CONN v. INGRAM
ADOPTION RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
2007-CA-002255
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMED
PANEL: NICKELL PRESIDING; CAPERTON AND KELLER CONCUR
COUNTY: MENIFEE
DATE RENDERED: 4/24/2009
Dad appealed from TC order dismissing his petition to adopt his adult natural born Daughter because he failed to satisfy the residency requirement stated in KRS 199.470(1). Dad claimed that the statute’s residency requirement applied to Daughter, not to him.
CONN v. INGRAM
ADOPTION RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
2007-CA-002255
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMED
PANEL: NICKELL PRESIDING; CAPERTON AND KELLER CONCUR
COUNTY: MENIFEE
DATE RENDERED: 4/24/2009
Dad appealed from TC order dismissing his petition to adopt his adult natural born Daughter because he failed to satisfy the residency requirement stated in KRS 199.470(1). Dad claimed that the statute’s residency requirement applied to Daughter, not to him.
Dad’s petition for adoption stated that he was a resident of Missouri and Daughter a resident of Kentucky. An adult may be adopted in Kentucky under the same laws for adoption of a child, with the exception that only the adult’s consent is needed. Kentucky’s adoption law provides that the person filing the petition must be a resident of Kentucky for one year prior to filing the adoption petition. Dad argued that this residency requirement is relevant only to the adoption of minors. CA disagreed, holding that the residency requirement stated in KRS 199.470(1) applies to all adoptions and recognizing that the Kentucky Supreme Court had previously stated that the residency requirement of the adoption statute must be strictly enforced.
Digested by Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes, Diana L. Skaggs + Associates
