Brine v. Shipp
| Decision Date | 13 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. S12F0626.,S12F0626. |
| Citation | 12 FCDR 2302,291 Ga. 376,729 S.E.2d 393 |
| Parties | BRINE v. SHIPP. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Angela A. Woodall, Angela Albritton Woodall, PC, Hiram, for appellant.
William Thomas Cable, Jr., Talley, Richardson & Cable, Jamie Grantham Averett, Cartersville, Wayne Darrin Keaton, Dallas, Scott Willis Shaw, Shaw Law Firm, LLC, Atlanta, for appellee.
This divorce action involves the termination of the parental rights of the husband, who was the child's legal father for 13 years. The husband is appealing the superior court's order severing his rights as legal father and granting the biological father's petition to legitimate. Because we conclude that the superior court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the legal father's parental rights, we reverse.
Gwendolyn Brine and William Robert Brine were married in August 1997, just weeks after a relationship between Gwendolyn and Brian Shipp ended. When Shipp found out in the spring of 1998 that Gwendolyn was pregnant, he asked her whether he was the father and she said no. The child was born in May 1998, and Brine was listed on the birth certificate as the father. Approximately 18 months later, Shipp again saw Gwendolyn and asked whether he could be the father. She said that she was married and the child was not his. For the next ten years, Shipp made no more inquiries and took no further action concerning the child's paternity. He saw the child occasionally as a family friend, but did not attempt to develop a father-son relationship or provide any substantial financial or emotional support. In August 2010, a year after William filed for divorce, Gwendolyn informed Shipp that she thought he was the child's biological father; subsequent DNA testing confirmed that fact.
In February 2011, Shipp moved to intervene in the divorce action and filed a petition for legitimation. Following a hearing, the superior court found that Shipp had not waived or abandoned his opportunity interest in developing a relationship with the child and that it was in the child's best interest to grant the legitimation petition. As part of the divorce decree, the superior court terminated William Brine's rights as the legal father, granted Shipp's petition to legitimate, and awarded Shipp primary physical custody of the child. William Brine filed an application for discretionary appeal, which this Court granted as having possible merit.
1. Because of jurisdictional concerns, we asked the parties to address whether the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the parental rights of the legal father in the legitimation proceeding that was brought as part of this divorce action. See OCGA § 15–11–28(a)(2)(C). Although the parties have not raised any objections to jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred on a court by agreement. Amerson v. Vandiver, 285 Ga. 49, 50, 673 S.E.2d 850 (2009); Bolden v. Barton, 278 Ga. 831(1), 607 S.E.2d 889 (2005); see OCGA § 15–1–2.
The Georgia Constitution gives superior courts “jurisdiction in all cases, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.” Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. IV, Par. I. Concerning courts of limited jurisdiction, the constitution declares that juvenile courts have “uniform jurisdiction as provided by law.” Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. III, Par. I. OCGA § 15–11–28 provides that juvenile courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the termination of parental rights, except in connection with adoption proceedings. The relevant statutory provision states:
(a) Exclusive original jurisdiction. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over juvenile matters and shall be the sole court for initiating action:
...
(2) Involving any proceedings:
...
(C) For the termination of the legal parent-child relationship and the rights of the biological father who is not the legal father of the child, other than that in connection with adoption proceedings under Article I of Chapter 8 of Title 19, in which the superior courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to terminate the legal parent-child relationship and the rights of the biological father who is not the legal father of the child.
The predecessor of this provision was enacted into law in 1971 as part of the new Juvenile Court Code of Georgia. 1971 Ga. Laws 709, 712 (codified at Ga.Code Ann. § 24A–301 (b)(3)).
