Case Update (31 Oct 2024): In Matter of Estate of R.S.; 30-year-old Russian adoption decree recognized in NJ
This case revolves around the estate of R.S. R.S. adopted the Defendant from Russia some 30 years ago (in 1993) with his now ex-spouse. At the time of the adoption, both parents resided in New Jersey. The adoption was finalized through a home study in New Jersey by an approved agency. On September 30, 1994, after the Defendant was adopted from Russia, he became a U.S. citizen through his parents. Apparently no subsequent 2nd adoption occurred in the United States. Over the years, Defendant became estranged from R.S. “due to a history of sexual abuse.” After R.S. died, Defendant was set to become the administrator of R.S.’s estate. However, R.S.’s brother (Defendant’s uncle) sued Defendant in order to stop Defendant’s appointment as administrator.
Through the lawsuit, Plaintiff issued discovery and took depositions. Defendant turned over significant paperwork, ranging from his Russian certification of adoption to his paperwork granting U.S. citizenship based on the adoption. Of course, he had no New Jersey adoption certificate. Relying on a statute in New Jersey that became effective in 2005, Plaintiff argued that the pre-2005 adoption in Russia did not qualify Defendant as R.S.’s legal child for inheritance purposes. The trial court in New Jersey concluded that the statute did not apply retroactively, and in doing so, concluded that there was insufficient information about the Defendant’s Russian adoption to confirm he was legally adopted. Defendant appealed.
On appeal, the appellate court clarified the NJ statute that related to the enforceability of a final judgment of adoption from a foreign jurisdiction. The 2005 statute required that NJ give the same force and effect to a foreign judgment of adoption as a NJ judgment of adoption without having to go through additional legal proceedings if: (a) the adopting parent was a NJ resident; and (b) the validity of the foreign adoption has been verified by the granting of applicable U.S. immigration visas. It concluded that the public policy of NJ embodies a “long standing history of recognizing foreign adoption judgments for inheritance purposes” and therefore, “there would be no manifest injustice to applying the current law to this case.” The court found that the 2005 statute requirements existed in the case of Defendant, and that Plaintiff “points to no public policy that would be contravened by recognizing the Russian adoption.” In fact, the court concluded that not recognizing a Russian adoption that occurred over thirty years ago, and that was recognized by the U.S. government to grant an IR-3 visa and then U.S. citizenship, would offend NJ’s public policy.
Separately, on appeal, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant’s IR-3 visa documents did not have an apostille, and therefore were not properly authenticated. The appellate court concluded that these documents are self-authenticating and “there is ample evidence to support a finding that the IR-3 visa is what it purports to be.” The Plaintiff had copies of these documents in advance of their June 2, 2023 hearing, and sufficient time to investigate their authenticity, and offered no extrinsic evidence to raise question as to their validity.
