M. M. v. D. P. and C. P.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 10/30/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080592 M.M. v. D.P. and C.P. Appeal from Marion Probate Court (20070513) MOORE, J u d g e . M.M. ("the f a t h e r " ) a p p e a l s Probate Court adoption ("the p r o b a t e from a judgment o f t h e M a r i o n court") granting a petition f o r o f J.D. ("the c h i l d " ) f i l e d b y t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r , 2080592 D.P. ("the m o t h e r " ) , a n d h e r h u s b a n d , C.P. ("the s t e p f a t h e r " ) . We d i s m i s s the appeal. The p a r t i e s have p r e v i o u s l y b e e n b e f o r e M.M. v. D.P., the stepfather filed of on May Id. M.M., who The p r o b a t e 15, 2008, notified arguing, among t h e same d a t e the p e t i t i o n was court other of the adoption t i m e l y appealed. reasons, petition as that he h a d n o t required. part: "Alabama Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 0 A - 1 7 ( a ) , a p a r t o f the A l a b a m a A d o p t i o n Code, A l a . Code 1975, § 26-10A-1 e t s e q . , p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t n o t i c e of pendency of a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s " ' s h a l l be s e r v e d by t h e p e t i t i o n e r o n : " ' " ' ( 1 0 ) The f a t h e r a n d p u t a t i v e f a t h e r o f t h e a d o p t e e i f made known b y t h e m o t h e r o r o t h e r w i s e known by t h e c o u r t u n l e s s t h e court finds that the father or putative f a t h e r has g i v e n i m p l i e d c o n s e n t t o t h e 2 Id. the father I d . In d i s m i s s i n g the father's appeal, stated, i n pertinent was a motion t o s e t aside the order A f t e r h i s m o t i o n was d e n i e d b y t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t , court In t o adopt the c h i l d , 10 So. 3d a t 606. The f a t h e r f i l e d adoption, been a petition See a f i n a l judgment a p p r o v i n g t h e c h i l d ' s a d o p t i o n by t h e stepfather filed. court. 10 So. 3d 605 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . b o r n on J u l y 9, 2004. entered this this 2080592 a d o p t i o n , as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n A l a . Code 1975] ] . ' 1975 26-10A-9[, "A ' p u t a t i v e f a t h e r ' i s ' [ t ] h e a l l e g e d o r r e p u t e d f a t h e r . ' A l a . Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 0 A - 2 ( 1 2 ) . A ' f a t h e r ' i s '[a] male p e r s o n who i s t h e b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r o f [ a ] m i n o r o r i s t r e a t e d by l a w as t h e f a t h e r . ' A l a . Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 0 A - 2 ( 5 ) . A male p e r s o n i s t r e a t e d by l a w as t h e f a t h e r o f a c h i l d when he i s a 'presumed father' under the Alabama Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t , A l a . Code 1975, § 26-17-1 e t s e q . ('the AUPA'). The AUPA p r e s u m e s a male p e r s o n t o be t h e f a t h e r o f a c h i l d when, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e male p e r s o n , w h i l e t h e c h i l d i s u n d e r t h e age o f majority, receives the c h i l d i n t o h i s home o r o t h e r w i s e o p e n l y h o l d s o u t t h e c h i l d as h i s n a t u r a l child o r t h e mother and the father execute a p p r o p r i a t e a f f i d a v i t s o f p a t e r n i t y . A l a . Code 1975, §§ 2 6 - 1 7 - 5 ( a ) ( 4 ) a n d 2 6 - 1 7 - 5 ( a ) ( 6 ) . "Alabama Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 0 A - 9 ( a ) ( 5 ) , p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t c o n s e n t t o a d o p t i o n may be i m p l i e d b y , among o t h e r t h i n g s , f a i l i n g t o c o m p l y w i t h § 26-10C-1. I n t u r n , § 2 6 - 1 0 C - 1 ( i ) , A l a . Code 1975, provides: "'Any p e r s o n who c l a i m s t o be t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f a c h i l d and f a i l s t o f i l e h i s notice of intent to claim paternity pursuant to subsection (a) p r i o r t o o r w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e b i r t h o f a c h i l d b o r n o u t o f w e d l o c k , s h a l l be deemed t o have g i v e n an i r r e v o c a b l e i m p l i e d c o n s e n t i n any adoption proceeding. "'This exclusive p e r s o n who of a c h i l d J a n u a r y 1, notice of subsection shall be the procedure available f o r any c l a i m s t o be t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r b o r n o u t o f w e d l o c k on o r a f t e r 1997, t o e n t i t l e t h a t p e r s o n t o and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n t e s t 3 2080592 any a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g f i l e d on