Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Fifth District Reinstates Judgment of Adoption
May 22, 2014

On May 21, 2014, the Fifth District Court of Appeal released: In the Matter of the Adoption of D.P.P., No. 5D13-1766 (Fla. 5th DCA May 21, 2014) (Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing), reversing an order vacating a final judgment of adoption, effectively terminating the parent-child relationship between Appellant, G.P., and the parties' five-year-old child, D.P.P.  The trial court set aside the final judgment concluding that because the uncontested petition for adoption was filed by two unmarried women, it failed to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court, and thus, the final judgment of adoption was void. The Fifth District reversed, holding the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction and Appellee, C.P., was estopped from challenging the validity of the adoption judgment that she helped to procure.

The appellate court stated: "The court's focus on the parties' status as unmarried adults and the erroneous caption of the petition as being a step-parent adoption was misplaced. These are pleading and procedural deficiencies, not jurisdictional defects. Such deficiencies do not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction, void the judgment, or subject it to collateral attack." (footnote omitted).  The court further stated that "it would be unconscionable to allow C.P. to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for the sole purpose of creating a parent-child relationship between G.P. and D.P.P. and then to allow her to destroy that same relationship because her relationship with G.P. has ended."  The final judgment of adoption was reinstated.
Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support Family Law
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.