Court Opinion

ID: 9796626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:01:15.211664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:41.261785
License: Public Domain

BOUDREAU, J.,
with whom SUMMERS, C.J., joins, dissenting:
11 I respectfully dissent. I do not view Oklahoma as having any basis under the Oklahoma Adoption Code, 10 O.S.Supp.1999, 7501-1.1 et seq., upon which to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a proceeding to terminate Father's parental rights.
{ 2 One of the three indispensable jurisdictional prerequisites of a valid judgment is subject matter jurisdiction.1 Reed v. Scott, 1991 OK 113, 820 P.2d 445. The question of whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction over a legal controversy presents a question of law. Questions of law are reviewed de movo. Neil Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Wingrod Investment Corporation, 1996 OK 125, 932 P.2d 1100.
13 The facts relating to the question of subject matter jurisdiction are few and uncontested. Baby Boy D was born in Kansas. Biological mother and father reside in Missouri. Prospective adoptive parents reside in Idaho. Placement agency does business in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
1 4 Section 7502-1.1 of the Adoption Code establishes five alternative bases upon which *224an Oklahoma court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over adoption proceedings and over termination of parental rights proceedings initiated under the Adoption Code.2 Derived from the 1994 Uniform Adoption Act approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, these bases clearly favor jurisdiction in the State with the most substantial evidence about the prospective adoptive family.3 In the case in controversy, this jurisdiction is clearly the state of Idaho. The trial court recognized this when, after terminating Father's parental rights, it transferred the adoption to Idaho.
1.
The expansive manner in which the majority opinion applies the concept of emergency jurisdiction undermines the subject matter jurisdictional requirements for adoption and termination proceedings set forth in the Oklahoma Adoption Code.
15 Seeking a basis upon which the trial court might exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding to terminate Father's parental rights, the majority opinion concludes that the Oklahoma court correctly assumed emergency jurisdiction under the Adoption Code. The basis for emergency jurisdiction can be found at § 7502-1.1(A)(4) of the Code and permits the exercise of jurisdiction if both:
the minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state, and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect minor because the minor has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected;
The emergency provision of the Adoption Code is clearly designed to allow a court to assume jurisdiction when a child with no significant connection to the state is abandoned or endangered in Oklahoma.
T6 The emergency jurisdiction provision in the Adoption Code does not provide a basis for Oklahoma to assume jurisdiction over the proceeding to terminate Father's parental *225rights. First, Birth Mother appeared in the Tulsa County District Court on March 9, 1999, and allowed the court to terminate her parental rights. On the same day, the court granted temporary custody to the adoption agency. The record on appeal does not establish that the prospective adoptive parent were physically present in Oklahoma when the child-placing agency assumed custody of the child.4 Without the prospective adoptive parents physically present in the state at the time the custody order was issued, the trial court had no basis to assume emergency jurisdiction.5
T7 Second, no true emergency exists. When a child is placed for adoption through a child-placing agency, an abandonment or emergency due to the child's pre-placement cireumstances has been resolved by the placement itself. A child placed with a child-placing agency is not a child "left without provision for reasonable and necessary care or supervision."
T8 Finally, if the notion of emergency Jurisdiction is applied in a such an expansive manner, it will effectively eviscerate any subject matter jurisdictional requirements for adoption and termination proceedings. The mere placing of a child with an adoption agency in Oklahoma becomes sufficient to vest our courts with jurisdiction over the adoption, even though Oklahoma has no connections to the child or the prospective adoptive parents. A birth mother from any state in the nation may now travel to Oklahoma with prospective adoptive parents and place a child with an agency for adoption in Oklahoma. Because she is deemed to have abandoned her child, the courts of this state may assume emergency jurisdiction and then proceed to terminate the parental rights of the father no matter how attenuated or nonexistent his connection with this state.6
T9 The concept of emergency jurisdiction should be narrowly construed. In referring to the "emergency jurisdiction" provision under the former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act,7 this Court has stressed that the provision is "reserved for extraordinary circumstances," and "it must not be misused to defeat the purposes of the act, ... " Holt v. District Court, 1981 OK 39, 626 P.2d 1336, 1345.8 As applied by the Court in this case, the emergency jurisdiction provision undermines the policy of the Oklahoma Adoption Code which favors adoption jurisdiction in the state with the most substantial evidence about the prospective adoptive family. By defining emergency jurisdiction so expansively, the court tears a large hole in the act and opens the possibility that Oklahoma will become an adoption mill for out of state adopters with little or no connection to this state who may wish to invoke favorable Oklahoma law regarding termination of parental rights or adoption.
IL
Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over Father under the 1998 amendments which extended the subject matter jurisdiction of the Oklahoma courts under the Adoption Code.
1 10 In 1998, the legislature extended the subject matter jurisdiction of the Oklahoma courts beyond the limitations established by the five original bases set out in § 7502 1.1(A). Under § 7502-1.1(B)(1), Oklahoma courts are now permitted to adjudicate a proceeding to terminate the parental rights *226of a putative father, initiated prior to the commencement of an adoption proceeding pursuant to 10 O.S.Supp.1998, 7505-2.1, even when none of the above five bases are satisfied, if two requirements are met:
(1) the child is born in Oklahoma; and
(2) the birth mother has executed her consent or permanent relinquishment before a judge in Oklahoma.
However, Oklahoma courts that are permitted to hear preadoption termination proceedings under this section are prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over the adoption proceeding itself. 10 O.S.Supp.1999, 7502-1.1(B)(4).
{11 Oklahoma's contacts with Father do not even meet the requirements set forth in the 1998 amendments that extend the subject matter jurisdiction of Oklahoma courts to hear preadoption termination proceedings. Although Birth Mother executed her consent or relinquishment within the state, the child was born in Kansas, not Oklahoma.
IIL.
Conclusion
{12 I would vacate the order terminating Father's parental rights for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The petition to terminate Father's parental rights can proceed in Idaho, the state with jurisdiction over this adoption. While the stability of the adoptee and the preservation of any bond created with the prospective adoptive parents are extremely important considerations, Oklahoma's contacts with one whose parental rights are being terminated must be such that the application of its law is neither fundamentally unfair or arbitrary. The termination proceeding in this case did not meet this standard.

