In Re: Adoption of R.A.B., Appeal of: N.M.E.
153 A.3d 332
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- In April 2012, N.M.E. (the adoptive parent) obtained an adult adoption of his long-term same-sex partner, R.A.B., Jr., to formalize their relationship and for estate/financial planning — at that time same-sex marriage was not legal in Pennsylvania.
- After Pennsylvania recognized same-sex marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell, the parties sought to marry, but the existing parent-child adoption relationship prevented their marriage under then-applicable rules.
- On March 23, 2015, N.M.E. filed an unopposed petition to annul/revoke the adult adoption so the couple could marry; the petition included an affidavit of consent from R.A.B., Jr.
- The Allegheny County Orphans’ Court denied the petition on June 11, 2015; Orphans’ court later dismissed exceptions and N.M.E. timely appealed to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the Orphans’ Court had authority to annul/revoke an adult adoption under these circumstances and whether denying the petition infringed the fundamental right to marry.
- The Superior Court held that, although the Adoption Act does not expressly provide for annulment of adult adoptions, equitable authority and precedent permit revocation in these novel circumstances and reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting the annulment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Orphans’ Court may annul/revoke an adult adoption so the parties can marry | N.M.E.: Adult adoption may be revoked in equity; the Adoption Act cannot be used to bar exercise of fundamental right to marry post-Obergefell | Orphans’ Court: Lacked power to annul/revoke the adult adoption | Held: Orphans’ Court erred — it has authority in equity to grant an unopposed annulment/revocation under these unique facts |
| Whether denying annulment violated the fundamental right to marry | N.M.E.: Denial frustrated fundamental right guaranteed by Obergefell; adoption was pursued only because marriage was previously unavailable | Orphans’ Court: (Implicit) adoption decree stands and bars marriage | Held: Recognition of same-sex marriage and Obergefell support providing a path (annulment) to effectuate the right to marry |
| Whether the court was required to consider the adoptee’s best interests when ruling | N.M.E.: Orphans’ Court should consider R.A.B., Jr.’s best interests and consent — revocation is in his interest | Orphans’ Court: Apparent focus on lack of statutory mechanism for revocation rather than best-interest inquiry | Held: Court has equitable power; factual best-interest considerations apply on remand (court erred by denying petition for lack of authority) |
| Whether prior absence of statute permitting revocation precludes equitable relief | N.M.E.: Absence of explicit statutory provision does not preclude equitable revocation where justice and fundamental rights are implicated | Orphans’ Court: Adoption Act’s silence/structure limits revocation | Held: Silence in the Adoption Act does not bar equitable annulment of an adult adoption in these novel circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry)
- Whitewood v. Wolf, 992 F.Supp.2d 410 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (federal court holding Pennsylvania must permit and recognize same-sex marriages)
- Wilson v. Transport Ins. Co., 889 A.2d 563 (Pa. Super. 2005) (statutory interpretation standard and plenary review of legal questions)
- Cimino v. Valley Family Medicine, 912 A.2d 851 (Pa. Super. 2006) (rules of statutory construction; discerning legislative intent from plain language)
- In re Adoption of M., 722 A.2d 615 (N.J. Super. Ch. Div. 1998) (vacating adult adoption to permit marriage of adoptive parent and adult adoptee)
- Appeal of Willard, 65 Pa. 265 (Pa. 1870) (Orphans’ court is a court of equity with authority to grant equitable relief in adoption matters)