o r a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, 1997.' and p e n d i n g " R e c e n t l y , i n J . L . P . v . L.A.M., [Ms. 2070578, O c t o b e r 3 1 , 2008] So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008), t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t a presumed f a t h e r o f a c h i l d h a s an u n q u a l i f i e d r i g h t t o o b j e c t to a p r o p o s e d a d o p t i o n o f t h a t c h i l d i f t h e presumed f a t h e r h a s a c c e p t e d t h e c h i l d i n t o h i s home a n d h a s o p e n l y h e l d o u t t h e c h i l d as h i s own. ___ So. 3d a t ___ ( c i t i n g A l a . Code 1975, § 2 6 - 1 0 A - 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) d . ) . On the o t h e r hand, t h i s c o u r t h e l d i n J.L.P. t h a t a putative father i s given only a c o n d i t i o n a l r i g h t to object to a proposed adoption, b a s e d on p r i o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e PFRA [ P u t a t i v e F a t h e r R e g i s t r y A c t ] . ___ So. 3d a t ___ ( c i t i n g A l a . Code 1975, § 26-10A-7(a)(5)). The court concluded that, by g r a n t i n g presumed f a t h e r s g r e a t e r r i g h t s o f consent, the l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t h a t they would not l o s e t h o s e r i g h t s by mere f a i l u r e o r n e g l e c t t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e PFRA. ___ So. 3d a t ___ . C o n s i s t e n t w i t h J . L . P . , a f a t h e r who i s c l a s s i f i e d as a 'presumed f a t h e r ' who h a s n o t o t h e r w i s e w a i v e d n o t i c e o r i m p l i e d l y c o n s e n t e d t o t h e a d o p t i o n by some r e a s o n other t h a n n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e PFRA must be served w i t h n o t i c e of t h e pendency of t h e a d o p t i o n proceedings. "In t h i s case, the f a t h e r a s s e r t e d in his a f f i d a v i t i n support of h i s motion t o s e t aside the o r d e r o f a d o p t i o n f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he i s a 'presumed f a t h e r . ' He a t t e s t e d t h a t he a n d t h e mother had e x e c u t e d a f f i d a v i t s o f p a t e r n i t y p u r s u a n t t o § 2 6 - 1 7 - 5 ( a ) ( 6 ) . He a l s o a v e r r e d t h a t he h a d ' a c c e p t e d t h e c h i l d i n t o [ h i s ] home a n d o p e n l y [ h e l d ] o u t t h e c h i l d as [ h i s ] own' as r e q u i r e d b y § 2 6 - 1 7 - 5 ( a ) ( 4 ) . He s u p p o r t e d t h e l a t t e r a s s e r t i o n by a t t a c h i n g p h o t o g r a p h s o f him and t h e c h i l d a t h i s home. The f a t h e r f u r t h e r d e t a i l e d h i s i n v o l v e m e n t with the c h i l d since the b i r t h of the c h i l d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the father i n d i c a t e d that the Marion J u v e n i l e C o u r t had awarded him v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , 4 2080592 w h i c h he had e x e r c i s e d , and t h a t he had c o m p l i e d with a c h i l d - s u p p o r t order regarding the child e n t e r e d by t h a t same c o u r t . B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e , none o f w h i c h t h e s t e p f a t h e r o r t h e m o t h e r r e f u t e d , i t i s p l a i n t h a t the f a t h e r i s a presumed f a t h e r e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e o f any a d o p t i o n proceeding concerning the child. The record contains no evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the f a t h e r waived h i s r i g h t to such notice expressly or impliedly, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g h i s n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e PFRA. "Before e n t e r i n g i t s f i n a l judgment, the p r o b a t e c o u r t d i d not n o t i f y the f a t h e r of the pendency of the adoption proceeding. A judgment a p p r o v i n g an adoption that i s entered without notice to a party whose c o n s e n t i s r e q u i r e d i s v o i d . Ex p a r t e S t i n s o n , 532 So. 2d 636 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988)." M.M., 10 So. 3d a t 607-08. This court dismissed the father's a p p e a l b e c a u s e a v o i d j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . So. 3d a t 608 C i v . App. F a r m e r , 842 stepfather, petition So. 2d 679 (Ala. 2002)). The probate ( c i t i n g F a r m e r v. joined by for adoption of child court on the J a n u a r y 9, the 2009. mother, ("the On refiled petition") or v a c a t e the Code the father's 1975. probate petition court The b a s e d on c o n s e n t as father the the 2009, F e b r u a r y 5, stepfather's r e q u i r e d by § alternatively t r a n s f e r the petition 5 to the quash failure to 26-10A-7, A l a . requested the his in f a t h e r f i l e d a motion r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the probate c o u r t obtain 10 Marion that the Juvenile 2080592 Court and c o n s o l i d a t e i t w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n f o r custody o f t h e c h i l d t h a t h a d b e e n f i l e d b y t h e f a t h e r a n d "had been since October 5, 2007," o r t o s t a y t h e p r o c e e d i n g s pending until d e t e r m i n a t i o n h a d been made on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y . a That m o t i o n was d e n i e d on F e b r u a r y 9, 2009. A f t e r a h e a r i n g on F e b r u a r y 18, 2009, t h e p r o b a t e court e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on F e b r u a r y 19, 2009, g r a n t i n g t h e a d o p t i o n petition filed was legally by t h e s t e p f a t h e r and o r d e r i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d adopted judgment s t a t e d , by t h e s t e p f a t h e r . i n pertinent The p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s part: " T h i s c a u s e c o m i n g on t o be h e a r d b e f o r e t h e Court and i t a p p e a r i n g t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e C o u r t t h a t t h e P e t i t i o n f o r A d o p t i o n , a s amended, and f o r change o f name o f [ t h e c h i l d ] , i s a P e t i t i o n by [ t h e ] s t e p f a t h e r , a n d t h e C o u r t h a v i n g d e t e r m i n e d t h a t s a i d m i n o r c h i l d h a s r e s i d e d i n t h e home o f h i s n a t u r a l m o t h e r a n d s t e p f a t h e r f o r more t h a n one y e a r p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h i s p e t i t i o n and i t f u r t h e r appearing t o the Court that the adoption i s l i k e l y t o be s u c c e s s f u l a n d i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f s a i d minor c h i l d , and i t f u r t h e r a p p e a r i n g t o t h e Court t h a t t h e n a t u r a l mother has j o i n e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n , and no v a l i d r e a s o n b e i n g shown why s a i d m i n o r c h i l d s h o u l d n o t be l e g a l l y a d o p t e d , a n d f o r g o o d c a u s e shown, i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e f a c t s t h a t n e i t h e r [ t h e f a t h e r ] , n o r none o f h i s r e l a t i v e s made any a t t e m p t s t o c o n t a c t , v i s i t o r s u p p o r t s a i d m i n o r c h i l d f r o m December 12, 2008, t h e d a t e t h e p r e v i o u s a d o p t i o n o r d e r was d e c l a r e d v o i d b y t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s u n t i l t h e d a t e o f h e a r i n g on F e b r u a r y 18, 2 0 0 9 ; a n d t h a t [ t h e s t e p f a t h e r ] s i n c e A u g u s t 26, 2006, t h e d a t e o f m a r r i a g e t o t h e m o t h e r 6 2080592 o f s a i d c h i l d , has a l m o s t s i n g l e - h a n d e d l y supported and c a r e d f o r s a i d c h i l d , w i t h o u t any c o m p l a i n t s o f h i s manner o f c a r i n g f o r s a i d c h i l d f r o m a n y o n e ; and t h a t from the t e s t i m o n y of the [mother], the care and c o n c e r n f o r s a i d c h i l d by [ t h e s t e p f a t h e r ] was so s u p e r i o r t o t h e c a r e and c o n c e r n e v e r shown by [ t h e f a t h e r ] , who e x p r e s s e d more i n t e r e s t i n f i l i n g p e t i t i o n s i n c o u r t than c a r i n g f o r s a i d c h i l d ; the C o u r t i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t the p e t i t i o n i n t h i s c a u s e , as amended, s h o u l d be and is therefore allowed." The father d e n i e d by The filed operation a postjudgment motion; that motion of law. father f i r s t I n M.M., contained affidavit filed motion to set aside the and stepfather contest, d i d not So. "law the same p a r t i e s i n t h e long as v. the by the adoption, Touche 982 facts So. Ross child's established his 3d a t 608. on c o r r e c t on which the general decision 2d 1061, & Co., 514 1066 So. 7 2d 922, of between the was law of predicated v. CKPD (quoting 924 a p r i n c i p l e s , so Stockton ( A l a . 2007) as doctrine t o be of mother status "'Under t h e same c a s e c o n t i n u e s not facts father i n support which f a c t s the t o be t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e . ' " LLC, i s the c a s e , " w h a t e v e r i s once e s t a b l i s h e d case, whether or continue Co., the 10 the that of appealed. t h i s c o u r t concluded t h a t the his presumed f a t h e r . father a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t he presumed f a t h e r . i n the The was (Ala. Dev. Blumberg 1987)). 