In re Adoption of K.R.S.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 10/12/2012 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, 2012-2013 2110722 In r e Adoption o f K.R.S. Appeal from Mobile Probate Court (No. 2012-0680) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . On Mobile December 29, 2 0 1 1 , C.D.S. f i l e d Probate Court ("the p r o b a t e a petition court") seeking in the t o adopt K.R.S. ("the c h i l d " ) u n d e r § 26-10A-27, A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t of t h e Alabama A d o p t i o n Code, § 26-10A-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. requested setting The p r o b a t e forth court t h a t C.D.S. f i l e t h e a p p l i c a b l e law, and i t l a t e r a brief conducted a 2110722 hearing. On A p r i l 6, 2012, t h e p r o b a t e court entered a j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g C.D.S.'s r e q u e s t t h a t s h e be a l l o w e d t o a d o p t the child. determined I n reaching that, under i t s judgment, applicable the probate l a w , C.D.S. court was not a "spouse" o f t h e c h i l d ' s mother such t h a t she c o u l d adopt t h e c h i l d p u r s u a n t t o § 26-10A-27. On a p p e a l , in C.D.S. t i m e l y a p p e a l e d . C.D.S. c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t denying her adoption petition. The r i g h t c r e a t e d by s t a t u t e , and i t i s i n d e r o g a t i o n Ex p a r t e D.W., there implicated, this j u d g m e n t de n o v o . i s s u e s ; because court Hollis must review only of adoption i s o f t h e common l a w . 835 So. 2d 186, 190 ( A l a . 2002) . a r e no f a c t u a l erred In this a legal case, issue i s the probate court's v. F o r r e s t e r , 914 So. 2d 852, 854 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . C.D.S., a woman, p r e s e n t e d evidence i n d i c a t i n g 2008, s h e a n d t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r were m a r r i e d C.D.S. a r g u e s and, 27, that that, i n i n California. she i s t h e spouse o f t h e c h i l d ' s mother t h e r e f o r e , t h a t s h e may a d o p t t h e c h i l d u n d e r § 26-10Awhich provides that, under certain conditions, p e r s o n may a d o p t h i s o r h e r s p o u s e ' s 2 child." "[a]ny The c h i l d ' s 2110722 mother consented t o C.D.S.'s adoption c a p a c i t y as t h e m o t h e r ' s s p o u s e . The State marriages. Ala. Code Marriage of Alabama A l a . Const. 1975. 1 does not recognize Act," 30-1-19, known provides as that that " [ a ] marriage same sex addition, i s invalid Alabama s h a l l the a result i n this state." § 30-1-19(b). that are v a l i d i n Alabama. § 30-1-19(e) i n other ("The n o t r e c o g n i z e as v a l i d a n y m a r r i a g e of the whether a marriage is and a woman" law of any jurisdiction In states State of of p a r t i e s o f t h e same s e x t h a t o c c u r r e d o r was a l l e g e d t o have as "Alabama c o n t r a c t e d between i n d i v i d u a l s o f t h e same-sex m a r r i a g e s are not r e c o g n i z e d same-sex "[m]arriage i n h e r e n t l y a u n i q u e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a man and i n her Of 1901, A r t . I , § 3 6 . 0 3 ; § 30-1-19, Section Protection of the c h i l d occurred regardless of l i c e n s e was i s s u e d . " ) . T h e m o t h e r d i d n o t c o n s e n t t o r e l i n q u i s h h e r own p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o t h e c h i l d so t h a t C.D.S. c o u l d a d o p t t h e c h i l d u n d e r any o t h e r s e c t i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a A d o p t i o n Code. Therefore, C.D.S. c o u l d p r o c e e d o n l y u n d e r § 26-10A-27. See § 26-10A2 9 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975 ("Upon t h e f i n a l d e c r e e o f a d o p t i o n , t h e n a t u r a l parents of the adoptee, except f o r a n a t u r a l parent who i s t h e s p o u s e o f t h e a d o p t i n g p a r e n t f , ] a r e r e l i e v e d o f a l l p a r e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e a d o p t e e and w i l l have no p a r e n t a l r i g h t s over t h e adoptee." (emphasis added)). 