In re MAJB
| Decision Date | 28 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | S-20-0120 |
| Citation | 478 P.3d 196 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the ADOPTION OF: MAJB f/k/a ZJC, minor child, DLB and DAB, Appellants (Petitioners). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellants: Debra J. Wendtland, Wendtland & Wendtland, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Wendtland.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] This appeal comes to us unopposed. On April 12, 2016, DLB and DAB (Petitioners) adopted a minor, MAJB (MB), from the Henan Province, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China. The United States Department of State issued a Hague Adoption Certificate certifying the adoption. After medical testing in the United States, MB's pediatrician determined the documented age of the child was incorrect. The testing verified that MB was two years younger than the age listed on the official paperwork. On February 27, 2020, Petitioners filed a Verified Petition for Adoption (Amended Petition). The petition requested the district court enter an order of adoption recognizing MB's medically established age and directing the issuance of a Wyoming birth certificate with an accurate date of birth. The district court dismissed the Amended Petition, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to provide the relief requested. The district court also found approval of the adoption was moot because, under federal law, the Hague Convention adoption must be recognized as valid and final. We reverse.
[¶2] The issues are:
[¶3] As an infant, MB was abandoned outside of a Chinese village. A couple from the village found the baby and, after unsuccessfully searching for the parents, took the child into their home. MB remained with them until 2013 when this was no longer possible because both caretakers had died. Chinese authorities then took custody of MB and placed him in an orphanage. After attempts to locate relatives or other persons familiar with MB failed, Chinese authorities designated MB's birth date as April 15, 2003. This estimated birth date appears on the Chinese and United States adoption paperwork.
[¶4] DLB and DAB, married United States citizens residing in Wyoming, adopted MB on April 12, 2016, using the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention).1 The United States issued a Hague Adoption Certificate, an IH-3 visa, and a Certificate of Citizenship for MB.2
[¶5] Upon MB's arrival in the United States, Petitioners arranged for his care by a pediatric physician. On June 1, 2016, pursuant to his doctor's recommendation, MB underwent a bone scan
. The results indicated that MB was approximately two years younger than the age listed on his adoption paperwork.
[¶6] On November 22, 2019, Petitioners filed a pro se motion titled "Petition for Final Decree of Re-Adoption[3 ] and for Change to Minor's Birthdate" in the First Judicial District Court of Laramie County, Wyoming. The petition sought an order of readoption directing the issuance of a Wyoming birth certificate accurately reflecting MB's age.4 On January 7, 2020, the district court gave notice of its intent to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
[¶7] On February 27, 2020, Petitioners, now represented by counsel, filed their Amended Petition. The Amended Petition requested the district court: (1) approve MB's adoption; (2) enter a Final Decree that "the Child shall henceforth be regarded and treated in all respects as the Child of both Petitioners"; (3) correct the date of birth from April 15, 2003, to April 15, 2005; and (4) have the Clerk of Court certify the State of Wyoming Report of Adoption and return the report to Petitioners to be filed with the Wyoming Vital Records to procure a Wyoming birth certificate.
[¶8] The district court dismissed the Amended Petition. It determined "Nothing in [ Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-22-101 et seq. ] confers subject matter jurisdiction on the District Court to enter an order [of adoption] that would change the date of birth of the individual who is expected to be adopted," and the "adoption of the Minor was finalized in this country when the United States Department of State issued the Hague Adoption Certificate." This timely appeal followed.
[¶9] Subject matter jurisdiction, application of the Wyoming Constitution, and statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review:
"The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo ." Harmon v. Star Valley Med. Ctr. , 2014 WY 90, ¶ 14, 331 P.3d 1174, 1178 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Excel Constr., Inc. v. Town of Lovell , 2011 WY 166, ¶ 12, 268 P.3d 238, 241 (Wyo. 2011) ). This case requires us to interpret the Wyoming Constitution, Wyoming statutes, and WDOH regulations—also questions of law that we review de novo. Saunders v. Hornecker , 2015 WY 34, ¶ 8, 344 P.3d 771, 774 (Wyo. 2015) (); Herrick v. Jackson Hole Airport Bd. , 2019 WY 118, ¶ 17, 452 P.3d 1276, 1281 (Wyo. 2019) (); Bailey v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div. , 2010 WY 152, ¶ 9, 243 P.3d 953, 956 (Wyo. 2010) ().
