Ex parte A.M.P.

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed a biological mother's petition for a writ of mandamus as moot after the probate court entered a final adoption order, and affirmed the adoption of the child by the foster parents. The court held that Alabama's statutory transfer provision for an absent or unavailable parental consent did not apply to the interlocutory adoption order and that the probate court properly determined whether the parents had impliedly consented to the adoption. The court also addressed the statutory mechanisms for transferring adoption proceedings or contested hearings to another court.

Holdings

1. The mother's mandamus petition was moot because the interlocutory adoption order became moot when the probate court entered the final adoption decree.
2. The transfer provision of § 26-10A-3 does not apply to interlocutory adoption orders; the issue of whether necessary consents exist ordinarily arises later in the adoption proceeding.
3. Section 26-10A-3 requires mandatory transfer to the juvenile court only when a necessary parental consent or relinquishment is absent; because the probate court found implied consent by both parents, no transfer for termination of parental rights was required.
4. Clear and convincing evidence established that the mother impliedly consented to the adoption because she failed to provide support and failed to maintain a significant parental relationship with the child.
5. DHR's consent was not required under § 26-10A-7(a)(4) because DHR had temporary, not permanent, custody and the child was not relinquished to DHR for adoption.
6. The great-uncle and great-aunt lacked standing to assert DHR's rights under the foster-care agreement because they were not parties to it and could not assert the rights of a third party.
7. The probate court was not required to apply the juvenile-court purposes in § 12-15-1.1 when deciding an adoption proceeding within its jurisdiction.
8. The probate court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to stay or transfer the adoption proceeding under § 26-10A-21 because the current statute makes a stay, transfer, and consolidation discretionary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the mother's petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the interlocutory adoption order remained justiciable after entry of the final adoption decree.
2. Whether the probate court had jurisdiction to grant the foster parents' adoption petition without express parental consent or a transfer to the juvenile court for termination of parental rights.
3. Whether the probate court properly determined that the parents had impliedly consented to the adoption through abandonment-related acts and omissions.
4. Whether DHR's consent was required under § 26-10A-7(a)(4).
5. Whether the great-uncle and great-aunt had standing to enforce the foster-care agreement requiring DHR permission before the foster parents sought adoption.
6. Whether the probate court was required to apply juvenile-court family-preservation policies in deciding the adoption.
7. Whether the probate court abused its discretion by refusing to stay or transfer the adoption proceeding under § 26-10A-21.

Disposition

other