Va. Code » Title 63.2. Welfare (Social Services) » Subtitle III. Social Services Programs » Chapter 12. Adoption » Article 1. General Provisions
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1216 (2026)

Final order not subject to attack after six months

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

After the expiration of six months from the date of entry of any final order of adoption from which no appeal has been taken to the Court of Appeals, the validity thereof shall not be subject to attack in any proceedings, collateral or direct, for any reason, including but not limited to fraud, duress, failure to give any required notice, failure of any procedural requirement, or lack of jurisdiction over any person, and such order shall be final for all purposes.

Code 1950, § 63-361; 1954, c. 489; 1968, c. 578, § 63.1-237; 1984, c. 703; 1995, cc. 772, 826; 2000, c. 830, § 63.1-219.23; 2002, c. 747.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Cathleen Nelson & William Nelson v. Middlesex Dept. of Soc. Servs. & John & Jane Doe, 820 S.E.2d 400 (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cathleen Nelson & William Nelson v. Middlesex Dept. of Soc. Servs. & John & Jane Doe, 820 S.E.2d 400 (Va. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 16× “-7- ANALYSIS Central to our resolution of a majority of grandparents’ appeal is the question of whether their pleading was properly before the circuit court.”
McCallum v. Salazar, 636 S.E.2d 486 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 22× “Without ruling on the factual merits of McCallum’s claim, the trial court dismissed the amended petition on the ground that Code § 63.2-1216 barred the claim as untimely.”
Mast v. A.A. (Va. 2026). · cites it 96× ““Nevertheless,” the circuit court held, “I find that Va. Code § 63.2-1216 would be unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case.”
J.M. v. A.A. (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 35× “Code § 63.2-1216 is a broad bar against attacking a final adoption order after six months.”
J.M. v. A.A. (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 35× “Code § 63.2-1216 is a broad bar against attacking a final adoption order after six months.”
J.M. v. A.A. (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 35× “Code § 63.2-1216 is a broad bar against attacking a final adoption order after six months.”
A.A. v. J.M. (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 35× “Code § 63.2-1216 is a broad bar against attacking a final adoption order after six months.”
Tracey Cook & Arthur Cook v. Gary Scott Jensen & Jennifer Debra Springer Jensen (Va. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 33× “The Jensens, based on the six-month limitation imposed by Code § 63.2-1216, further contended that the petition was filed too late to be considered.”
Shannon Kathleen Smith Hurt Lively v. Paulette Holland Smith & Link Monroe Smith (Va. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 23× “Paulette filed a demurrer arguing, in part, that Code § 63.2-1216 foreclosed all challenges to the adoption because more than six months had passed since entry of the adoption order.”
Zorija Castillo v. Catherine Bell (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “Code § 63.2-1216 prevents Castillo from attacking the final order of adoption.”
Bonanno v. Quinn (Va. 2021). · cites it 5× “She argues that Code § 63.2-1216 serves this purpose by providing that an adoption order may be challenged within six months after it was entered but that misinterprets the statute.”
Curtis O'Ferrell Smalls, II v. Curtis O'Ferrell Smalls, Sr. & Sarah Lee Smalls (Va. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Code § 63.2-1216 is not applicable here as father did appeal within the six-month window, but it serves to highlight the finality the General Assembly intends adoption proceedings to have.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.