Ex parte S.C.W., P.D., & S.D.H. (In re S.C.W. v. C.B.; P.D. v. R.L.; S.C.W. & S.D.H. v. C.B.)

826 So. 2d 844 (Ala. 2001) · Supreme Court of Alabama · October 12, 2001 · No. 1001107

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed an adoption dispute involving an unmarried biological father who failed to timely register under Alabama's Putative Father Registry Act but had filed legitimation and paternity proceedings and contested the adoption. The court held that the Registry Act and Alabama Adoption Code could be harmonized, reversed the Court of Civil Appeals, and remanded for a contested adoption hearing. The court also directed reconsideration of attorney-fee sanctions imposed against the biological father's attorneys.

Holdings

  1. The statutes can be harmonized. Registration with the Putative Father Registry is one of several ways a putative father may bring his paternity claim to the attention of the adoption court; the Alabama Adoption Code's broader provision allowing the putative father to be otherwise known by the court remains operative.
  2. S.C.W.'s declaration of legitimation and paternity complaint were sufficient means of making his paternity claim known to the court, and his timely response to adoption notice gave him the right to contest the adoption.
  3. The sanctions judgment had to be reversed or reevaluated because the biological father's contest was substantially justified and did not improperly or unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Putative Father Registry Act and the Alabama Adoption Code could be harmonized so that registry filing was only one method by which a putative father could become known to the adoption court and obtain the right to contest the adoption.
  2. Whether S.C.W.'s filing of legitimation and paternity proceedings, together with his timely response to notice, preserved his right to contest the adoption despite his failure to timely register.
  3. Whether sanctions against S.C.W.'s attorneys under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act should be reversed or reevaluated.
  4. Whether the constitutional challenges to the Putative Father Registry Act could be reached.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (11)

  • S.C.W. v. C.B., 826 So. 2d 825 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001)(reversed)
  • Ex parte Sullivan, 407 So. 2d 559 (Ala. 1981)(followed)
  • Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148, 155 (1976)(followed)
  • City of Birmingham v. Southern Express Co., 164 Ala. 529, 538, 51 So. 159, 162 (1909)(followed)
  • Hall v. Teipie-Ching Chi, 782 So. 2d 218, 222 (Ala. 2000)(followed)
  • Benson v. City of Birmingham, 659 So. 2d 82 (Ala. 1995)(followed)
  • Hayden v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 843 F. Supp. 1427, 1437 (M.D. Ala. 1994)(followed)
  • J.N.H. v. N.T.H., 705 So. 2d 448 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997)(followed)
  • United States v. McLemore, 28 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • Diemert v. City of Mobile, 474 So. 2d 663 (Ala. 1985)(followed by analogy)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…