S.A. v. M.T.O.
143 So. 3d 799
Ala. Civ. App.2013Background
- Petitioners sought to adopt a child born January 2012, who was in DHR custody and placed with the petitioners in May 2012.
- Petitioners alleged mother and father consent should be implied due to abandonment or failure to maintain a significant parental relationship for six months.
- A juvenile court order in a parallel dependency case recognized petitioners’ rights to consent to travel and medical care for the child.
- Probate court granted custody to petitioners and set an adoption hearing; notice to mother and father was issued; post-placement investigation was ordered.
- Motions were filed to set aside the probate order; a guardian ad litem and other parties participated; ultimately, the probate court entered a final judgment granting the adoption on December 19, 2012.
- Mother and father appealed; the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as arising from a void judgment because consent was not proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether implied consent was proven by clear and convincing evidence | Mother argues no implied consent existed. | Petitioners argue §26-10A-9(a)(3) allows implied consent based on six-month non-maintenance of relationship. | Not proven; implied consent lacked clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether the probate court had jurisdiction to grant adoption without express consent | Mother and father contend consent is required and lack of implied consent voids judgment. | Petitioners contend consent was implied and jurisdiction existed to grant adoption. | Probate court acted outside its jurisdiction; judgment void. |
| Whether evidentiary or post-placement-report issues were properly preserved for appellate review | Waived arguments on inadmissible evidence and post-placement report because not raised below. | Arguments were properly preserved as part of the record and related to the final judgment. | Arguments waived; cannot disturb final judgment on these grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte A.M.P., 997 So.2d 1008 (Ala.2008) (consent in adoption requires strict adherence; implied consent limited)
- M.M. v. D.P., 37 So.3d 179 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (probate court must have consent to grant adoption; lack voids judgment)
- K.L.B. v. W.M.F., 864 So.2d 333 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (requires clear and convincing evidence for implied consent under AAC)
- Ex parte Quinlan, 922 So.2d 914 (Ala.2005) (verification alone does not convert pleadings into adequate affidavits)