G.P. v. C.P. (In re D.P.P.)

• Decision Date: 21 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. 5D13–1766.,5D13–1766.
• Citation: 158 So.3d 633
• Parties: In the Matter of the ADOPTION OF D.P.P., etc., G.P., Appellant, v. C.P., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

158 So.3d 633

In the Matter of the ADOPTION OF D.P.P., etc.G.P., Appellant

v.C.P., Appellee.

No. 5D13–1766.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 21, 2014.

Cristina Alonso and Michael D. Sloan, of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Miami, and Michael P. Sampson and Joshua D. Moore, of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Alan I. Mishael, of Alan I. Mishael, P.A., Miami Beach, for Appellant.

Luis Insignares and Brian J. Kruger, of Luis E. Insignares, P.A., Fort Myers, Amy U. Hickman, of Hausmann & Hickman, P.A., Boynton Beach, and Elisha D. Roy, Chair of the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, West Palm Beach, for The Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, Amicus Curiae, in support of Appellant.

Elizabeth Lynn Littrell, Atlanta, Georgia, of Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., and Shelbi D. Day, Los Angeles, California, pro hac vice, Amicus Curiae, in support of Appellant.

Leslie Cooper and Daniel B. Tilley, of the ACLU Foundation Inc. and the NCLR, New York, pro hac vice, in support of Appellant.

Mary L. Wakeman, of McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A., Jeanne T. Tate of Jeanne T. Tate, P.A., Tamps, Carrington Madison Mead, of Carrington Madison Mead, Jacksonville, and Elizabeth F. Schwartz, of Elizabeth F. Schwartz, P.A., Miami Beach, for The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, Amicus Curiae, in support of Appellant.

Joseph S. Jackson, University of Florida, Fredric G. Levin College of Law Center on Children and Families, Gainesville, for University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law Center on Children and Families, University of Miami School of Law Children and Youth Law Clinic, Nova Southeastern University Law Center Children and Families Clinic, and Professors Paolo Annino, Michael J. Dale, Joan Heifetz Hollinger, and Barbara Woodhouse, Amicus Curiae, in support of Appellant.

Chana Cannon, of Grimes Goebel Grimes Hawkins Galdfelter & Galvano, PL, Bradenton; Daniel S. Volchok, and Matthew Tokson, of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C., pro hac vice, for the National Association of Social Workers, National Association of Social Workers, Florida Chapter, and The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, Amicus Curiae, in support of Appellant.

Clifton H. Gorenflo and James J. Partlow, of Gray, Gorenflo & Partlow, P.A., Sanford, for Appellee.

Opinion

ORFINGER, J.

G.P., the adoptive mother, appeals an order vacating a final judgment of adoption, effectively terminating the parent-child relationship with her five-year-old child, D.P.P. The trial court set aside the final judgment concluding that it was rendered without subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse, holding the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction in the adoption proceeding. We further hold that C.P. is estopped from challenging the validity of the adoption judgment that she helped to procure.

C.P. and G.P., both unmarried women, were involved in a committed relationship from 2005 to 2012. In 2007, they decided to have and raise a child as a family, and they jointly decided that C.P. would attempt to conceive. After conceiving with an anonymous donor, C.P. legally changed her name so she, the child, and G.P. would share G.P.'s last name. G.P. was present when D.P.P. was born and for the first four years of D.P.P.'s life, G.P. was equally responsible for raising and parenting D.P.P. Both C.P. and G.P. held themselves out as D.P.P.'s parents, and both were designated as the child's parents on all medical and school-related paperwork.

In 2011, G.P. and C.P. sought legal recognition of their existing status as co-parents, jointly petitioning the circuit court to allow G.P. to legally adopt D.P.P. The adoption petition did not seek to terminate C.P.'s parental rights. The petition was uncontested, and it fully disclosed that the adoption was sought by two unmarried individuals, although it was captioned as a “Joint Petition for Step–Parent Adoption.” In January 2012, the circuit court granted the adoption petition, finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction and that the adoption was in D.P.P.'s best interests. The court entered a final judgment of adoption, declaring D.P.P. the legal child of G.P., without disturbing the parental rights of C.P. Thereafter, G.P. and C.P. obtained an amended birth certificate, listing both women as D.P.P.'s parents.

