## Facts

- A child, Lisa Diane G., was in the legal custody of the Rhode Island Department of Children and Their Families (DCF) before being adopted by the plaintiffs when she was eight years old.
- After the adoption, the adoptive parents learned that a psychiatric hospital had advised DCF that, due to Lisa’s behavioral problems, she should not be placed for adoption.
- The adoptive parents alleged DCF did not disclose this recommendation or the severity of the child’s emotional and behavioral difficulties before the adoption.
- The adoptive parents filed a Family Court complaint seeking to nullify the adoption decree and to recover expenses incurred in caring for the child, alleging the decree was procured by DCF’s fraud or misrepresentations.
- The Family Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
- During the proceedings, DCF filed a dependency petition; the Family Court adjudicated the child dependent and placed her in state custody.
- The adoptive parents appealed the jurisdictional dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether the Family Court, which has exclusive statutory jurisdiction over adoptions, has authority to adjudicate a claim seeking nullification of an adoption decree based on alleged fraud or misrepresentation in the adoption process.
2. If such authority exists, what standard of proof applies to adoptive parents seeking to invalidate an adoption decree for fraud or misrepresentation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that the Family Court has jurisdiction and inherent power to hear and decide a claim that an adoption decree was procured by fraud or misrepresentation.
- The Court held that adoptive parents must prove fraud or misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence to obtain nullification of an adoption decree.
- The Court sustained the appeal, vacated the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded for trial and adjudication of the fraud-based claims.

## Legal Principles

- Adoption is a statutory creation; the Family Court’s exclusive statutory jurisdiction over adoptions implies authority to address challenges alleging that its adoption decrees were procured by fraud or misrepresentation.
- A court with exclusive jurisdiction over adoption proceedings has inherent power to revisit and, if warranted, set aside an adoption decree entered in that court when fraud or misrepresentation is established.
- A party seeking to vacate an adoption decree for fraud must satisfy a heightened evidentiary burden; adoptive parents, like biological parents seeking to undo an adoption, must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
- In adjudicating fraud-based challenges to an adoption decree, the Family Court must consider the child’s best interests, while also weighing the harm asserted by the adoptive parents from the alleged misconduct.

## Conclusion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court recognized the Family Court’s authority to entertain and remedy claims that an adoption decree was procured by fraud, and required adoptive parents to prove such fraud by clear and convincing evidence, remanding for a merits determination.


In re Lisa Diane G., 537 A.2d 131 (R.I. 1988)