1 3 2110722 The S a n c t i t y of Marriage Amendment, set forth in Ala. C o n s t . o f 1 9 0 1 , A r t I , § 36.03, c o n t a i n s i d e n t i c a l p r o v i s i o n s to those o f t h e Alabama further provides Marriage Protection A c t , and i t t h a t Alabama w i l l n o t r e c o g n i z e a common-law m a r r i a g e b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s o f t h e same s e x . A l a . C o n s t . o f 1901, in Art. I, § 36.03(f). i t s judgment, U.S.C. F u r t h e r , as t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t n o t e d the f e d e r a l § 1738C, p r o v i d e s Defense that of Marriage no s t a t e i s r e q u i r e d A c t , 28 to give e f f e c t t o a m a r r i a g e o f p e o p l e o f t h e same s e x t h a t i s v a l i d in another federal 'marriage' state. law or See a l s o 1 U.S.C. administrative means o n l y a l e g a l union (in interpreting regulations, "the word b e t w e e n one man a n d one woman as h u s b a n d a n d w i f e , a n d t h e w o r d to a person of the opposite § 7 'spouse' r e f e r s o n l y s e x who i s a h u s b a n d o r a w i f e " ) . 2 1 U.S.C. § 7 h a s b e e n d e c l a r e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b y t h e United States Court of Appeals f o r the F i r s t C i r c u i t . See M a s s a c h u s e t t s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s Dep't o f H e a l t h & Human S e r v s . , 682 F.3d 1, 2 ( 1 s t C i r . 2012) . T h a t f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t y i s n o t b i n d i n g on t h i s c o u r t , a l t h o u g h t h a t a u t h o r i t y m i g h t be c o n s i d e r e d p e r s u a s i v e . G l a s s v. B i r m i n g h a m S o u t h e r n R.R., 905 So. 2d 789, 794 n. 2 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . 2 4 2110722 Thus, u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w , C.D.S.'s m a r r i a g e t o t h e c h i l d ' s mother i s n o t r e c o g n i z e d , and, t h e r e f o r e , under Alabama l a w , C.D.S. i s n o t t h e s p o u s e o f t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r . Accordingly, C.D.S. may n o t a d o p t t h e c h i l d p u r s u a n t t o § 26-10A-27, w h i c h allows adoptions by a s t e p p a r e n t . T h e r e f o r e , we conclude that the probate court p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d the law t o the f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e i n d e n y i n g C.D.S.'s p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g t o a d o p t t h e child. On appeal, C.D.S. advances concerning the importance contention that However, several of families policy i n support s h e s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o a d o p t i t i s clear that, i n enacting l e g i s l a t u r e has r e j e c t e d those arguments, Alabama See A l a . C o n s t . forth the manner § which the c h i l d . 30-1-19, our o f 1901, A r t I , § o f 1901, A r t . X V I I I , in of her as h a s a m a j o r i t y o f v o t e r s i n approving A l a . Const. 36.03. arguments amendments § 284 to the (setting Alabama c o n s t i t u t i o n are approved). C.D.S. a l s o c o n t e n d s judgment deprives However, we on a p p e a l t h a t t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t ' s her of conclude that certain constitutional the probate court's rights. judgment c o n s t i t u t e s a p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f Alabama l a w . T h e r e f o r e , 5 2110722 C.D.S.'s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e s s h o u l d be t o t h e l a w s s h e contends probate Code deprive her of her c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o u r t , C.D.S. d i d n o t s e e k t o have 1975, o r t h e S a n c t i t y o f M a r r i a g e unconstitutional. rights. In the § 30-1-19, A l a . Amendment d e c l a r e d T h e r e f o r e , C.D.S. i s p r e c l u d e d f r o m r a i s i n g t h o s e i s s u e s i n t h i s c o u r t . " [ E ] v e n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s may not be raised Limestone Cnty. f o r the f i r s t time on appeal." D.P. v. Dep't o f Human R e s . , 28 So. 3d 759, 765 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; Civ. Godwin v . D a v i s , 56 So. 3d 646, 651 App. 2 0 1 0 ) . C.D.S. h a s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e p r o b a t e e r r e d i n r e a c h i n g i t s judgment. Therefore, AFFIRMED. Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 6 court t h e judgment i s affirmed. Pittman, Bryan, (Ala.

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.