Today's Iowa Supreme Court decision in Schott v. Schott, available in PDF format here, concerns prior "second parent adoptions" issued by an Iowa court and another Iowa court's subsequent collateral attack on the validity of the adoptions in a later child custody proceeding. In the case, the two female parties obtained valid, unappealed, and unchallenged Iowa adoptions to two children. One of the parties is the biological parent of both children; the other party legally adopted both of Jamie's children. Subsequently, the parents' relationship deteriorated and each parent asserted claims of custody/visitation with the trial court.
The opinion indicates that there was no question that the prior, underlying adoptions were properly obtained, as all necessary consents given, and that neither party, nor any third-party, challenged the validity of or the authority of the adoption court to grant the adoptions at that time. In fact, this case is unusual in that neither party ever contested the validity of the adoptions. The appeal arose only when a subsequent Iowa court in 2007 raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in the custody/visitation case approximately three years after the 2004 adoption of the youngest child. (The older child's adoption occurred in 2001). It is unclear from the opinion how the issue of custody was presented to the trial court, but the opinion does hold that Iowa trial courts, being courts of general jurisdiction in both law and equity, have "inherent power and jurisdiction in all proceedings involving custody and care of minor children." Both parties appealed the district court's dismissal of the case on the basis that because Heather's adoptions of Jamie's children were contrary to Iowa law and therefore invalid, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider any custodial/visitation issue concerning the children.
The Iowa Supreme Court held that it was reversible error for the district court to collaterally attack and invalidate the prior adoptions. While the district court may have disagreed with the finding of the earlier adoption court that a "second parent" adoption is permitted under Iowa law, the adoptions remained lawful and valid as "an adoption may be only be collaterally attacked if the district court granting the adoption lacked jurisdiction over the person or subject matter, or on due process grounds by a natural parent." As the Supreme Court found none of those grounds existed, the adoption decrees remained valid and both parties remained legal parents. Therefore, as legal parents, both parties were entitled to put their claims for custody/visitation before the court.
The Schott decision appears to be limited to situations involving existing, final "second parent" adoptions, as the Court expressly held it "need not decide whether second parent adoptions are permissible in Iowa for the purposes of this appeal." Thus, the question posed by the district court in its initial action that gave rise to this appeal reamins unanswered. (i.e., the trial court's interpretation that Iowa's adoption statute "does not allow an unmarried adult to adopt a child without terminating the parental rights of both natural parents").
Schott v. Schott, No. 07-0610, January 18, 2008. (last accessed 1/18/08)
