In Re Brooklyn J., E2016-00482-COA-R3-PT

Background

Mother (Mindy M.) had twins placed with relatives in 2012; relatives (James and Ila C.) later sought to adopt them and moved to Tennessee.
Adoptive parents filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights and adopt the children in Hamilton County, TN, on August 13, 2013; service on Mother could not be effected after two attempts and service by publication ran in October 2013 without a filed motion for publication under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-117.
The trial court entered default orders terminating Mother’s parental rights on December 16, 2013; adoptions were finalized December 30, 2013.
Mother learned of the termination/adoption by April 2014 but did not file to set aside the judgment until October 7, 2015; she argued the 2013 judgment was void for lack of personal service.
The trial court found the 2013 judgment void ab initio for defective publication procedure but denied relief under the "exceptional circumstances" doctrine because Mother had actual notice, waited 18 months, made no meaningful contact or support efforts, and granting relief would impair the children’s and adoptive parents’ reliance interests.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2013 termination/adoption judgment was void for lack of personal service and defective publication	Mother: Service by publication was invalid because Adoptive Parents failed to file the required motion under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-117; therefore the judgment is void	Adoptive Parents: Publication was adequate; in any event, Mother waited too long and equitable defenses bar relief	Court: Judgment was void for defective publication (court agreed publication procedure was not followed) but that voidness did not entitle Mother to relief under exceptional circumstances
Whether Mother timely sought relief and whether statute(s) of repose bar relief	Mother: Her Rule 60 motion should be considered despite delay because judgment was void	Adoptive Parents: Mother’s delay and statutory repose provisions preclude relief	Court: Procedural and repose arguments were considered, but ruling focused on exceptional-circumstances doctrine; delay (18 months after actual notice) supported denial of relief
Whether "exceptional circumstances" bar relief from a void judgment	Mother: Even if void, exceptional circumstances do not exist because she promptly sought relief once she discovered the adoptions	Adoptive Parents: Mother manifested intent to accept the judgment by doing nothing after actual notice and relief would impair children/adoptive parents	Court: Held exceptional circumstances existed — Mother’s 18‑month inaction plus lack of contact/support manifested intent to treat the judgment as valid, and granting relief would harm children’s and adoptive parents’ substantial reliance interests; relief denied

Key Cases Cited

Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2015) (sets forth "exceptional circumstances" framework for denying relief from void judgments)