431 P.3d 560
Wyo.2018Background
- TC and GC were foster parents for L‑MHB from April 18, 2014 to September 25, 2015; DFS had legal custody after a juvenile neglect proceeding.
- Nearly a year after removal, TC and GC filed a petition to adopt L‑MHB but did not attach several documents statutorily required with every adoption petition: the mother’s written consent, DFS’s relinquishment, a medical report for the child, and an affidavit regarding visitation rights.
- DFS moved to dismiss, arguing (1) it had not relinquished custody, (2) L‑MHB did not reside in petitioners’ home when the petition was filed, and (3) petitioners failed to file a medical report; the mother answered she would consent only if TC and GC were the adoptive family.
- The district court granted dismissal for lack of standing and noncompliance with statutory filing requirements; petitioners appealed.
- The Supreme Court of Wyoming held the district court had subject‑matter jurisdiction but affirmed dismissal because petitioners failed to obtain DFS’s relinquishment and the child did not reside in their home when they filed, and they omitted the medical report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to attach required consents/relinquishments deprives court of jurisdiction | Petitioners: missing attachments do not defeat district court jurisdiction to hear adoption petition | DFS: omission of consents/relinquishments means court lacked jurisdiction | Held: omission is a pleading defect, not jurisdictional; court had jurisdiction |
| Whether child’s nonresidence in petitioners’ home at filing deprives court of jurisdiction/standing | Petitioners: filing was permissible without child's residency; could obtain interlocutory decree later | DFS: petitioners lacked statutory standing because child did not reside with them when filed | Held: lack of residency is a prudential/statutory standing defect, not jurisdictional; court retained jurisdiction but petitioners lacked statutory standing |
| Whether failure to obtain DFS relinquishment fatally defects petition | Petitioners: mother’s consent suffices; residual parental rights control | DFS: DFS had legal custody and its relinquishment is required | Held: when agency has legal custody, adoption requires both agency relinquishment and parental consent; omission fatal to petition |
| Whether failure to file medical report warrants dismissal | Petitioners: (not seriously defended) | DFS: medical report required unless parent joins petition or child lived with petitioners >6 months | Held: absence of medical report (and exceptions not met) supported dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (statutory requirements are jurisdictional only with clear congressional intent)
- Harmon v. Star Valley Medical Center, 331 P.3d 1174 (statutory defects not necessarily jurisdictional)
- In re JWT, 104 P.3d 93 (adoption dismissed where required affidavit not filed)
- In re Adoption of Strauser, 196 P.2d 862 (historical discussion of parental consent in adoption law)
- Matter of Adoption of AMD, 766 P.2d 550 (requirement of substantial compliance with adoption statutes)
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (distinguishing prudential standing/statutory cause‑of‑action analysis)