MH v. First Jud. Dist. Ct. of Laramie Cnty. , 2020 WY 72, ¶ 4, 465 P.3d 405, 407 (Wyo. 2020).
[¶10] "Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." MH , ¶ 5, 465 P.3d at 407 (quoting Devon Energy Prod. Co., LP v. Grayson Mill Operating, LLC , 2020 WY 28, ¶ 11, 458 P.3d 1201, 1205 (Wyo. 2020) ). "If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, ‘action taken by that court, other than dismissing the case, is considered to be null and void.’ " Id. (quoting Devon Energy , ¶ 11, 458 P.3d at 1205 ). "However, in construing the subject matter jurisdiction of district courts, we presume that jurisdiction exists and any intent to limit it must be clearly stated." Id.
[¶11] In MH , we considered whether the district court had jurisdiction to order a change of gender on a birth certificate. We began by noting:
MH , ¶ 8, 465 P.3d at 408 (quoting Wyo. Const. art. 5, § 10). The plain language of Wyo. Const. art. 5, § 10 "grants district courts original jurisdiction ‘in all cases and of all proceedings,’ except those placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of another court." Id. (quoting Wyo. Const. art. 5, § 10 ). We distinguished "the question of subject matter jurisdiction ... from the question of whether a party has complied with statutory requirements that may entitle her to relief." MH , ¶ 11, 465 P.3d at 409. "[S]tatutory authority to grant a particular remedy, and any statutory requirement attendant to such a remedy, does not affect district court jurisdiction." MH , ¶ 9, 465 P.3d at 408 ; see also Brown v. City of Casper , 2011 WY 35, ¶¶ 45–46, 248 P.3d 1136, 1147 (Wyo. 2011).
[¶12] Here, the district court based its dismissal on the premise that Wyoming adoption statutes do not address the district court's role in approving or separately recognizing foreign adoptions (intercountry adoptions).5 The legislature has not expressly limited the district court's jurisdiction in this matter, and no other court is charged with jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-22-104 (). The district court has subject matter jurisdiction in proceedings for verification of intercountry adoptions.
[¶13] Having determined the district court has jurisdiction, we must turn to the question of its statutory authority to grant the relief sought by Petitioners. Statutory construction is a question of law, subject to de novo review. Wyoming Guardianship Corp. v. Wyoming State Hosp. , 2018 WY 114, ¶ 7, 428 P.3d 424, 429 (Wyo. 2018).
[¶14] The district court found that the absence of any reference to intercountry adoption in the Wyoming adoption statutes precluded an order granting Petitioners’ request for relief.
[¶15] "When we interpret statutes, our goal is to give effect to the intent of the legislature, and we ‘attempt to determine the legislature's intent based primarily on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute.’ " Wyoming Jet Ctr., LLC v. Jackson Hole Airport Bd. , 2019 WY 6, ¶ 12, 432 P.3d 910, 915 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting PacifiCorp, Inc. v. Wyoming Dep't of Revenue , 2017 WY 106, ¶ 10, 401 P.3d 905, 908 (Wyo. 2017) ). "Where legislative intent is discernible a court should give effect to the ‘most likely, most reasonable, interpretation of the statute, given its design and purpose.’ " Id. (quoting PacifiCorp , ¶ 10, 401 P.3d at 908 ).
We therefore construe each statutory provision in pari materia , giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hanft v. City of Laramie
- FR v. State (In re RR)
-
In re Atws
...interpretation and construction are questions of law we review de novo. Matter of Adoption of MAJB , 2020 WY 157, ¶¶ 9, 13, 478 P.3d 196, 200–01 (Wyo. 2020) (citations omitted); see also In re Estate of Kirkpatrick , 2003 WY 125, ¶ 6, 77 P.3d 404, 406 (Wyo. 2003). [¶9] "When interpreting st......
-
Heimer v. Heimer
... ... for clear error." Motylewski v. Motylewski , ... 2021 WY 51, ¶ 11, 484 P.3d 560, 561-62 (Wyo. 2021) ... (citing Osborn v. Kilts , 2006 WY 142, ¶ 6, 145 ... P.3d 1264, 1266 (Wyo. 2006)). We review its findings of law ... de novo. Matter of Adoption of MAJB , 2020 WY 157, ... ¶ 9, 478 P.3d 196, 200 (Wyo. 2020) ... [¶27] ... Mother asserts the district court erred when it announced at ... the later hearing that it had already ruled on the issues ... raised in her fifth motion. Mother says this statement is ... ...