South Carolina Lawyers Weekly
After successfully arguing to the family court that the petitioner-biological mother’s attempt to rescind her consent to adoption had to be filed as a separate action, counsel for the adoptive couple requested a final adoption hearing without notice to petitioner and then failed to inform the family court judge of petitioner’s separate action. Petitioner’s Rule 60 motion in this adoption action adequately alleged extrinsic fraud in that her attempts to be heard were systematically thwarted by the adoptive couple’s counsel.
We reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold the family court’s denial of the mother’s Rule 60 motion.
Where petitioner filed her Rule 60 motion just days after a family court judge told her to do so and only four months after the adoption decree was entered, the Rule 60 motion was timely filed.
Roe v. L.C. (Ex parte Carter) (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-034-18, 9 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Charleston County Family Court (Edgar Long Jr., J.) On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. A. Mattison Bogan for petitioner; K. Jay Anthony, Emily McDaniel Barrett and Thomas Lowndes Jr. for respondents. S.C. S. Ct.
