C.E.L. v. T.L. (In Re Adoption of B.N.A.)
2018 UT App 224
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Mother arranged to relinquish a newborn for adoption; prospective adoptive parents (Petitioners) filed an adoption petition in Tooele County (Third Judicial District) though they reside in Utah County (Fourth Judicial District).
- Petitioners obtained an order appointing an agency representative to take Mother’s relinquishment; Mother signed and Petitioners received temporary custody.
- Mother later moved to set aside her relinquishment; the district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied her motion (not at issue on appeal).
- Father, who had no relationship with the child and claims late notice of paternity, moved to intervene and then argued the adoption petition must be dismissed because it was filed in the wrong judicial district under Utah Code § 78B-6-105(1)(a).
- The district court denied Father’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Father obtained permission to appeal that interlocutory order.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Petitioners’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah Code § 78B-6-105(1)(a) is jurisdictional or venue | Statute is jurisdictional; filing in wrong district deprives court of subject-matter jurisdiction and requires dismissal | Statute is a venue provision; any district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over adoptions and wrong-venue filings require transfer, not dismissal | Statute is a venue provision; wrong-venue does not strip subject-matter jurisdiction; court may transfer on motion and its rulings are not void |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of B.B., 417 P.3d 1 (Utah 2017) (limits and "cabins" subject-matter jurisdiction; distinguishes jurisdictional defects from venue/merits issues)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 234 P.3d 1100 (Utah 2010) (subject-matter jurisdiction assessed categorically by class of cases)
- In re Adoption of Baby E.Z., 266 P.3d 702 (Utah 2011) (district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over adoption proceedings as a class)
- In re Adoption of K.O., 748 P.2d 588 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (earlier decision treating filing-district rule as jurisdictional)
- In re Adoption of S.L.F., 27 P.3d 583 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (transferred a misfiled adoption petition between districts; earlier panel language suggesting a jurisdictional requirement)
- State v. Stewart, 417 P.3d 624 (Utah 2018) (reviews statutory interpretation de novo and discusses limits of subject-matter jurisdiction)