Opinion ID: 1654549
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: WHETHER MISSISSIPPI HAD JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE ADOPTION AND WHETHER THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION ACT (Miss. Code Ann. ง 93-23-1 et seq.) APPLIES TO AN ADOPTION PROCEEDING.

Text: ถ 13. A critical issue in this case is whether this Court will apply the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Miss.Code Ann. งง 93-23-1 et seq. to adoption cases. While the parties briefed this issue as a case of first impression, this Court, subsequent to the submission of the parties' briefs in the case sub judice, decided In re Adoption of C.L.B., 812 So.2d 980 (Miss. 2002). In C.L.B., we held that [c]onsensual adoptions where all parties are present do not fall within the meaning of a custody proceeding as envisioned by the UCCJA. Id. at 985. In C.L.B., both natural parents consented to the adoption of their infant child by the child's paternal grandparents, while here the natural mother initially consented to the adoption, but later attempted to withdraw her consent; the natural father was not involved; the guardian-maternal grandmother objected; the maternal grandfather acquiesced in the adoption; and, the natural mother, joined by the guardian-maternal grandmother, filed in the same cause a complaint to revoke the natural mother's consent and to restore permanent custody of the infant child to the natural mother. In C.L.B., the natural mother claimed that the UCCJA applied and that since the adoptive parents failed to attach the required UCCJA residency affidavit to the petition for adoption, the chancery court had not acquired jurisdiction of the adoption and the judgment of adoption was thus void. Likewise, in the case today, the natural mother and maternal grandmother, in attempting to have the adoption judgment set aside, are asserting the applicability of the UCCJA in an effort to have this Court determine that the adopting parents' failure to attach the UCCJA residency affidavit to the adoption petition is fatal because it divested the chancery court of jurisdiction to hear the case. Additionally, the natural mother and maternal grandmother assert that Arizona, not Mississippi, is the home state of the child and that the child had not lived in Mississippi for the requisite six (6) months under the UCCJA, thereby defeating jurisdiction in the Mississippi courts. ถ 14. In C.L.B. this Court reviewed the issue of the applicability or non-applicability of the UCCJA to adoption proceedings as revealed in cases from other jurisdictions, and concluded that the UCCJA would not be applied to consensual adoptions where all parties are present. ถ 15. However, the case before us today presents a little different twist on this issue. In C.L.B., the natural parents, the adoptive parents, and the adopted child were all Mississippi residents. In the case sub judice, the adoptive parents are Mississippi residents, but the natural mother, guardian-maternal grandmother, and the adopted child were deemed to be non-residents of Mississippi at the time of commencement of the trial court proceedings. Likewise, in C.L.B., the natural mother launched a post-judgment attack on the validity of the adoption, meaning that since the adoptive parents had custody pursuant to a final judgment of adoption, there was no issue of custody of the infant child pending the trial court proceedings on the post-adoption petition to set aside the adoption. On the other hand, in our case today, the complaint for adoption was filed on March 8, 2001, and before any court action had been taken on the adoption pleadings, Camille, through counsel, filed her Objection to Proceedings thereby seeking to withdraw her joinder in the adoption pleadings and further seeking return of Diane to her. This put the chancellor on notice of the fact that she was now dealing with a contested adoption; therefore, the chancellor, on April 2, 2001, entered a temporary judgment of custody awarding the temporary custody of Diane to Rick and Carol, but with reasonable visitation rights being awarded to Camille. On April 6, 2001, Camille and Sally, through counsel, filed their Complaint to Revoke Consent and for Custody of Minor Child, seeking, inter alia, a nullification of Camille's joinder in the adoption proceedings due to alleged non-compliance with the UCCJA and an award of permanent custody of Diane to Camille. By this time, the learned chancellor obviously knew that she had a full-scale war on her hands as to who would end up with custody of Dianeโ Rick and Carol, Camille, or Sally. Additionally, since there was no final judgment of adoption; since the sought-after adoption of Diane was hotly contested; since there was no entry of a custody order other than the until-further-order-of-the-court temporary custody order; since Diane, Camille, and Sally were Mississippi non-residents; since there was a claim that Mississippi was not Diane's home state; since there was a claim that Sally should have been joined in the adoption proceedings; since there was reference to Sally's Arizona guardianship of Diane; since there was then before the chancellor a complaint for adoption by Rick and Carol and a complaint to revoke the adoption consent and for permanent custody of Diane by Camille, through Sally; since Rick and Carol through their pleadings appeared to have satisfied the jurisdiction and venue requirements of the applicable adoption statute, Miss.Code Ann. ง 93-17-3(1); and, since it appeared that this case had become one involving potentially protracted litigation, the chancellor was confronted