820 S.E.2d 411
Va. Ct. App.2018Background
- Child born in Nov. 2005; removed from mother shortly after birth for in utero cocaine exposure and placed with custodians (Howard and Kahlilah Ottrix) by the Department of Social Services.
- JDR court issued removal and dispositional orders; custodians obtained sole legal and physical custody in 2007 after parents failed to complete remedial steps; parental visitation later terminated.
- In 2017 custodians filed to adopt; both parents (mother and Knight) expressly refused consent at the JDR hearing; JDR court found each parent was withholding consent contrary to the child’s best interests.
- Knight appealed de novo to the Norfolk Circuit Court; the circuit court affirmed the JDR court’s finding by order dated Feb. 15, 2018.
- On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court raised subject-matter-jurisdiction issues sua sponte and held the JDR court lacked jurisdiction because this was not a parental-placement adoption (no parent had placed the child directly with adoptive parents).
- Because circuit court jurisdiction on de novo appeal is derivative of the JDR court’s jurisdiction, the circuit court also lacked jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the JDR court had jurisdiction to determine that a parent was withholding consent to adoption contrary to the child’s best interests where the adoption was not a parental placement | Knight argued the JDR court lacked jurisdiction because this was not a parental-placement adoption | Custodians (and JDR court below) treated petition as properly before JDR court and sought a best-interest finding despite non-parental-placement facts | JDR court lacked jurisdiction under Code § 63.2-1233 because at least one birth parent must have placed the child; petition should have been filed in circuit court if no parent consented; JDR order vacated |
| Whether the circuit court could exercise de novo appellate jurisdiction to uphold the JDR court’s ruling | Knight argued the circuit court could not, because its jurisdiction is derivative of the JDR court’s | Custodians argued circuit court properly reviewed and affirmed the JDR ruling de novo | Held that the circuit court’s jurisdiction is derivative of the JDR court’s; because the JDR court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the circuit court also lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter |
Key Cases Cited
- Parrish v. Fannie Mae, 292 Va. 44, 787 S.E.2d 116 (2016) (circuit court’s de novo appellate jurisdiction is derivative of a court not of record and limited by that court’s subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Fairfax Cty. Dep’t of Family Servs. v. D.N., 29 Va. App. 400, 512 S.E.2d 830 (1999) (appellate court in de novo review has same jurisdiction as original court)
- Addison v. Salyer, 185 Va. 644, 40 S.E.2d 260 (1946) (principle that appellate court’s jurisdiction mirrors original court’s jurisdiction)