Ellison v. Thompson (1978)

See also Ellison, 240 Ga. at 596 (“Other jurisdictions which recognize this principle also limit its application to the Crawford situation.”) (citation omitted); Lankford, 489 SE2d at 607 (“[T]he doctrine acts only to recognize the inheritance rights of a child whose [adoptive] parents died intestate ....

See also Ellison, 240 Ga. at 596 (“Other jurisdictions which recognize this principle also limit its application to the Crawford situation.”) (citation omitted); Lankford, 489 SE2d at 607 (“[T]he doctrine acts only to recognize the inheritance rights of a child whose [adoptive] parents died intestate . . . .

But, this Court has previously declined to extend the principle of “virtual adoption” to issues regarding a legal responsibility to support minor children, see Ellison v. Thompson, 240 Ga. 594, 596 ( 242 SE2d 95 ) (1978), and the simple fact is that no legal relationship between Mr. Dial and the child was ever created.

That doctrine has been confined by the Georgia Supreme Court to inheritance cases, and “is not applicable to a dispute as to who is legally responsible for the support of minor children.” Ellison v. Thompson, 240 Ga. 594, 596 ( 242 SE2d 95 ) (1978).

However, Wright is neither the natural nor the formally adoptive father of the child and “the theory of ‘virtual adoption’ is not applicable to a dispute as to who is legally responsible for the support of minor children.” Ellison v. Thompson, 240 Ga. 594, 596 ( 242 SE2d 95 ) (1978).

See, e.g., Ellison v. Thompson, 240 Ga. 594 , 242 S.E.2d 95, 96-97 (1978) (stating that the principle was first recognized in Georgia in 1913 when it was applied to allow a child to participate in the estate of a foster parent); Johnson, 617 N.W.2d at 101-02 (discussing the experimental relocation of homeless and indigent children between 1853 and 1929); Rebecca C.