Court Opinion

ID: 9765766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:18:40.28033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:15.527310
License: Public Domain

Guy Amsler, Justice, concurring. I concur in the results reached by the majority in this case but, would reverse on different grounds. 10 Old. St. Ann. § 60.8 (Suppl. 1965) reads as follows : “Before the court hears a petition for adoption without consent of a parent, as provided in Section 7 of this Act, the consenting parent, legal guardian or person having legal custody of the child to be adopted shall file an application setting out the reason that the consent of the other parent is not necessary, which application must be heard and an order entered thereon in which said child is determined to be eligible for adoption as set out in Section 7 hereof. Said application shall be set for hearing on a day certain and notice of such application shall be given the parent whose consent is alleged to be unnecessary. The notice of the application shall contain the name of the child, or children, for whom application for adoption is made and the date said application is set for hearing and the reason that said child is eligible for adoption without the consent of such parent, and shall be served upon such parent as summons in civil cases at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Provided, that if such parent resides outside of the county, such notice shall be given by registered mail at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. Provided, that if the whereabouts of such parent is not known, and this fact be sworn to by the affidavit of the consenting parent, legal guardian or person having legal custody of the child, notice by publication shall be given by publishing notice one (1) time in the newspaper having a general circulation in the county and qualified as a newspaper under the laws relating generally to service of notice by publication, which publication shall be at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the hearing.” Section 7 is the statute, % 60.7, referred to in the majority opinion, which provides that consent is not required from a parent who has been divorced on the grounds of cruelty, as Olney was. In the Oklahoma adoption proceedings it is conceded by all parties that there was no attempt made to comply with the above statute. No effort was made to serve Olney through personal service, by registered mail or publication. In fact the records of the Oklahoma adoption proceedings affirmatively show that Olney was not notified. The Supreme ‘Court of Oklahoma has held that service or the giving of notice, as required by § 60.8 is jurisdictional. Copas v. Reents, Okla., 365 P. 2d 983. This court has said that a habeas corpus proceedings by a parent to obtain custody of an adopted child constitutes a collateral attack upon the order of adoption and that the only inquiry proper to be made is whether the Court ordering adoption had jurisdiction to enter the judgment. Norris v. Dunn, 184 Ark. 511, 43 S. W. 2d 77; Hughes v. Cain, 210 Ark. 476, 196 S. W. 2d 758. "With respect to the registration of foreign judgments, we have many times held that one of the two matters that may be inquired into is whether the court of the sister state wherein the judgment originated had jurisdiction. Lewis v. United Order of Good, Samaritans, 182 Ark. 914, 33 S. W. 2d 53, and cases cited therein. It is my conclusion that consistency dictates that lack of jurisdiction of the County Court of Seminole County, Oklahoma, should be the reason for reversing this case.