In Re: Dae'Jrien T.
E2017-00051-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- Final decree of adoption entered December 21, 2016, terminating appellant Natosha D.'s parental rights.
- Counsel filed a notice of appeal on January 3, 2017 that lacked the appellant’s signature, in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-124(d).
- The court notified counsel of the statutory defect; counsel filed a signed amended notice of appeal on February 17, 2017 (after the 30-day appeal period).
- Appellant asked the Court to treat the amended notice as curing the defect and urged adoption of reasoning from an Indiana case; counsel also argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel justified allowing the appeal.
- The Court relied on its own precedent (e.g., In re Gabrielle W.; In re Catherine J.) holding an unsigned notice in a TPR case deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction and refused to waive the defect.
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; costs taxed to appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unsigned notice of appeal in a termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) case invokes appellate jurisdiction | Appellant argued the amended signed notice (filed after 30 days) should be treated as curative; urged adoption of Indiana approach | Appellees asserted the unsigned initial notice failed to meet Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-124(d) and deprived the court of jurisdiction | Court held unsigned notice deprived it of jurisdiction; dismissal required |
| Whether a late amended notice of appeal (signed) can cure the jurisdictional defect | Appellant urged the Court to accept the untimely amended notice as sufficient | Appellees relied on Tennessee precedent holding untimely amendments do not confer jurisdiction | Court held untimely amended notice cannot cure the jurisdictional defect; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether ineffective assistance of trial counsel excuses the jurisdictional defect or permits a separate remedy | Appellant argued dismissal would unfairly penalize parent for counsel’s error and implicate fundamental liberty interests | Appellees and Court noted appellate jurisdiction must exist before addressing ineffective-assistance claims; procedural rules cannot be waived to create jurisdiction | Court held ineffective-assistance argument cannot be entertained because the Court lacked jurisdiction; no waiver of procedural defect |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (discusses parental liberty interests and limits on remedies for ineffective assistance in TPR appeals)
- Ottinger v. Stooksbury, 206 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (Tennessee courts should rely on in-state precedent when directly on point)
- Arfken & Assocs., P.A. v. Simpson Bridge Co., Inc., 85 S.W.3d 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (court may not waive jurisdictional procedural requirements)
- Am. Steinwinter Investor Grp. v. Am. Steinwinter, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 569 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (procedural defects affecting jurisdiction are not subject to equitable waiver)
- Jefferson v. Pneumo Servs. Corp., 699 S.W.2d 181 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985) (courts cannot relax jurisdictional filing requirements)