[291 Ga. 378]2. Based on this statute, we have previously concluded that the superior court lacks jurisdiction to terminate parental rights in a divorce and child custody case. Cothran v. Cothran, 237 Ga. 487, 488, 228 S.E.2d 872 (1976). In Cothran, the superior court found both parents were unfit, terminated their parental rights, and awarded custody to the Department of Family and Children Services. Id. at 487, 228 S.E.2d 872; see also Dein v. Mossman, 244 Ga. 866(1), 262 S.E.2d 83 (1979) (). More recently, we reaffirmed that a superior court judge did not have subject matter jurisdiction to terminate a father's parental rights as part of a settlement agreement incorporated into the final divorce decree. Amerson v. Vandiver, 285 Ga. at 50, 673 S.E.2d 850; cf. Taylor v. Taylor, 282 Ga. 113, 113 n. 1 (1), 646 S.E.2d 238 (2007) (). Similarly, the Court of Appeals has held that the superior court does not have jurisdiction to consider a petition seeking to terminate parental rights that is not filed in connection with adoption proceedings. In the Interest of A.D.B., 232 Ga.App. 697, 503 S.E.2d 596 (1998); Alexander v. Guthrie, 216 Ga.App. 460(2), 454 S.E.2d 805 (1995); Brant v. Bazemore, 159 Ga.App. 659, 284 S.E.2d 674 (1981); cf. In the Interest of J.S., 302 Ga.App. 342(4), 691 S.E.2d 250 (2010) (). The Juvenile Code sets forth the required grounds and procedure for the termination of parental rights. See OCGA § 15–11–94 (). “Quite aside from the controlling constitutional provisions regarding the subject-matter jurisdiction of our courts, there are compelling public policy reasons to keep these child-sensitive issues in the juvenile courts, where the best interests of the child are paramount and protections exist, such as the appointment of guardians ad litem, OCGA § 15–11–98(a), that serve to guarantee those best interests are considered.” Amerson, 285 Ga. at 51, 673 S.E.2d 850 (Hunstein, P.J., concurring).
In some cases, the superior courts have terminated parental rights outside the adoption context, but the appellate court decisions in those cases do not address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. See Taylor v. Taylor, 280 Ga. 88, 623 S.E.2d 477 (2005) (); Baker v. Baker, 276 Ga. 778, 582 S.E.2d 102 (2003) (); Davis v. LaBrec, 274 Ga. 5, 549 S.E.2d 76 (2001) (); see also In the Interest of C.L., 284 Ga.App. 674, 676 n. 1, 644 S.E.2d 530 (2007) (). When the parties do not raise a question concerning the superior court's jurisdiction and this Court does not address the issue on appeal, our decision does not stand for the proposition that the superior court had jurisdiction to take the action. See State v. Outen, 289 Ga. 579, 582, 714 S.E.2d 581 (2011).
3. Whether the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction to sever the legal father's parental rights in this case depends on whether the issue is considered primarily as one involving legitimation or one involving termination. Compare OCGA § 15–11–28(a)(2)(C) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brumbelow v. Mathenia
...some cash and small gifts, he waited five years to file a legitimation petition), overruled on other grounds by Brine v. Shipp , 291 Ga. 376, 729 S.E.2d 393 (2012) ; In the Interest of J. M ., 289 Ga. App. at 444 (1) (b), 657 S.E.2d 337 (noting that a two-year delay in filing a legitimation......
-
Mathenia v. Brumbelow
...omitted.) Matthews v. Dukes , 314 Ga. App. 782, 786 (1), 726 S.E.2d 95 (2012), overruled on other grounds by Brine v. Shipp , 291 Ga. 376, 380 (3), 729 S.E.2d 393 2012. "On appeal of an order denying a petition to legitimate ..., the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to th......
-
Smith v. Pearce
...exclusive jurisdiction over termination of parental rights, except in adoption cases. See OCGA § 15–11–10(3)(D). In Brine v. Shipp,291 Ga. 376, 729 S.E.2d 393 (2012), our Supreme Court noted that “the biological father's petition to legitimate a child who was born in wedlock is in essence a......
-
Belliveau v. Floyd
...when no witnesses were sworn and no admissible evidence regarding the child's best interest was offered).22 Brine v. Shipp , 291 Ga. 376, 380 (3), 729 S.E.2d 393 (2012), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by Mathenia v. Brumbelow , 308 Ga. 714, 843 S.E.2d 582 (2020) ; see ......
-
A Father's Right to Counsel in Georgia Juvenile Court Legitimation Proceedings: Closing the Due Process Loophole
...relationship with his child).113. Ghrist v. Fricks, 465 S.E.2d 501, 506 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995), overruled in part by Brine v. Shipp, 729 S.E.2d 393, 396-397 (Ga. 2012). In holding that collateral estoppel prevented a putative father from presenting evidence to establish his paternity and legit......
-
Domestic Relations
...364 Ga. App. at 24, 873 S.E.2d at 484.44. Id. at 25, 873 S.E.2d at 484.45. Id. at 24, 873 S.E.2d at 484 (quoting Brine v. Shipp, 291 Ga. 376, 379, 729 S.E.2d 393, 396 (2012)).46. Jefferson, 364 Ga. App. at 24, 873 S.E.2d at 484.47. Id. at 25, 873 S.E.2d at 484.48. Id.49. Id. 50. Id.51. 361 ......