In Re: Gabrielle W.
E2016-02064-COA-R3-PT
Tenn. Ct. App.Jul 11, 2017Background
- Child born in 2006; mother had substance abuse issues and child was placed with maternal relatives, then with James and Martha R. (Guardians). Guardians sought and obtained an adoption finalized in August 2009.
- Mother had identified "Dustin W." (a misspelling of Father) in juvenile proceedings and told multiple people Father lived in Galveston, Texas and was a traveling crane operator; Guardians heard the name but made limited follow-up inquiries.
- Father was told in 2006 by mother that the child might be his; DNA testing at the time reportedly excluded him. In 2011 mother later told Father she believed the child was his, prompting Father to investigate and eventually file to establish paternity in 2013.
- Father discovered the adoption during the 2013 proceedings; he filed a Motion to Set Aside Final Order of Adoption in 2015 alleging lack of personal jurisdiction because he had not been properly served.
- The trial court found Father was a putative father entitled to notice, Guardians failed to properly effect service or seek publication with required affidavit, and therefore the Final Order of Adoption was void as to Father; custody remained with Guardians pending further proceedings.
- Guardians appealed, but the notice of appeal was signed only by counsel, not by Guardian personally; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-124(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guardian) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father was a putative father entitled to notice under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-117(c) | Mother’s identification was unreliable and insufficient; Father not a putative father entitled to statutory protections | Mother specifically named Father in court and gave location; Guardians had enough info to identify him and owed a duty to inquire | Court: Father qualified as a putative father; Guardians had enough information to trigger duty to provide notice |
| Whether Final Order of Adoption was void for lack of personal jurisdiction over Father | Service by publication or petition sufficed; Father waived defects | Guardians failed to file required motion/affidavit for publication and did not effect personal service; no personal jurisdiction | Court: Adoption void as to Father for lack of personal jurisdiction; constructive service requirements not met |
| Whether exceptional circumstances bar relief from voiding the adoption | Guardian: Father waited too long and accepted benefits; relief would harm child/Guardian | Father promptly sought records and filed motions once he learned of the adoption; he did not manifest intent to accept judgment | Court: No exceptional circumstances; Father did not treat judgment as valid; relief not barred |
| Whether appeal should be dismissed for Guardian’s failure to sign notice of appeal | Signed by counsel is sufficient; appeal should proceed on merits | Statute requires appellant’s signature; absence is jurisdictional default | Court: Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-124(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hood v. Jenkins, 432 S.W.3d 814 (Tenn. 2013) (defines when a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction)
- Turner v. Turner, 473 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 60.02 void-judgment motions and requirements for constructive service)
- Landers v. Jones, 872 S.W.2d 674 (Tenn. 1994) (waiver of service/personal jurisdiction principles)
- Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Bryant, 299 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1937) (a court lacking personal jurisdiction cannot render a binding adjudication)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parents’ fundamental right to custody)
- Dickey v. McCord, 63 S.W.3d 714 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission of evidence)