## Facts

- N.T. became pregnant in New York after a brief relationship with M.P., then moved to Kansas and refused to disclose her address.
- N.T. told M.P. she had obtained an abortion; M.P. doubted the claim but did not take effective steps to confirm the pregnancy’s status or secure parental rights during the pregnancy.
- N.T. carried the child to term in Kansas and placed the newborn for adoption.
- In the adoption process, N.T. falsely represented that she did not know M.P.’s last name or whereabouts, preventing notice to him and leading to a decree of adoption without his participation.
- About six months after the adoption was finalized, N.T. informed M.P. the child had been born and adopted; genetic testing later confirmed M.P. as the biological father.
- M.P. moved to set aside the adoption decree, asserting lack of notice and fraud; the district court denied relief.

## Issues

1. Whether an unwed biological father who had not developed a protected parent-child relationship had a due process right to notice of a newborn adoption proceeding, such that the decree was void without notice.
2. Whether the natural mother’s fraud on the father and the court required vacating a finalized adoption despite the father’s delayed assertion of parental rights.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of M.P.’s motion to set aside the adoption decree.
- The court held the decree was not void for lack of notice because M.P. had not established a constitutionally protected liberty interest warranting due process notice.
- The court held that the mother’s serious fraud did not justify undoing the finalized adoption where the father failed to act with sufficient diligence and the child and adoptive family’s interests in permanence had matured.

## Legal Principles

- A biological connection alone does not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a parent-child relationship; such an interest arises from a developed familial relationship.
- In a newborn adoption context, an unwed father must show a timely, concrete commitment to parenting during the pregnancy to obtain constitutional protection.
- A putative father’s opportunity interest requires diligent action to protect parental rights when he has reason to believe a child may be born.
- Finality and stability of adoption decrees carry substantial weight, particularly after an adoption is completed and the child is integrated into the adoptive family.
- Fraud by a biological parent does not automatically void a finalized adoption; equitable relief may be denied when the challenging parent did not act promptly and the competing interests in permanency are strong.

## Conclusion

The court refused to set aside a finalized newborn adoption despite the mother’s deception because the biological father had not timely demonstrated a commitment sufficient to create a protected liberty interest requiring notice, and the interests in adoption finality and the child’s stability outweighed the father’s belated challenge.


In re Adoption of A.A.T., 196 P.3d 1180 (Kan. 2008)