Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 25.23.140 (2026)
Appeal and validation of adoption decree
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 25.23.140. Appeal and validation of adoption decree.
(a) An appeal from any final order or decree rendered under this chapter may be taken in the manner and time provided for appeal from a judgment in a civil action.
(b) Subject to the disposition of an appeal, upon the expiration of one year after an adoption decree is issued, the decree may not be questioned by any person including the petitioner, in any manner upon any ground, including fraud, misrepresentation, failure to give any required notice, or lack of jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, unless, in the case of the adoption of a minor the petitioner has not taken custody of the minor, or, in the case of the adoption of an adult, the adult had no knowledge of the decree within the one-year period.
(c) Subject to the disposition of an appeal, one year after a decree is issued terminating parental rights on grounds set out in AS 25.23.180(c)(2) , the order may not be challenged on any ground, including fraud, misrepresentation, failure to give notice, or lack of jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter.
(a) An appeal from any final order or decree rendered under this chapter may be taken in the manner and time provided for appeal from a judgment in a civil action.
(b) Subject to the disposition of an appeal, upon the expiration of one year after an adoption decree is issued, the decree may not be questioned by any person including the petitioner, in any manner upon any ground, including fraud, misrepresentation, failure to give any required notice, or lack of jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter, unless, in the case of the adoption of a minor the petitioner has not taken custody of the minor, or, in the case of the adoption of an adult, the adult had no knowledge of the decree within the one-year period.
(c) Subject to the disposition of an appeal, one year after a decree is issued terminating parental rights on grounds set out in AS 25.23.180(c)(2) , the order may not be challenged on any ground, including fraud, misrepresentation, failure to give notice, or lack of jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: In Re the Adoption of T.N.F., 781 P.2d 973 (Alaska 1989).
In Re the Adoption of T.N.F., 781 P.2d 973 (Alaska 1989). “Judge Carlson rested his decision on AS 25.23.140 which provides that a decree of adoption may not be questioned on any ground one year after its issuance.”
Hernandez v. Lambert, 951 P.2d 436 (Alaska 1998). “Hernandez made no effort to claim paternity or have contact with C.L. until almost five years after the Lamberts became C.”
In Re the Adoption of S.K.L.H., 204 P.3d 320 (Alaska 2009). “" The Smiths argue that invalidation of an adoption decree is limited to the grounds mentioned in AS 25.23.140(b), namely fraud, misrepresentation, failure to give required notice, and lack of jurisdiction.”
In Re the Adoption of Erin G., 140 P.3d 886 (Alaska 2006). “The superior court held that AS 25.23.140(b), Alaska’s one-year statute of limitations for challenging adoption decrees, barred David’s petition.”
Angelica C v. Jonathan C, Angelica C v. Jonathan C, 459 P.3d 1148 (Alaska 2020). “24, § 7, SLA 2018 (“[O]ne year after a decree is issued terminating parental rights on grounds set out in AS 25.”
State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs. v. Native Vill. of Curyung, 151 P.3d 388 (Alaska 2006). “3d at 893 (AS 25.23.140(b) requires that challenges to an adoption decree be brought within one year).”
Goliver v. McAllister, 34 P.3d 324 (Alaska 2001). “Without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ruled that Goliver's motion was barred by the one-year period of limitations set out in AS 25.23.140(b). 1 Goliver appeals, contending, among other things, that the court should have conducted an evi-dentiary hearing in order to…”
In the Matter of the Adoption of C.R. & E.R., Edna L. (Mother) v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS, John L. (Father) v. State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS, In the Matter of Adoption of C.R. & E.R., State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS v. John L., State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS v. Edna L. (Alaska 2025). “-16- 7778 statute’s plain language supports construing subsection (b) in harmony60 with subsection (a)’s authorization for an appeal “under [the adoption] chapter,”61 such that only an appeal of an adoption decree tolls the one-year period.”
In Re Adoption of E.H. & J.H., 431 P.3d 1190 (Alaska 2018). “" 15 Although AS 25.23.140(b) prohibits any party from challenging an adoption decree after one year on any ground, including fraud and misrepresentation, we clarified in In re Adoption of S.”
Pamiuqtuuq C.v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS (Alaska 2022). “14 The guardian ad litem suggests that this appeal is moot because AS 25.23.140(b) bars collateral attacks on adoptions that occurred more than one year ago and the grandmother adopted the children in July 2020.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.23.140(a) — 1 case
In the Matter of the Adoption of C.R. & E.R., Edna L. (Mother) v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS, John L. (Father) v. State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS, In the Matter of Adoption of C.R. & E.R., State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS v. John L., State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS v. Edna L. (Alaska 2025). “-16- 7778 statute’s plain language supports construing subsection (b) in harmony60 with subsection (a)’s authorization for an appeal “under [the adoption] chapter,”61 such that only an appeal of an adoption decree tolls the one-year period.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.23.140(b) — 10 cases
In Re the Adoption of T.N.F., 781 P.2d 973 (Alaska 1989). “Judge Carlson rested his decision on AS 25.23.140 which provides that a decree of adoption may not be questioned on any ground one year after its issuance.”
In Re the Adoption of S.K.L.H., 204 P.3d 320 (Alaska 2009). “" The Smiths argue that invalidation of an adoption decree is limited to the grounds mentioned in AS 25.23.140(b), namely fraud, misrepresentation, failure to give required notice, and lack of jurisdiction.”
Hernandez v. Lambert, 951 P.2d 436 (Alaska 1998). “Hernandez made no effort to claim paternity or have contact with C.L. until almost five years after the Lamberts became C.”
In Re the Adoption of Erin G., 140 P.3d 886 (Alaska 2006). “The superior court held that AS 25.23.140(b), Alaska’s one-year statute of limitations for challenging adoption decrees, barred David’s petition.”
State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs. v. Native Vill. of Curyung, 151 P.3d 388 (Alaska 2006). “3d at 893 (AS 25.23.140(b) requires that challenges to an adoption decree be brought within one year).”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.23.140(c) — 1 case
Angelica C v. Jonathan C, Angelica C v. Jonathan C, 459 P.3d 1148 (Alaska 2020). “24, § 7, SLA 2018 (“[O]ne year after a decree is issued terminating parental rights on grounds set out in AS 25.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.