with an issue not confronted by the chancellor in C.L.B. โwhat to do with the child in the meantime? [9] To this end, the chancellor conducted a hearing solely on the issue of whether the UCCJA applied to an adoption proceeding, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the chancellor took this issue under advisement and later rendered an eleven-page Memorandum Opinion and Ruling on Jurisdiction. In her ruling, the chancellor determined that the UCCJA did apply in the adoption proceeding; however, contrary to the position of Camille and Sally that the application of the UCCJA defeated the jurisdiction of the chancery court, the chancellor held that the application of the UCCJA conferred jurisdiction upon the chancery court. ถ 16. The chancellor referred to the adoption statutes, including Miss.Code Ann. งง 93-17-8, 93-17-11, and 93-17-13, which refer to orders of custody and interlocutory decrees. Accordingly, after a meticulous review of the UCCJA provisions, the chancellor opined that since the Mississippi adoption statutes did refer to the issue of custody, the UCCJA applied. [10] Based on the facts and circumstances of this particular case, we uphold the chancellor's application of the UCCJA at the April 25, 2001, pre-adoption hearing, but for reasons different than those stated by the chancellor. In so doing, we emphasize here that the decision today is in no way inconsistent with our decision in C.L.B., as will be hereinafter discussed. Additionally, we find that the UCCJA has only limited applicability in adoption cases. ถ 17. Souza v. Superior Court, 193 Cal. App.3d 1304, 238 Cal.Rptr. 892 (1987), provides an excellent discussion of the UCCJA as it relates to adoption proceedings. In Souza, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, reversed the trial court's refusal to apply the UCCJA and the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) to an adoption proceeding. In Souza, the parents of a minor child had divorced in Hawaii, and the Hawaii state court had reserved jurisdiction over child custody and visitation. After moving to California with the minor child, the mother remarried and the mother and stepfather of the minor child filed a stepparent adoption petition in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court. After being served with the adoption papers, the father filed a motion for visitation in the Hawaii Family Court, which issued a show cause order. The father's attorney conveyed the nature of this Hawaii state court action to the California state court, which refused to honor the Hawaii state court order. In reversing this action of the trial court, the California Court of Appeal, in citing a California statute, stated that [t]he general basis for jurisdiction under the UCCJA, absent conflict of court considerations, is presence of the child and significant connection with the forum state. 193 Cal. App.3d at 1308, 238 Cal.Rptr. at 894 (emphasis added). The Souza court went on to state: [The stepfather] argued in the Santa Cruz court that the UCCJA standards do not apply in an adoption proceeding. This argument is clearly wrong. The UCCJA regulates custody of children. An adoption proceeding to terminate parental custody rights is clearly a custody-determining proceeding of the most drastic kind. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patently, a stepparent adoption, with its potential for completely terminating the natural father's custodial rights, is a custody-determining procedure and is equally subject to the UCCJA and the PKPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Here, however, the Hawaii court had original subject matter jurisdiction; no one questions the validity of the initial decree. .... The only orderly procedure avoiding a conflict of state rulings is to require [the mother] to challenge the Hawaii court's assumption of jurisdiction by direct attack in that proceeding.... So here, both the initial and the modifying decrees of the Hawaii court, being regular on their face are not subject to collateral attack in a California forum. 193 Cal.App.3d at 1309-11, 238 Cal.Rptr. at 895-97. The end result in Souza was that the California appellate court issued a writ of mandate to the trial court, directing that court to either (1) stay the action pending resolution of the custody proceeding now pending in Hawaii and cooperate with the Hawaii court in connection with that proceeding or (2) dismiss the adoption proceeding entirely. 193 Cal.App.3d at 1312, 238 Cal.Rptr. at 897. ถ 18. We also have guidance from decisions of this Court. In Curtis v. Curtis, 574 So.2d 24 (Miss.1990), this Court was confronted with a case of parental kidnapping. A married couple had eight children from their union. When the couple was living in Utah, the wife/mother obtained a divorce from the husband/father in a Utah state court. At a time when both parents still lived in Utah, the father sought and received permission from the mother, the custodial parent of the four youngest children, to have visitation with the four children for the long President's Day weekend. Instead, the father took off to Mississippi with the children, ending up with a friend in Pearl. Thereafter, the father filed a complaint in the Scott County Chancery Court, seeking modification of the Utah custody decree and a protective order under the Mississippi Protection From Domestic Abuse Law, Miss. Code Ann. งง 93-21-1, et seq. (PDA), based on a claim of child abuse on the part of the mother. The Mississippi chancellor entered an ex parte order granting the father the temporary custody of the children. Thereafter, with