Shortly thereafter, the women separated but continued to co-parent D.P.P. However, nearly a year after the adoption judgment was rendered, C.P. moved for relief from the final judgment, alleging for the first time that the judgment was void and that G.P. was not D.P.P.'s legal parent. In seeking to set aside the jointly-sought adoption, C.P. claimed that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant it because G.P. was not qualified to seek a step-parent adoption. The trial court agreed that it never had subject matter jurisdiction to grant the adoption pursuant to sections 63.042, 63.102 and 63.172, Florida Statutes, because G.P. was not a step-parent or “an unmarried adult” seeking to adopt following the termination of C.P.'s parental rights. The court concluded that a petition for adoption filed by two unmarried adults fails to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court, and thus, the final judgment of adoption was void.

We disagree with the lower court's determination concerning subject matter jurisdiction in the adoption proceeding. A court has subject matter jurisdiction when it has the authority to hear and decide the case. The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988). “ ‘In this state, circuit courts are superior courts of general jurisdiction, and nothing is intended to be outside their jurisdiction except that which clearly and specially appears so to be.’ ” Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So.2d 850, 854 (Fla.1992) (quoting English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293, 297 (Fla.1977) ). An examination of subject matter jurisdiction requires specific focus on the authority of the court over a general class of cases, rather than on the particular facts of an individual case. Stated differently, a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is proper only when the court lacks authority to hear a class of cases, rather than when it simply lacks authority to grant the relief requested in a particular case. See Cunningham v. Standard Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So.2d 179, 181 (Fla.1994) ; Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Canal Auth., 423 So.2d 421, 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). As this Court has previously recognized, a “distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter.” Kalmanson v. Lockett, 848 So.2d 374, 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Here, the court had subject matter jurisdiction as it is without question that the circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all adoption matters. See § 63.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2012) (“[A] proceeding for adoption may be commenced by filing a petition ... in the circuit court.”); see also, e.g., Ponce v. Children's Home Soc'y, 97 So.2d 194, 197 (Fla.1957) ; Dep't of Health, Office of Vital Statistics v. Adoption of Gilli, 746 So.2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Likewise, we disagree that the judgment of adoption is void. “A void judgment is so defective that it is deemed never to have had legal force and effect.” Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 968 So.2d 658, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). As a nullity, “[a] void judgment may be attacked” pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) “at any time because the judgment creates no binding obligation on the parties.” Fisher v. State, 840 So.2d 325, 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (emphasis omitted). In general, a void judgment is entered without subject matter or personal jurisdiction. Zitani v. Reed, 992 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; Sterling Factors Corp., 968 So.2d at 665 ; Palmer v. Palmer, 479 So.2d 221, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (“If a court has subject matter jurisdiction and that jurisdiction has been properly invoked by pleadings and properly perfected by service of process, its judgments, although erroneous as to law or fact and subject to reversal on appeal, are nevertheless not void.”). On the other hand, a voidable judgment is one that has been entered based upon some procedural error that allows a party to have the judgment vacated, but it has legal force and effect unless and until it is vacated. Zitani, 992 So.2d at 409. A party may challenge a voidable judgment by motion for rehearing or appeal, and it may be subject to collateral attack under specific circumstances, but it cannot be challenged at any time as void under rule 1.540(b)(4). Sterling Factors Corp., 968 So.2d at 665.

Because the finality of judgments is favored, it is well established that errors, irregularities and even wrongdoing in the proceeding do not render a judgment void when the court has jurisdiction and the parties had an opportunity to be heard. Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla.1990) ; State ex rel. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v. Burnside, 153 Fla. 599, 15 So.2d 324, 326 (1943) ; see also In re Adoption of M.A., 930 A.2d 1088, 1091 (Me.2007) (determining that whether same-sex couple filed joint or individual petitions to adopt, court's subject matter jurisdiction over adoptions was not affected, and thus, court erred in dismissing adoption). “If a court has jurisdiction in a case but simply errs in its decision, its action is merely voidable and, if not timely corrected, is final and binding.” Fla. Power & Light Co., 423 So.2d at 423 n. 5. Here, the circuit court had personal jurisdiction over the parties (invoked by the petition filed by both women), and subject-matter jurisdiction to act on petitions for adoption, and thus, the court erred in concluding that the final judgment of adoption was void. The court's focus on the parties' status as unmarried adults and the erroneous caption of the petition as being a step-parent...