This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a stepparent adoption petition filed by the adoptive father (Father) for the two minor children of the mother (Mother). The natural father had provided an affidavit of irrevocable consent to the adoption. A home study recommended the adoption, but the parties separated before the hearing, and Father did not withdraw the petition. The trial court granted the adoption despite Father’s absence at the hearing. Years later, Father sought to set aside the adoption decree, arguing non-compliance with statutory residency requirements and lack of jurisdiction (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, August 12, 1986: Granted the adoption petition and issued a final decree of adoption (para 3).
- District Court, July 13, 1992: Denied Father’s motion for relief from the adoption decree, finding the proceedings complied with the Adoption Act and that the decree was not subject to attack (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Father): Argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the statutory one-year residency requirement for stepparent adoptions was not met. He also contended that his absence at the adoption hearing invalidated the decree (paras 6-7, 15).
- Respondent (Mother): Asserted that the adoption proceedings complied with the Adoption Act, the one-year residency requirement was not jurisdictional, and Father’s motion was time-barred under the statutory one-year limitation for challenging adoption decrees (paras 5, 13, 15).
Legal Issues
- Was the one-year residency requirement for stepparent adoptions a jurisdictional prerequisite?
- Did the trial court err in denying Father’s motion for relief from the adoption decree due to his absence at the adoption hearing?
- Was Father’s motion for relief time-barred under the statutory one-year limitation for challenging adoption decrees?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, denying Father’s motion for relief from the adoption decree (para 16).
Reasons
Per Bivins J. (Minzner C.J. and Pickard J. concurring):
- The Court held that the one-year residency requirement under Section 40-7-34(A)(2) of the Adoption Act was not jurisdictional but a statutory safeguard to ensure the child’s best interests. The trial court had jurisdiction to grant the adoption despite non-compliance with this requirement (paras 8-12).
- The Court emphasized that the adoption decree could not be attacked after one year under Section 40-7-51(F). Father’s motion, filed more than five years after the decree, was time-barred (para 13).
- Father’s absence at the adoption hearing did not invalidate the decree, as his attorney was present, and the Adoption Act did not require his physical presence. Additionally, the statutory time limitation precluded this argument (para 15).