Mississippi counsel, the mother attacked the jurisdiction of the Mississippi courts pursuant to the UCCJA and the federal PKPA. After several months, the Mississippi chancellor acknowledged his inability under the PKPA to modify the Utah custody decree, but the chancellor did allow his custody order to remain in effect in behalf of the father pursuant to the PDA. There are many more intriguing facts of this case which simply need not be stated here for the purpose of this discussion. ถ 19. We do find of benefit the following language in Curtis: This case presents a classic case of the parental and judicial behavior the statutes were designed to and do proscribe. A valid Utah decree granted custody of four children to their mother. Ten weeks later, the father took advantage of his weekend visitation and wrongfully brought the children to Mississippi and enlisted the aid of this state's courts to give him custody. The children have since been caught in the middle of a tug of war. We hold the Utah courts never lost jurisdiction of the matter of the permanent custody of the children. With this we adjudge the legal issues tendered. In doing this almost three years after the fact, we have no illusion that we have ability to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. We hope from this fall all may know of our seriousness of purpose that the law's injunction be respected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Having in mind the dominant purpose of the UCCJA to prevent interstate parental kidnapping, and particularly Section 93-23-15's strong injunction against wrongfully taking children from one state to another, this jurisdictional requisite may only sensibly be read to require that [the father] and children have a significant connection with Mississippi prior to filing the application for custody modification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In sum, we hold that the Chancery Court of Scott County correctly assumed temporary emergency jurisdiction back on February 16, 1988. On the other hand, that Court erred when it continued to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this matter after it should reasonably have become apparent that there was no clear and present danger to the children from permitting adjudication of modification, if any, of their custody in the courts of the State of Utah. 574 So.2d at 25, 30-31 (emphasis added). ถ 20. We have admittedly gone to great lengths to discuss the UCCJA and its proper use in Mississippi adoption cases. The common thread which runs through these UCCJA cases from Mississippi and other jurisdictions is that the UCCJA was enacted primarily to prevent interstate parental kidnapping. Our Mississippi trial courts, and ultimately our appellate courts, must especially look to the possible application of the UCCJA provisions in contested adoption cases if it appears that there might be a possible conflict with a foreign court already exercising continuing jurisdiction over the matter. Certainly, in the case before us today, there was not an issue of interstate parental kidnapping, but there was the initial issue of whether the Arizona courts had already asserted jurisdiction in this matter by way of Sally's guardianship over Diane. On the other hand, the UCCJA is not to be indiscriminately used by attorneys as a sword to attempt to improperly obtain or defeat jurisdiction in our Mississippi courts. Likewise, our learned Mississippi trial judges should be sparing in their application of the UCCJA to contested adoption cases. However, as in the case today, the chancellor correctly utilized the UCCJA provisions, though for reasons different than ours. In the case today, we find that the chancellor had a right to apply the UCCJA provisions at the April 25, 2001, hearing (1) so as to inquire further about the purported Arizona guardianship to determine if the Mississippi courts should yield to the Arizona courts on the issue of Diane's custody, and, if it were determined (as was the case) that the guardianship had been terminated and that no other foreign court was asserting jurisdiction over the custody of Diane, then, additionally (2) so as to inquire about the application of the jurisdictional provisions of the UCCJA. ถ 21. Miss.Code Ann. ง 93-23-5 (Supp. 2002) (the jurisdictional portion of the UCCJA) states: (1) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if: (a) this state (i) is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child's home state within six (6) months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this state; or (b) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one (1) contestant, have a significant connection with the state, and (ii) there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships; or (c) the child is physically present in this state and (i) the child has been abandoned, or (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected or dependent; or (d)(i) It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with paragraphs (a), (b), or (c), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child, and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that this court assume jurisdiction. (2) Except under paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of this section, physical presence in this state of the child, or of the child and one of the contestants, is not alone sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court of this state to make a child custody determination. (3) Physical presence of the child, while desirable, is not a prerequisite for jurisdiction to determine his custody. ถ 22. In Laskosky v. Laskosky, 504 So.2d 726 (Miss.1987), this Court declined jurisdiction under the UCCJA over a custody dispute involving a child who was a Canadian citizen and who was in Mississippi with his mother. The child was only in Mississippi because the mother, who was a native Mississippian, fled Canada to prevent her estranged Canadian husband from having custody of the child. We wrote: Courts should also decline jurisdiction when a foreign nation's court has continuing jurisdiction over the matter, and when the foreign court is a more appropriate and convenient forum. Miss. Code Ann. ง 93-23-11 (Supp.1985). Courts should also decline jurisdiction when the child had not resided in the jurisdiction for a sufficient period of time. MCA ง 93-23-5(1)(a) (Supp. 1985). 