Opinion ID: 1840036
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in failing to set aside the adoption for lack of jurisdiction?

Text: ¶ 14. In determining whether Humphrey had a legal right to notice of the adoption, this Court first notes that, as an unwed father, Humphrey had no statutory rights whatsoever with regard to Tryxie's adoption. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-17-5 (1994), which requires that parents be made parties to the adoption proceedings, does not consider the father of an illegitimate child to be a parent for the purposes of the statute at all. The statute provides in part that: [In] the case of a child born out of wedlock, the father shall not be deemed to be a parent for the purpose of this chapter, and no reference shall be made to the illegitimacy of such child. Thus, § 93-17-5 expressly provides that the father of an illegitimate child is not a parent at all for the purposes of the adoption statutes. Both parents are entitled to notice of the adoption under Mississippi statutory law, but the father of an illegitimate child is denied the basic status of parent under the adoption statutes of this State. The constitutional implications of such provision are discussed infra, but, by clear dictate of statute, Humphrey was entitled to no notice under the adoption statutes of this State. ¶ 15. Humphrey cites two decisions of this Court, which, he contends, demonstrate that he had a right to notice of the pending adoption. Humphrey cites the cases of Krohn v. Migues, 274 So.2d 654, 657 (Miss. 1973) and Birindelli v. Egelston, 404 So.2d 322, 324 (Miss. 1981) for the proposition that without inclusion of the natural father as a party, the Final Decree of Adoption is Void. Contrary to Humphrey's arguments, neither of these cases provides support for his assertion that the adoption of Tryxie is void under the law of this State. ¶ 16. In Krohn, this Court found that the father had been married to the mother at the time the baby was born and that he was thus entitled to notice. Id. Thus, Krohn is clearly distinguishable from the present case, in which Humphrey was not married to the mother at the time Tryxie was born. ¶ 17. In Birindelli, this Court held that: We also are of the opinion that even if process had been returnable to the proper district, the adoption decree would still be void for lack of jurisdiction because Birindelli testified without contradiction that he did not receive notice of the adoption proceedings. Birindelli, 404 So.2d at 324. ¶ 18. Although the facts in Birindelli are not entirely clear, it appears, that Birindelli, like the father in Krohn, was a married father. The opinion contains the following language: ... Birindelli's testimony he did not receive statutory notice of the adoption proceeding renders the adoption decree void. Birindelli, 404 So.2d at 324. (emphasis added.) Given the language referring to statutory notice, it appears that Birindelli was not an unwed father, given that such unwed fathers clearly have no right to notice under the statutory adoption scheme of this state. ¶ 19. Thus, Birindelli is not on point, and § 93-17-5 makes it clear that Humphrey had no statutory right to notice in the present case. Although there is thus no basis for challenging the adoption under the common law or statutory law of this State, this Court nevertheless turns to the Constitutional issues in the present case in order to completely address the issues herein.
¶ 20. Although Miss. Code Ann. § 93-17-5 and applicable decisions of this Court do not require notification of the natural unwed father of an illegitimate child, applicable United States Supreme Court decisions nevertheless make it clear that this Mississippi statute would be unconstitutional in its application in certain cases, particularly in cases in which the natural unwed father has attempted to establish a substantial relationship with the child. Commentators have recognized the constitutionally suspect nature of § 93-17-5 for years, but the Legislature has not addressed this issue to date. [3] ¶ 21. The United States Supreme Court has clearly indicated that a natural unwed father of an illegitimate child may, in certain circumstances, have a constitutional right to be notified of or to withhold his consent to, an adoption. Given that no such rights are provided for by § 93-17-5, this statute is clearly unconstitutional to the extent that the United States Supreme Court has held such a right to exist. ¶ 22. The primary United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the constitutional rights of putative fathers are Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978), Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 99 S.Ct. 1760, 60 L.Ed.2d 297 (1979), and Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 2985, 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983). In Stanley, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional an Illinois statute which conclusively presumed every father of a child born out of wedlock to be an unfit person to have custody of his children. Stanley, 405 U.S. at 658, 92 S.Ct. at 1216. Stanley set the stage for later rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirming the Constitutional rights of unwed fathers, but the holding is otherwise of little relevance to the present case. ¶ 23. In Quilloin, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Georgia statutory scheme which required that an natural unwed father legitimate the child in order to be able to exercise a veto power over the child's adoption. Quilloin, 434 U.S. at 248-49, 98 S.Ct. at 551-52. The Supreme Court held that, under the facts of that case, the Georgia statute did not deprive the father of any constitutional rights. The Supreme Court indicated that a primary consideration in such cases is the extent to which the father has cared for the child and treated her as his own. Quilloin, 434 U.S. at 256, 98 S.Ct. at 555. For the purposes of the present case, however, Quilloin is of only limited assistance, given that it did not involve a father who had been denied notification of an adoption. ¶ 24. In Caban, the U.S. Supreme Court considered a New York statute which gave an unwed mother the authority to block an adoption simply by withholding her consent, but which only gave an unwed father the right to block the adoption by showing that the best interests of the child would not permit the child's adoption. Caban, 441 U.S. at 386-87, 99 S.Ct. at 1764-65. The U.S. Supreme Court, applying the intermediate scrutiny test for gender-based discrimination in an equal protection analysis, held that, while New York's interest in promoting the well-being of illegitimate children is an important one, the State had not established that the different treatment afforded unmarried fathers and unmarried mothers under [the New York statute] bears a substantial relationship to the proclaimed interest of the State in promoting the adoption of illegitimate children. Id. at 393, 99 S.Ct. at 1769. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court held the statute in question to be unconstitutional as applied in that case. ¶ 25. The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Caban that: In those cases where the father never has come forward to participate in the rearing of his child, nothing in the Equal Protection Clause precludes the State from withholding from him the privilege of vetoing the adoption of that child. Indeed, under the statute as it now stands the surrogate may proceed in the absence of consent when the parent whose consent otherwise would be required never has come forward or has abandoned the child... . . But in cases such as this, where the father has established a substantial relationship with the child and has admitted his paternity, a State should have no difficulty in identifying the father even of children born out of wedlock. Id. at 392-93, 99 S.Ct. at 1768. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the holding in Caban to those cases in which the putative father had established a substantial relationship with the child, and, equally importantly for the present case, stated that consideration should be given to the ability of the State to identify the father of the child in order that adoptions may proceed without undue delay. Id. ¶ 26. Neither of these factors are present in the present case, given that Humphrey did not develop a substantial relationship with Tryxie in the months between her birth and adoption, nor in the five years following her adoption. Moreover, the State of Mississippi, in the form of the Chancery Court, had no possible way of knowing that Humphrey was the natural father of Tryxie, given that the child was presented to the Court as the natural child of Mr. and Mrs. Gibson, both of whom were notified of and consented to the adoption. ¶ 27. In Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 2985, 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld an adoption of which a putative father had not been notified. The Court based its holding, however, largely upon the fact that New York State maintained a registry by which a putative father could guarantee that he was notified of any adoption proceedings by mailing a postcard to a registry. Lehr, 463 U.S. at 264, 103 S.Ct. at 2994-95. Also, the New York statute provided for notification of certain classifications of unwed fathers, such as those who lived openly with the child. Id. at 251, 103 S.Ct. at 2988. Mississippi has no comparable notification provision or registry, thus leaving Mississippi's lack of notification pursuant to § 93-17-5 constitutionally suspect. [4] As in Caban, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lehr placed heavy emphasis on the degree to which the putative father had attempted to establish a relationship with his child in determining the extent of his constitutional parental rights. Both Caban and Lehr thus provide indications that Humphrey's constitutional rights were not violated under the facts of the present case. ¶ 28. A more recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a putative father similarly situated to Humphrey provides further indication that Humphrey's rights were not violated by the lack of notification of the adoption proceedings in the present case. In Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a California statute which provided that the child of a married woman cohabiting with her husband is presumed to be a child of the marriage, as long as the husband is not impotent or sterile. Michael H., a natural unwed father of a child born to a married couple, filed an action to establish his paternity and visitation rights. The trial court dismissed his action based on the aforementioned California statute, and this ruling was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals. Id. at 116, 109 S.Ct. at 2338. ¶ 29. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, five justices affirmed, holding that the California statute did not deprive Michael of any protected liberty interest, with Justice Stevens concurring based only upon certain statutory protections found in the California statute. The plurality opinion of Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and O'Connor, noted that: In Lehr v. Robertson , a case involving a natural father's attempt to block his child's adoption by the unwed mother's new husband, we observed that [t]he significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring, and we assumed that the Constitution might require some protection of that opportunity. Where, however, the child is born into an extant marital family, the natural father's unique opportunity conflicts with the similarly unique opportunity of the husband of the marriage; and it is not unconstitutional for the state to give categorical preference to the latter. Id. at 128-29, 109 S.Ct. at 2345 (citations omitted). The opinion further noted that the Court could find no basis for concluding that a father in Michael's (and, presumably, Humphrey's) position could legitimately assert constitutional rights, such as those discussed in Lehr and Caban. The justices noted that: We have found nothing in the older sources, nor in the older cases, addressing specifically the power of the natural father to assert parental rights over a child born into a woman's existing marriage with another man. Since it is Michael's burden to establish that such a power (at least where the natural father has established a relationship with the child) is so deeply imbedded within our traditions as to be a fundamental right, the lack of evidence alone might defeat his case. But the evidence shows that even in modern times when, as we have noted, the rigid protection of the marital family has in other respects been relaxed the ability of a person in Michael's position to claim paternity has not been generally acknowledged. Id. at 125, 109 S.Ct. at 2343. While only a plurality opinion, the holding in Michael H. indicates that a putative father who fathers a child born into a woman's existing marriage with another man has no right to assert parental rights, and thus, presumably, to claim a right to notice of or to object to the adoption. ¶ 30. None of the aforementioned United Supreme Court cases are directly on point, but considered in the aggregate, these opinions leave little doubt that Tryxie's adoption did not violate Humphrey's constitutional rights under the facts of the present case. Given that there is similarly no basis for the adoption to be set aside under the statutory or common law of this State, the adoption of Tryxie by the Pannells was valid. Accordingly, the ruling of the chancellor in upholding the adoption of Tryxie by the Pannells is affirmed.