equitable adoption doctrine (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

equitable adoption doctrine in Texas

5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1959–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Heien v. Crabtreegreen
tex · 1963 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1977–2020
2 sentences

2020The doctrine of equitable adoption is not “the same as legal adoption” and does not contain “all of the legal consequences of a statutory adoption.” Eilers, 205 S.W.3d at 641 (quoting Heien, 369 S.W.2d at 30 ).

1977It is true that in Heien the Supreme Court said that the language of the Probate Code § 3(b), which is a legislative recognition of the doctrine of equitable adoption, indicates a mistaken “legislative assumption that our courts had held that a child may be adopted by acts of estoppel, and thus that a legal status of parent and child is created by acts of estoppel.” 369 S.W.2d at 30 .

12
Cubley v. Barbeegreen
· 1934 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1977–2011
2 sentences

2011The Supreme Court of Texas first began applying what became known as equitable adoption when it held that if the parties in good faith executed and acknowledged an instrument of adoption but failed to record the instrument, and the parties to the adoption ―lived in a relationship wholly consistent with that of parent and child,‖ then ―those claiming under the adoptive parents were estopped to deny the validity of the instrument of adoption and its recordation.‖15 The court also applied the doctrine in cases when no instrument of adoption had been executed but the adoptive parent had received f

2011The Supreme Court of Texas first began applying what became known as equitable adoption when it held that if the parties in good faith executed and acknowledged an instrument of adoption but failed to record the instrument, and the parties to the adoption ―lived in a relationship wholly consistent with that of parent and child,‖ then ―those claiming under the adoptive parents were estopped to deny the validity of the instrument of adoption and its recordation.‖15 The court also applied the doctrine in cases when no instrument of adoption had been executed but the adoptive parent had received f

12
Rubiolo v. McNeesgreen
texapp · 1957 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Even though Texas recognizes the doctrine of equitable adoption, it has “done so only with caution and within certain well-defined boundaries.” Rubiolo v. McNees, 301 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1957, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

11
In Re Ray Ellison Grandchildren Trustgreen
texapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011The Supreme Court of Texas first began applying what became known as equitable adoption when it held that if the parties in good faith executed and acknowledged an instrument of adoption but failed to record the instrument, and the parties to the adoption ―lived in a relationship wholly consistent with that of parent and child,‖ then ―those claiming under the adoptive parents were estopped to deny the validity of the instrument of adoption and its recordation.‖15 The court also applied the doctrine in cases when no instrument of adoption had been executed but the adoptive parent had received f

11
Jones v. Guygreen
tex · 1940 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011The Supreme Court of Texas first began applying what became known as equitable adoption when it held that if the parties in good faith executed and acknowledged an instrument of adoption but failed to record the instrument, and the parties to the adoption ―lived in a relationship wholly consistent with that of parent and child,‖ then ―those claiming under the adoptive parents were estopped to deny the validity of the instrument of adoption and its recordation.‖15 The court also applied the doctrine in cases when no instrument of adoption had been executed but the adoptive parent had received f

2011The Supreme Court of Texas first began applying what became known as equitable adoption when it held that if the parties in good faith executed and acknowledged an instrument of adoption but failed to record the instrument, and the parties to the adoption ―lived in a relationship wholly consistent with that of parent and child,‖ then ―those claiming under the adoptive parents were estopped to deny the validity of the instrument of adoption and its recordation.‖15 The court also applied the doctrine in cases when no instrument of adoption had been executed but the adoptive parent had received f

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Cavanaugh v. Davis green
tex · 1951
2 sentences

2011The Supreme Court of Texas first began applying what became known as equitable adoption when it held that if the parties in good faith executed and acknowledged an instrument of adoption but failed to record the instrument, and the parties to the adoption ―lived in a relationship wholly consistent with that of parent and child,‖ then ―those claiming under the adoptive parents were estopped to deny the validity of the instrument of adoption and its recordation.‖15 The court also applied the doctrine in cases when no instrument of adoption had been executed but the adoptive parent had received f

1977It is settled that a person claiming the protection of the equitable adoption doctrine must establish the facts giving rise to the estoppel by evidence which is “clear, unequivocal and convincing.” Cavanaugh v. Davis, supra, 235 S.W.2d at 973 .

21977–2011
Spiers v. Maples green
texapp · 1998
1 sentence

2020Spiers, 970 S.W.2d at 170 . 9 Courts in Texas have “long” recognized the doctrine of equitable adoption.

12020–2020
Pope Ex Rel. Fisk v. First National Bank in Dallas green
texapp · 1983
1 sentence

2020Pope, 658 S.W.2d at 765 ; Eilers, 205 S.W.3d at 641 .

12020–2020
In Re the Marriage of Eilers green
texapp · 2006
2 sentences

2020The doctrine of equitable adoption is not “the same as legal adoption” and does not contain “all of the legal consequences of a statutory adoption.” Eilers, 205 S.W.3d at 641 (quoting Heien, 369 S.W.2d at 30 ).

2020Pope, 658 S.W.2d at 765 ; Eilers, 205 S.W.3d at 641 .

12020–2020
Flynn v. State green
texcrimapp · 1986
1 sentence

2000Flynn v. State, 707 S.W.2d at 87 .

12000–2000
Thompson v. Moseley green
mo · 1939
2 sentences

1959The basis of the doctrine of equitable adoption `has been recognized to be that it is so inequitable and unjust to allow one to fail to comply with an agreement made with the parent or custodian of a child to adopt it, when he has taken the child at such an age that it had no will or choice of its own in the matter, that, after the child has performed everything contemplated by the relation provided for, the intended adoptive parent or his heirs will be estopped to deny an adoption.' Thompson v. Moseley, 344 Mo. 240 , 125 S.W. 2d 860, 862 , * * * "An equitable adoption functions to enforce the

1959The basis of the doctrine of equitable adoption `has been recognized to be that it is so inequitable and unjust to allow one to fail to comply with an agreement made with the parent or custodian of a child to adopt it, when he has taken the child at such an age that it had no will or choice of its own in the matter, that, after the child has performed everything contemplated by the relation provided for, the intended adoptive parent or his heirs will be estopped to deny an adoption.' Thompson v. Moseley, 344 Mo. 240 , 125 S.W. 2d 860, 862 , * * * "An equitable adoption functions to enforce the

11959–1959

Where else courts name it

CA 9 (1980–2022) IL 9 (2013–2026) MO 8 (1952–2019) UT 6 (2013–2021) TX 5 (1959–2020) NC 5 (1983–2021) CO 4 (1969–1995) MD 4 (1994–2025) NJ 4 (1993–2010) NV 3 (1998–2017) AK 3 (1977–2010) KS 2 (1987–1989) SD 2 (1996–1996) WV 2 (1986–1993) OK 2 (2015–2015) ND 2 (2000–2002) GA 2 (2015–2015) NY 2 (1983–1992)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check