. The other two jurisdictional prerequisites are jurisdiction over the parties and the jurisdictional power to pronounce the particular decision that was entered.

. The five bases for jurisdiction are set out in 10 O.S.Supp.1999, 7502-1.1(A), which provides:
A. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a court of this state has jurisdiction over proceedings to terminate parental rights and proceedings for the adoption of a minor commenced pursuant to the Oklahoma Adoption Code if: - 2s
1. a. Immediately preceding commencement of the proceeding, the minor lived in this state with a parent, a guardian, a prospective adoptive parent, or another person acting as parent, for at least six (6) consecutive months, excluding periods of temporary absence,
b. In the case of a minor under six (6) months of age, the minor lived in this state from soon after birth with any of those individuals listed in subparagraph a of this paragraph and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor's present or future care, or
c. A child is born in this state and the mother of the child executes her consent or permanent relinquishment before a judge of a court of this state;
2. Immediately preceding commencement of the proceeding, the prospective adoptive parent lived in this state for at least six (6) consecutive months, excluding periods of temporary absence, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor's present or future care;
3. The child-placing agency that placed the minor for adoption is located in this state and it is in the best interest of the minor that a court of this state, assume jurisdiction because:
a. the minor and the minor's parents, or the minor and the prospective adoptive parent, have a significant connection with this state, and
b. there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor's present or future care;
4. The minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state, and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected; or
5. It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with paragraphs 1 through 4 of this subsection, or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to hear a petition for adoption of the minor, and it is in the best interest of the minor that a court of this state assume jurisdiction.

. Joan Heifetz Hollinger, The Uniform Adoption Act: Reporter's Ruminations, 30 Fam.L.Q., 345, 369 (Summer 1996). 10 O.S.Supp.1999, 7502-1.1, Oklahoma Comments.

. The record does reflect that the adoptive parents appeared before the Tulsa County court on May 7, 1999, at a hearing on the petition for habeas corpus filed by natural Father.

. In its order granting custody to the child-placing agency, the trial court made no claim to be assuming emergency jurisdiction.

. Similarly, the couris of this state may also proceed with the adoption even though no evidence about the child or about the prospective adoptive family can be found here.

. 43 O.S.1991, 501, et seq., repealed by 1998 O.S.L., ch. 407, § 43, within the enactment of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, 43 O.S.Supp.1999, 551-101, et seq.

. The five alternative bases upon which Oklahoma courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over proceedings to terminate parental rights and adoption proceedings are similar to the bases established by the UCCJA, with modifications that respond to the unique circumstances of adoption proceedings.