2080592 "[U]nless the f a c t s upon w h i c h t h e C i v i l A p p e a l s was holding of the p r e d i c a t e d have c h a n g e d , t h e h o l d i n g o f C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s i s t h e law o f t h e c a s e . " So. 2d a t 1066-67. facts upon our purposes of stepfather our holding the in 982 the holding in M.M. in is the M.M. probate the Stockton, renewed p e t i t i o n the of i n the p r e s e n t case, u n l e s s Therefore, which changed, Court was law predicated of the for adoption court and for have case filed for by purposes the of this appeal. The p r o b a t e c o u r t c o n d u c t e d an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g at which the f a t h e r again e s t a b l i s h e d through h i s t e s t i m o n y h i s as the presumed stepfather father once contradicting of again the the did not father's confirmed child. father the had executed of p a t e r n i t y s h o r t l y a f t e r the r e c e i v e d t h e c h i l d i n t o h i s home, and in their stepfather do not brief even on argue presumed f a t h e r of the c h i l d . The 8 had their child's birth, openly held the the mother father is an had himself s u r p r i s i n g l y , given appeal that evidence fact, affidavit testimony, the in only Not any and and, testimony o u t as t h e f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d . mother present claim, that The status their and the not the r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e facts 2080592 upon w h i c h t h i s c o u r t made i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n that the father i s t h e p r e s u m e d f a t h e r o f t h e c h i l d have n o t c h a n g e d . pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine, c h i l d ' s presumed Section to an 26-10A-7, A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s adoption pertinent implied the father shall part: consent i s the father. be required adoptee's presumed f a t h e r . in Thus, o f , among that consent others, The Comment t o § 26-10A-7 s t a t e s , "The r e l i n q u i s h m e n t , or the actual f o r t h e a d o p t i o n t o become f i n a l . the persons l i s t e d 1975,] In effect, i n s e c t i o n 26-10A-7 have an a b s o l u t e power o v e r t h e p r o p o s e d In t h i s or ( s e e s e c t i o n 2 6 - 4 0 A - 9 [ , A l a . Code 1975]) o f a l l p e r s o n s s p e c i f i e d i n s e c t i o n 2 6 - 1 0 A - 5 [ , A l a . Code must be o b t a i n e d the veto adoption." case, the evidence i s undisputed that the f a t h e r d i d not give h i s express consent t o the adoption of the c h i l d . Section 26-10A-9, A l a . Code 1975, l i s t s c e r t a i n acts p a r e n t t h a t c o n s t i t u t e an i m p l i e d c o n s e n t t o a d o p t i o n . judgment, the probate court found that the father by a In i t s had not v i s i t e d o r s u p p o r t e d t h e c h i l d f o r t h r e e months f o l l o w i n g t h i s court's dismissal in M.M. However, § 26-10A-9(a)(3) e n u m e r a t e s a p e r i o d o f s i x months o f " [ k ] n o w i n g l y 9 leaving the 2080592 a d o p t e e w i t h o t h e r s w i t h o u t p r o v i s i o n f o r s u p p o r t and communication, parental or not otherwise relationship with the maintaining a adoptee," before significant that w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d an i m p l i e d c o n s e n t t o t h e c h i l d ' s Hence, conclude we cannot that the probate without action adoption. court properly f o u n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had i m p l i e d l y c o n s e n t e d t o t h e adoption. Rather, i t appears t h a t the probate c o u r t g r a n t e d the adoption w i t h o u t the consent of the presumed f a t h e r of the c h i l d based on i t s conclusion continue We father t o be because 7, i n o r d e r not probate the facts i n M.M. had upon which been and that court the required. f a t h e r had was would child. f a t h e r remains the have n o t c h a n g e d . this c h i l d ' s presumed court made consented to the jurisdiction consent adoption, to i t s judgment p u r p o r t i n g Because a v o i d judgment w i l l 10 not that P u r s u a n t t o § 26-10A- Because the p r o b a t e c o u r t without s t e p f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n and void. stepfather f o r the a d o p t i o n to proceed, the f a t h e r ' s a d o p t i o n was find the a b e t t e r p a r e n t f o r the conclude t h a t the determination to the that grant did the the t o do so i s s u p p o r t an a p p e a l , we 2080592 dismiss this appeal. See M.M., v. F a r m e r , 842 So. 2d 679 10 So. 3d a t 608; a n d F a r m e r ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002). APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , 11 without writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.