Boseman v. Jarrell
364 N.C. 537
N.C.2010Background
- Boseman and Jarrell formed a domestic partnership; in 2005 they sought to have Boseman adopt their child without terminating Jarrell’s parental rights.
- The adoption court in Durham County entered a decree purportedly directing a direct placement adoption that would not sever Jarrell’s parental rights.
- The decree stated it substituted families while not severing the biological relationship, and the clerk was instructed not to transmit the decree to the Division of Social Services.
- After their relationship ended in 2006, Boseman pursued custody relying on the adoption decree; Jarrell challenged its validity.
- The trial court found joint custody appropriate, held the adoption void ab initio, but allowed custody based on best interests; Court of Appeals affirmed admissibility of custody ruling.
- The Supreme Court held the adoption decree void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction under Chapter 48, but upheld the trial court’s use of best interests in custody; remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adoption decree is void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction | Boseman contends the court lacked jurisdiction to craft nonstatutory relief | Jarrell contends the court had jurisdiction and should enforce voluntary waivers | Decree void ab initio; no jurisdiction to enter nonstatutory relief |
| Whether defendant acted inconsistently with paramount parental status | Boseman argues defendant created a durable family unit with shared parental responsibilities | Jarrell argues no inconsistency; remains paramount parent | Defendant acted inconsistently; supports custody by best interests standard |
| Whether the trial court properly used best interests standard in custody | Boseman argues best interests should not apply to a parent-nonparent custody scenario | Jarrell contends parental rights dominate; best interests not applicable | Best interests standard appropriate due to inconsistent parental status but still hands joint custody to both parties |
| Whether § 48-2-607(a) bars challenges to final adoption | Boseman asserts post-final-order challenge permissible | Jarrell asserts waiver/limitations bar challenge | Statute bars challenges; however adoption void ab initio remains under review by Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68 (1997) (parental rights and nonparent custody; framework for inconsistency)
- Mason v. Dwinnell, 190 N.C.App. 209 (2008) (de facto parent and sustained custody in family unit; shared decision-making indicates inconsistency)
- In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588 (2006) (jurisdiction and void judgments; subject matter jurisdiction standards)
- Wilson v. Anderson, 232 N.C. 212 (1950) (adoption is statutory; direct placement framework)
- State v. Benton, 276 N.C. 641 (1970) (legislative knowledge of prior law; general principles of jurisdiction)