M.L.M., In re
| Decision Date | 19 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-487,95-487 |
| Citation | 278 Mont. 505,926 P.2d 694 |
| Parties | In re M.L.M., a minor child. . Heard |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Ann Gilkey, Special Assistant Attorney General, Department of Public Health and Human Services, Division of Child and Family Services, Helena, for Respondent.
On February 28, 1995, Nicolle Jean Will filed a petition for adoption in the District Court for the First Judicial District in Lewis and Clark County. The Department of Family Services (DFS) filed a motion to dismiss the petition on April 7, 1995. Following an oral argument, the District Court granted DFS's motion to dismiss. Will appeals the District Court's order granting the motion to dismiss. We reverse the order of the District Court and remand this case to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
There are two issues on appeal:
1. Did the District Court err when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, pursuant to § 40-8-111(1)(c), MCA, to review a petition for adoption absent the agency's consent to adoption?
2. Did the District Court err when it concluded that pursuant to § 40-8-108, MCA, agency placement was a prerequisite to adoption?
The following facts are taken from Nicolle Will's petition for adoption. However, since her petition was dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P., we presume the facts to be true for purposes of our review of the District Court's order.
M.L.M. was abandoned by his biological parents shortly after his birth on December 16, 1993. Thereafter, the DFS was granted custody of M.L.M. and placed him with Deborah Liggett, a licensed foster parent. On February 1, 1994, shortly after M.L.M. was placed in her care, Liggett placed M.L.M. in the care of Nicolle Will. At that time, M.L.M. was only six weeks old.
From February 1, 1994, until January 31, 1995, Will had sole care and custody of M.L.M. and provided for all of M.L.M.'s needs without any compensation from either Liggett or DFS. During that one-year period, Will met with social workers, child resource specialists, and supervisors, and communicated to each her desire to adopt M.L.M. After one of DFS's agents assured Will that she had a "99 percent chance" of adopting M.L.M., Will entered into and completed a ten-week adoption applicant course required by DFS.
On January 31, 1995, however, Deborah Liggett took physical custody of M.L.M. on behalf of DFS. Liggett informed Will that DFS had decided to place M.L.M. elsewhere for adoption.
On February 28, 1995, Will filed a petition for adoption of M.L.M. in the First Judicial District Court. DFS filed a motion to dismiss Will's petition. DFS maintained that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to grant Will's petition because DFS had not given its consent to the adoption, pursuant to § 40-8-111, MCA, and because DFS had not placed M.L.M. with Will for adoption, pursuant to § 40-8-108, MCA. Following a hearing on July 27, 1995, the District Court granted DFS's motion to dismiss. The court held that since the court was excluded from the list of those who may place a child for adoption pursuant to § 40-8-108, MCA, and since DFS had refused to consent to Will's petition for adoption of M.L.M. pursuant to § 40-8-111, MCA, the court did not have jurisdiction to review the merits of Will's petition for adoption.
Did the District Court err when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, pursuant to § 40-8-111(1)(c), MCA, to review a petition for adoption absent the agency's consent to adoption?
The District Court dismissed Will's petition for adoption based in part on its conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction pursuant to § 40-8-111(1)(c), MCA, to entertain a petition for adoption absent DFS's consent to adoption. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct. In re Estate of Alcorn (1994), 263 Mont. 353, 355, 868 P.2d 629, 630.
Section 40-8-111, MCA, provides in relevant part:
(1) An adoption of a child may be decreed when there have been filed written consents to adoption executed by:
(a) both parents, if living, or the surviving parent of a child ...
....
(b) the legal guardian of the child if both parents are dead or if the rights of the parents have been terminated by judicial proceedings and the guardian has authority by order of the court appointing the guardian to consent to the adoption;
(c) the executive head of an agency if the child has been relinquished for adoption to the agency or if the rights of the parents have been judicially terminated or if both parents are dead and custody of the child has been legally vested in the agency with authority to consent to adoption of the child; or
(d) any person having legal custody of a child by court order if the parental rights of the parents have been judicially terminated. In that case, the court having jurisdiction of the custody of the child shall consent to adoption and a certified copy of its order must be attached to the petition.
