appeals denied their motion. So, ultimately, the case went to the SC Supreme Court. Upon hearing the case, the court decides that the Carters did in fact file the motion in a timely manner.
The court also discussed how the adoptive couple’s counsel failed to mention the motion at their final adoption hearing when the family court asked if there were any other issues to acknowledge. They argued that this constituted extrinsic fraud. Thus, they reversed the appellate court decision. Therefore, the case is being sent back to the family court to further reevaluate the Carter’s claim.
Avoiding Complications in Your Case
Family law cases, especially those involving children, can be very difficult to navigate. After all, they have some pretty serious consequences. For this reason, it’s extremely important that you lay out all the facts. By doing so, you avoid complicating your case further and spending even more time in front of a judge.
