by David Levin

A recent California court has spoken, and with its ruling you can add inheritance rights to the list of benefits a formal adoption provides.

In the matter of Poli v. Cameron, (October 28, 2002) the California Court of Appeal ruled that a child (Ms. Cameron) who had been raised by her stepfather from the age of two but never formally adopted by him could not be considered a “lineal descendant” by law and was therefore not entitled to inherit property through the will of her stepgrandmother.

In the Poli case Ms. Cameron’s stepfather had attempted to legally adopt her but was unable to secure the consent of her biological father. The stepfather later died without a will, then Cameron’s stepgrandmother died with a will dividing her property among her “issue” or as commonly understood by law, her descendents.

The court rejected Ms. Cameron’s claim of inheritance because the law in this subject area requires both a continuous relationship between child and stepparent, as well as the attempt at legal adoption prevented by some legal barrier. In making its ruling the court stated that the legal barrier preventing adoption must be a continuing one. The fact that the barrier was removed once the child became an adult (because consent from the biological father was then no longer needed) and yet a formal adoption was not attempted again starting at that point or anytime after meant they failed to meet the legal requirements.

It is important to note that this case involved an inheritance directly from one’s stepgrandparent, and thus not from one’s stepparent but rather through the stepparent. Had the facts of this case involved a disputed inheritance directly from the stepparent, Ms. Cameron could have relied on an easier-to-prove theory known as equitable adoption, a legal principle that basically establishes an adoption in those situations as here, where the child essentially fulfills her duties as a child but where no legal adoption has taken place.

The equitable adoption theory, however, is limited: It only confers a contract right (as if Ms. Cameron had a contract with her stepfather), not an inheritance right which would give her broader rights among third parties, such as stepgrandparents. That is why Ms. Cameron was unsuccessful applying an equitable adoption theory to this situation.

What might this case have to do with you? For any individual considering formal adoption of a stepchild or fosterchild, this case makes a couple of issues abundantly clear:

1. For establishing inheritance rights where those rights from grandparents or greatgrandparents become relevant, legal adoption will enforce those rights. If not possible before the child reaches the age of adulthood, legal adoption should be pursued afterward.

2. In estate planning, clear intentions made known by the maker of the document (e.g. the individual’s will or trust) should avoid problems like this. In other words, had the grandmother’s will not simply divided property among her “issue” but used a clear directive to give a portion of her property to Ms. Cameron, a dispute of this nature would never have taken place.

David Levin is an estate planning attorney practicing in Alameda, California. He works with individuals and families to help them achieve their goals for family and business continuation.

Copyright © 2003-2008, Levin Law Firm. All rights reserved. Any publication, transmittal or distribution of this article in any form whatsoever is prohibited without the express written consent of its author.

LEVIN LAW FIRM
1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 400
Alameda, CA 94501
Tel. (510) 523-5040
Fax. (510) 217-7005