This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Three children were left by their mother with her brother and his wife (the Petitioners) in 1987. The Human Services Department (the Department) investigated and initiated neglect proceedings, obtaining legal and physical custody of the children. The Department treated the Petitioners as a relative foster placement. In 1989, the Petitioners filed for adoption of the children, but the Department later removed the children from their care due to concerns raised by school officials.
Procedural History
- District Court, January 1988: Entered a stipulated dispositional order finding the children neglected, granting custody to the Department, and officially placing the children in the Petitioners' home for foster care.
- District Court, 1991: Dismissed the Petitioners' adoption petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the children were in a foster placement and not "residing" with the Petitioners under the statutory exception.
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that they qualified for the statutory exception under Section 40-7-34(A)(3) because the children had resided with them for over a year and they were relatives within the fifth degree of consanguinity.
- Respondent-Appellee (Human Services Department): Contended that the children were in a foster placement, not residing with the Petitioners, and that the Department retained legal custody and the exclusive right to determine placement for adoption.
Legal Issues
- Whether the children "resided" with the Petitioners within the meaning of Section 40-7-34(A)(3), thereby qualifying for the statutory exception to the adoption placement requirement.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal of the adoption petition and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Reasons
Per Black J. (Bivins and Chavez JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the term "reside" in Section 40-7-34(A)(3) should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning, which includes having a settled abode for a time, rather than requiring an intent to remain permanently. The Court rejected the Department's argument that the children’s legal custody with the Department or their foster placement status precluded a finding of residence with the Petitioners. The Court emphasized that the statutory exception was designed to recognize family relationships and that the children had lived continuously with the Petitioners for over a year, satisfying the residency requirement. The Court also noted that the Department could still present evidence regarding the Petitioners' suitability as adoptive parents during further proceedings.