504 So.2d at 731 (case citations omitted). ถ 23. Turning to the case sub judice, we first of all address Miss.Code Ann. ง 93-23-11, which was cited by this Court in Laskosky. [11] We do so because of the prior reference to the Arizona guardianship established over Diane by Sally. As already mentioned, there is no exhibit in the record to document the establishment of the Arizona guardianship; and likewise, the record does not reveal any exhibit to document the termination of the guardianship. The record does reveal that at the first hearing of April 25, 2001, the letter of January 10, 2001, was received into evidence through Camille's testimony and referred to by both Camille and Carol during their testimony at that hearing; however, the letter itself is not a part of the record before this Court. Fortunately, however, we do have considerable testimony from Camille and Sally concerning the termination of the guardianship. Camille testified at the second hearing that she told the Arizona judge on two different occasions that she wanted to have the guardianship terminated, and that this decision was her decision without any coercion on the part of Carol or Rick. Sally testified at the second hearing that in late January or early February 2001, she received copies of the papers indicating that Camille was attempting to have the guardianship terminated. In fact, Sally personally appeared before an Arizona judge on two different occasions. On the first occasion in early February 2001, the judge had Sally before him and Camille on a speaker phone, but at that time, he refused to terminate the guardianship when he realized that Sally and Camille were unrepresented and the judge suggested to Sally that she seek the advice of an attorney. Accordingly, the judge reset the hearing for a future date so that Sally could have the opportunity to confer with an attorney. When asked if she heeded the Arizona judge's advice to contact a lawyer, she responded that she did not. According to Sally, she then appeared a second time before the same judge in early March 2001, at which time she went to the judge's chambers where a hearing was conducted with the judge and her in the judge's chambers, and Camille on a speaker phone. [12] Sally testified at the second hearing in the case sub judice that she was appearing before the Arizona judge at that hearing because [she] was protesting the revocation of the guardianship. However, the Arizona judge did revoke the guardianship and both Sally and Camille received copies of the judge's final judgment terminating the guardianship. ถ 24. So, in the end, while we have no official Arizona court documents in the record to aid us in reviewing the establishment and termination of the Arizona guardianship, we are satisfied from the testimony of Camille and Sally that the Arizona guardianship was judicially terminated, and that Camille and Sally were afforded their due process rights in the Arizona guardianship termination proceedings. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. ง 14-5212 (1975); In re Guardianship of Mikrut, 175 Ariz. 544, 858 P.2d 689, 693 (Ariz.Ct.App.1993) (A guardianship, established by consent of the natural parent is terminable upon revocation of that consent.). Accordingly, we are bound to give full faith and credit to the Arizona judgment terminating Sally's guardianship over Diane. See U.S. Const. Art. IV, ง 1. Since the Arizona guardianship had been terminated, and since there was no evidence of other pending proceedings in foreign courts concerning custody of Diane, Miss.Code Ann. ง 93-23-11 does not prohibit assertion of jurisdiction by the Mississippi courts. ถ 25. As to Miss.Code Ann. ง 93-23-5, also discussed in Laskosky, it could possibly appear at first blush that the statute denies jurisdiction to the Mississippi courts in this case. Mississippi is not Diane's home state, nor had she been in Mississippi the required six months previous to commencement of these proceedings, as the proceedings commenced with the filing of the Complaint for Adoption on March 8, 2001. According to Camille's testimony, she and Diane, arrived in Mississippi, for the first time ever, about a week before Christmas 2000. However, as the chancellor found, Diane was effectively abandoned by Camille. On this issue, the chancellor made a clear finding in her May 3, 2001, memorandum opinion entered subsequent to the jurisdiction hearing of April 25, 2001, when she stated: Camille has filed a UCCJA affidavit in connection with her complaint for custody, and the court has taken sworn testimony with regard to all the matters required in the UCCJA affidavit. Although the court is of the opinion that the UCCJA is applicable to this case, this court will not dismiss the adoption proceeding filed by Rick and Carol. Camille executed a joinder in the adoption proceeding, and her action in that