In re Doe

• Decision Date: 10 February 2014
• Docket Number: No. 41463.,41463.
• Citation: 156 Idaho 345,326 P.3d 347
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: In the Matter of the ADOPTION of John DOE and John Doe I. Jane (2013–25) DOE, Petitioner–Appellant.

156 Idaho 345

326 P.3d 347

In the Matter of the ADOPTION of John DOE and John Doe I. Jane (2013–25) DOE, Petitioner–Appellant.

No. 41463.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 10, 2014.

Mauk & Burgoyne, Boise, Nate Peterson Law PLLC, Boise, and Lisa Shultz, Boise, attorneys for appellant.

J. JONES, Justice.

This appeal arises from the dismissal of a petition for adoption filed by Jane Doe, the long-time domestic partner of Jane Doe I. Jane Doe I is the legally recognized parent of the two children subject to the adoption: John Doe and John Doe I. The magistrate court dismissed Jane Doe's petition for adoption when there was no opposition to the petition, without inviting legal briefing, without notice to the affected parties, and without holding a hearing. Jane Doe filed a motion for reconsideration, but before a ruling on that motion was made, I.A.R. 12.2 compelled her to file a Notice of Appeal to this Court.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 30, 2013, Jane Doe filed a petition for adoption. She sought to adopt her long-time partner's two children, John Doe and John Doe I, as a second parent. Jane Doe and Jane Doe I have been in a committed relationship since 1995. They have demonstrated their commitment to one another repeatedly—through participating in a Declaration of Commitment Ceremony in Boise on May 3, 1997, by obtaining a Civil Union from the state of Vermont on June 19, 2002, and by getting married in California on July 26, 2013.¹ Together, Jane Doe and Jane Doe I planned and prepared for the birth of John Doe, and later, the adoption of John Doe I. John Doe was born to Jane Doe I in 1998, conceived by artificial insemination. In 2002, Jane Doe I adopted John Doe I, who was born in 2001 and placed with Jane Doe and Jane Doe I two days after being born. Thus, Jane Doe has, along with Jane Doe I, raised these two children since their births, for fifteen and twelve years, respectively.

In conjunction with her petition for adoption, Jane Doe submitted a Pre–Placement Home Study ("Home Study") performed by Certified Adoption Professional Elizabeth Tate. The Home Study indicates that Jane Doe has traditionally been the children's primary caregiver, while Jane Doe I has been the family's primary source of income. Currently though, Jane Doe works as a playground supervisor and volunteers as a football coach. She has coached both John Doe and John Doe I's soccer and basketball teams, and has served on the Liberty Elementary PTA board for over six years, three of which she served as PTA president. When Ms. Tate asked the children their thoughts regarding the adoption, John Doe stated that Jane Doe "is my mom, she's been here my whole life, and I don't know anything different." Similarly, John Doe I indicated that Jane Doe "has been with me all my life[,]" that he likes adoption because "different people can be together as a family[,]" and that he wants Jane Doe to adopt him because she "loves me and wants to be with me forever." In the Home Study, Ms. Tate approved of and recommended that Jane Doe be permitted to adopt John Doe and John Doe I, stating:

[Jane Doe] is emotionally, culturally, physically, and financially prepared to adopt [the boys]. [Jane Doe and Jane Doe I] appear to have a strong and stable marriage and relationship. [Jane Doe] has met the requirements mandated by the State of Idaho, in regard to age, health and physical fitness, criminal clearance, education, employment, income, and the ability to parent adopted children; additionally, she has the full support of extended family members and friends.

On September 19, 2013, however, the magistrate court entered an Order of Dismissal on the grounds that "the petitioner must be in a lawfully recognized union, i.e. married to the prospective adoptee's parent, to have legal standing to file a petition to adopt that person's biological or adopted child." The magistrate dismissed the petition "sua sponte, without any motion or opposition to the Petition, without prior notice to any of the affected parties, without inviting legal briefing, without any apparent consideration of the Pre–Adoptive Home Study and without hearing." A Final Judgment was entered the same day.