(Emphasis added.) In this case, because M.L.M.'s biological parents' rights had been judicially terminated, and because custody and the right to consent to M.L.M.'s adoption had been transferred to DFS, subsection (1)(c), which provides for consent by the head of the agency, was applicable. Because the agency refused to consent to Will's adoption of M.L.M., however, DFS maintains that the District Court was without jurisdiction to review Will's petition for adoption. In addition, DFS contends that the District Court was without jurisdiction to review the agency's decision to withhold its consent to adoption.
Although § 40-8-111(1)(c), MCA, predicates adoption on agency consent, it does not follow that the agency's right to withhold consent is absolute. As this Court has recognized for more than fifty years:
[T]he power of the district court may at any time be invoked to guard and protect the welfare of the minor child. No statute may be so construed as to deprive the court of its jurisdiction in that respect.
State ex rel. Frederick v. District Court (1946), 119 Mont. 143, 150, 173 P.2d 626, 629 (emphasis added). In Frederick, we suggested that the district court's jurisdiction could be invoked "to guard and protect the welfare of the minor child" if an agency's denial of consent was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Frederick, 119 Mont. at 151, 173 P.2d at 630. Our decision in Frederick was premised on our recognition that the fundamental purpose of Montana's adoption statutes was to protect the best interests of the child and that the ultimate decision as to the child's best interests rested with the district court. Fifty years later, our statutory scheme still reflects those principles. See § 40-8-114, MCA ( Montana's policy to "ensure that the best interests of the child are met by adoption proceedings" and adding that "[t]he needs of the child must be the primary focus of adoption proceedings"); §§ 40-8-123 and -124, MCA (giving the district court authority to enter a final decree of adoption if the court is satisfied that the adoption is in the best interests of the child).
In the years since Frederick, however, this Court has erroneously elevated agency consent above the fundamental consideration of the child's best interests. For example, in In re F.H. (1995), 272 Mont. 342, 901 P.2d 96, this Court held that a district court could not enter an order of adoption without a written consent to adoption executed by the executive head of DFS. F.H., 272 Mont. at 348, 901 P.2d at 100. In that case, the district court concluded after a hearing that "overwhelming, substantial, credible evidence" existed to establish that the best interests of the child would be served by granting the petition for adoption; this Court, however, refused to defer to that conclusion and, in effect, shielded the agency's denial of consent from judicial scrutiny. F.H., 272 Mont. at 345, 348, 901 P.2d at 98, 100. Our decision in F.H. may have been premised in part on language from an earlier case in which we stated:
The wording of the Montana [adoption] act itself and the public policy of discouraging black market adoptions and private adoptions argue against judicial review of placement decisions.
Lewis v. Catholic Social Servs. (1992), 253 Mont. 369, 372, 833 P.2d 1023, 1025. The stated purpose of discouraging black market and private adoptions, however, is not inconsistent with the district court's authority and responsibility to review placement decisions to assure that they do not arbitrarily ignore the child's best interests. Frederick, 119 Mont. at 150, 173 P.2d at 629. Therefore, to the extent that our prior opinions in F.H. and Lewis conflict with our holding today that agency consent is subject to judicial review, we reverse those cases. We reaffirm our holding in Frederick that an agency's refusal to consent to adoption is subject to judicial scrutiny for a determination of whether that refusal was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Although we hold that an agency's refusal to consent to adoption is reviewable pursuant to § 40-8-111(1)(c), MCA, we recognize that a different issue is presented in those cases in which parental consent has been withheld pursuant to § 40-8-111(1)(a), MCA. In those cases, we have recognized that because of the harshness of terminating parental rights, and the protected liberty interest in parenthood, the statutory requirements for parental consent must be satisfied before the child's best interests become paramount. See, e.g., In re V.R.O. (1991), 250 Mont. 517, 522, 822 P.2d 83, 86; In re S.T.V. (1987), 226 Mont. 18, 21, 733 P.2d 841, 842; In re Challeen (1977), 172 Mont. 362, 364, 563 P.2d 1120, 1121; In re Smigaj (1977), 171 Mont. 537, 539, 560 P.2d 141, 143; In re Biery (1974), 164...
To continue reading
Request your trial