regard effected her physical and legal abandonment of her child, thereby giving this court subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to ง 93-23-5(1)(c). In other words, the chancellor found that based on the evidence before the court, and pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. ง 93-23-5(1)(c)(i), the chancery court had jurisdiction to make a child custody determination as to Diane because Diane was physically present in Mississippi and she had been abandoned. [13] Notwithstanding this April 25, 2001, pre-adoption finding by the chancellor as to UCCJA abandonment pursuant to Camille's execution of the joinder/waiver, the chancellor certainly could and did eventually consider at the later hearing of September 5, 2001, Camille's assertion of undue influence, duress and intimidation on the part of Rick and Carol surrounding Camille's initial consent to adoption. ถ 26. Finally, in addressing the assertion of Camille and Sally that Rick and Carol's failure to attach the UCCJA residency affidavit to the adoption complaint deprived the chancery court of subject-matter jurisdiction, inasmuch as this Court has held here that the UCCJA has only limited applicability to contested adoptions in certain cases, the failure to attach the UCCJA ง 93-23-17 residency affidavit does not defeat jurisdiction in this case since the chancellor, in her April 25, 2001 pre-adoption ruling, allowed Rick and Carol to adopt Camille's affidavit which was included in her Complaint to Revoke Consent and for Custody of Minor Child. ถ 27. In the end, we find that based on the facts and circumstances peculiar to this particular case, the chancellor correctly applied the UCCJA to the pre-adoption determination of Diane's custody in this contested adoption, though for reasons different than ours. While the chancellor opined that the UCCJA applied to adoptions, whether contested or not, because an adoption permanently changed custody from the natural parent(s) to the adoptive parent(s), this Court, admittedly subsequent to the chancellor's ruling, laid to rest in C.L.B. any notion that the UCCJA applied to consensual adoptions where all interested parties were present. On the other hand, when, as here, a chancellor in a contested adoption is called upon to make a pre-adoption determination as to the appropriate custody of the child who is the subject of the adoption proceedings, and there are unresolved issues such as (1) whether other persons might have legal custody of the child because of proceedings in foreign courts; (2) whether Mississippi is the home state of the child; (3) whether the child has been abandoned or abused; or, (4) whether all interested parties are present, then the chancellor may appropriately consider the applicability of the UCCJA. ถ 28. Again, as already noted, our holding today is in no way inconsistent with our decision in C.L.B. wherein we stated: In addition, all of the cases cited by the natural mother involved custody determinations arising out of divorce or non-consensual adoptions where not all of the interested parties were present. Therefore, those cases were not merely matters of adoption; they also struggled with true custody issues. It is important to note that adoptions were unknown to the common law and exist solely by statute. Eggleston v. Landrum, 210 Miss. 645, 651-52, 50 So.2d 364, 366 (1951). As such, statutes control the manner in which adoptions are conducted, and there is a specific chapter set out in the Mississippi Code which governs and controls adoption proceedings. Subjecting consensual adoptions to the requirements of multiple statutes would only confuse and frustrate the process. In addition, public policy demands that we not subject consensual adoptions to this additional set of requirements. A virtual floodgate of late jurisdictional challenges would open, releasing a deluge of cases on our court system and uncertainty into the home of every adoptive parent. As such, we hold that consensual adoptions in which all interested parties are present are not subject to the provisions of the UCCJA. 812 So.2d at 983 (emphasis added). Because we find that as opposed to the consensual adoption in which all interested parties were present in C.L.B., since in the case sub judice one or more of the necessary factors noted above were present in the case today so as to allow the chancellor to consider and to apply the provisions of the UCCJA, we affirm the chancellor's decision to apply the UCCJA to the pre-adoption determination of child custody so as to initially acquire jurisdiction in this matter. However, all of this having been stated on the subject, we again emphasize that the UCCJA provisions should not be indiscriminately utilized in adoption cases in an effort to obtain or defeat jurisdiction in our Mississippi courts because our statutes accommodate us well in clearly setting out the jurisdiction and venue requirements in adoption proceedings. See Miss. Code Ann. ง 97-17-3. To this end, Rick and Carol had filed their Complaint for Adoption in the Chancery Court of Clarke County, Mississippi and in their adoption pleadings, they alleged under oath that they were adult resident citizens of Clarke County, Mississippi, and had been so residing for more than ninety days. There is no doubt that the Clarke County Chancery Court obtained jurisdiction to adjudicate this adoption proceeding, subject then only to the limited consideration of the UCCJA provisions as already discussed. ถ 29. We find that the Clarke County Chancery Court had jurisdiction to grant the adoption and that the UCCJA had limited applicability in this case.