Adoption of Daphne

SJC-12846 (Mass. Apr. 2, 2020) · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · April 2, 2020 · No. SJC-12846

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the Probate and Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction under G. L. c. 210, § 1, and personal jurisdiction over an adoption petition filed by a nonresident biological father. The court concluded that the child remained domiciled in Massachusetts despite the mother's surrender, the father's voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, and the child's removal abroad. The court vacated the dismissal and directed the Probate and Family Court to accept the petition for filing.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Writing for the Court
Cypher, J.; Gants, C.J.; Lenk, J.; Gaziano, J.; Lowy, J.; Budd, J.; Kafker, J.
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Decision date
April 2, 2020
Docket number
SJC-12846
Procedural posture
The biological father appealed from the Probate and Family Court's dismissal with prejudice of his uncontested petition to adopt his biological child and establish himself as the child's sole legal parent. The Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case sua sponte from the Appeals Court.
Standard of review
Statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo. Because review was based entirely on documentary materials, the appellate court stood in the same position as the trial judge in determining whether jurisdictional requirements were met.
Precedential value
Published Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Father
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

adoptionsubject matter jurisdictionpersonal jurisdictionstatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Practice areas

family lawadoptionprobatecivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Probate and Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction under G. L. c. 210, § 1, over a petition filed by a nonresident biological father seeking to adopt a child born in Massachusetts who was living outside the Commonwealth when the petition was filed.
  2. Whether the Probate and Family Court had personal jurisdiction over the father, the mother, and the child.
  3. Whether the Probate and Family Court could alternatively exercise equity jurisdiction under G. L. c. 215, § 6.

Holdings

  1. The Probate and Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the father's adoption petition because the child was residing in Weymouth within the meaning of G. L. c. 210, § 1, even though the child had been removed from Massachusetts and was living abroad during the adoption proceedings.
  2. The Probate and Family Court had personal jurisdiction over the parties.
  3. The Probate and Family Court also could have exercised equity jurisdiction under G. L. c. 215, § 6, in the circumstances presented.

Key quotations

We conclude that the Probate and Family Court has both subject matter jurisdiction under G. L. c. 210, § 1, and personal jurisdiction over the parties in this case. (at 2)
Because the child was "residing" in Weymouth, as defined under G. L. c. 210, § 1, we hold that the Probate and Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to conduct a hearing on the father's petition. (at 14)
The Probate and Family Court has both subject matter jurisdiction under G. L. c. 210, § 1, and personal jurisdiction over the parties in this case. (at 16)

Factual background

The father, who was the intended and genetic father of the child, entered into a gestational carrier agreement with the Massachusetts-domiciled birth mother, and the child was born in Weymouth after an in vitro fertilization procedure. The father and mother executed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, and the birth certificate listed both as parents. The mother later surrendered the child, while the father, his same-sex partner, and the child left Massachusetts and returned to the father's home country; the father then sought a Massachusetts adoption judgment to terminate the mother's parental rights and establish himself as the child's sole legal parent.

Procedural history

The father filed three adoption petitions in the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court. The first was rejected for lack of jurisdiction, the second was returned because it used an outdated form, and the third was dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The father appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case on its own initiative. Before issuing its opinion, the court ordered the judgment vacated and directed the Probate and Family Court to accept the petition for immediate filing.

Remand instructions

The judgment of dismissal was vacated, and the Probate and Family Court was instructed to accept the father's adoption petition for immediate filing.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…