Ex parte E.L.
Supreme Court of Alabama
1DissentShaw, Justice
I dissent. The main opinion reviews the merits of the adoption in this case; our caselaw, interpreting the United States Constitution, does not permit this Court to do so.
The main opinion holds that the Superi- or Court of Fulton County, Georgia (“the Georgia court”), was not “empowered” to allow the adoption in this case — and thus lacked subject-matter jurisdiction — because it did not comply with Georgia Code Ann., § 19-8-5(a) and § 19-8-18(b). Section 19-8-5(a) designates that a child may be adopted by a “third party” if the rights of the living parents or guardians have been surrendered.…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans ServicingSupreme Court of Alabama · 2013
- V.L. v. E.L.Supreme Court of the United States · 2016
- Abushmais v. ErbySupreme Court of Georgia · 2007
- South Alabama Gas District v. KnightSupreme Court of Alabama · 2013
- Poiroux v. RichSupreme Court of Alabama · 2014
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.