On September 30, 2013, Jane Doe filed a Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment and/or Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion for Reconsideration"). In that motion, Jane Doe argued that the magistrate court erred (1) in denying her "petition for adoption without a hearing to determine the best interests of the prospective adoptees because Petitioner meets all the statutory requirements for adoption" and (2) in its interpretation of the applicable adoption statutes. In conjunction with its Motion for Reconsideration, Jane Doe filed the affidavit of her legal counsel, which advised the magistrate of the approval of various adoptions by unmarried individuals. On October 3, 2013, and before the magistrate ruled on the Motion for Reconsideration, Jane Doe filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court, as required by I.A.R. 12.2.² A letter from Deputy Attorney General Steven L. Olsen was filed on October 23, 2013, in which he indicated that the State will not be appearing in this case.

II.ISSUES ON APPEAL

I. Did the magistrate court err in dismissing the petition for adoption without holding a hearing?

II. Do Idaho's adoption statutes unambiguously allow a second, prospective parent to adopt, regardless of marital status?

III.DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Here, the magistrate court dismissed the petition because it determined that Jane Doe lacked standing. "Jurisdictional issues, such as standing, are questions of law," over which this Court exercises free review. Martin v. Camas Cnty. ex rel. Bd. Comm'rs, 150 Idaho 508, 512, 248 P.3d 1243, 1247 (2011). Additionally, this Court exercises free review when interpreting the meaning of a statute. Stonebrook Const., LLC v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 152 Idaho 927, 930, 277 P.3d 374, 377 (2012).

B. The magistrate erred in dismissing Jane Doe's petition for adoption.

As Jane Doe points out, the magistrate's "Order of Dismissal and [the] Judgment ... fail to identify any statute or civil rule which supports the sua sponte dismissal of an adoption petition without allowing the petitioner to present anything except the petition regarding her eligibility to adopt." Instead, the magistrate court characterized its grounds for dismissal as an issue of standing. As the following discussion demonstrates, this was in error.

1. The magistrate violated Jane Doe's right to due process when it dismissed her petition without affording her the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner.

Jane Doe argues that the magistrate deprived her of an opportunity to be heard and thus "(1) has deprived the Petitioner of any opportunity to clarify uncertainties and arguable deficiencies in the petition and supporting documents, and to enlighten the lower court on persuasive points of law like those addressed on this appeal, (2) has evaded any consideration of whether the best interests of the children would be promoted by the adoption and (3) has needlessly constrained this Court's fully informed appellate review."

"Due process requires the right to timely notice and the right to be heard in a meaningful forum." In re Chaney, 126 Idaho 554, 556, 887 P.2d 1061, 1063 (1995). In In re Chaney, the appellant argued that he was denied due process when the magistrate ruled that he did not have standing to contest an adoption. Id. This Court held, however, that the appellant was not deprived of due process because he had notice of the adoption, "and the magistrate then allowed [the appellant] to testify" and took his testimony into consideration. Id.

Aside from her initial petition for adoption, Jane Doe was given no opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, she had no notice that her petition could potentially be dismissed because there was no opposition to it. Rather, the magistrate court acted unilaterally in dismissing it. The magistrate did not hold a hearing to determine whether the adoption would be in the best interests of the children, and she did not invite briefing before summarily dismissing the petition. We conclude that the magistrate court deprived Jane Doe of due process because she was not given notice and the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner.

2. By not holding a hearing, the magistrate court acted contrary to Idaho's statutory adoption scheme.

Idaho Code § 16–1506 mandates that a hearing be held after an adoption petition is filed. Section 16–1506 is reproduced in part below:

Proceedings on adoption.

(1) Proceedings to adopt a child shall be commenced by the filing of a petition together with a copy thereof. The petition shall be initiated by the person or persons proposing to adopt the child and shall be filed with the district court of the county in which said person or persons reside.... At the time fixed for hearing such petition the person adopting a child, and the child adopted, and the spouse of the petitioner if a natural parent of the child, must appear before the court of the county wherein the petition was filed.

I.C. § 16–1506 (emphasis added).

The phrase "at the time fixed for hearing such petition" contains no qualifiers, limitations, or exceptions. It does not, for example, say, "at the time fixed for hearing, if any," nor does the phrase hint that a hearing is optional, or even a judgment call within a court's discretion. The language, by its plain, unambiguous meaning indicates that in the context of adoption proceedings in Idaho, a post-petition hearing is required. The magistrate's summary dismissal of Jane Doe's adoption petition, without first holding a hearing, constitutes a failure to comply with I.C. § 16–1506.

C. Idaho's adoption statutes unambiguously allow a second, prospective parent to adopt, regardless of marital status.

On appeal, Jane Doe argues that Idaho's adoption statutes unambiguously allow her to adopt, that she meets all of the statutory...