In re M.C.S.

504 N.W.2d 322 (1993)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re M.C.S.

South Dakota Supreme Court
504 N.W.2d 322 (1993)

Facts

V.M.S. (Father) (plaintiff) and J.A.S. (Mother) were a married couple living in Iowa who had two children prior to their separation. After separating, Father and Mother continued to have sex occasionally. One day, Mother notified Father that she was pregnant but that he was not the child’s father. Mother indicated that a man named J.P., who was also an Iowa resident, was the father. J.P. signed a consent to have his parental rights terminated. Mother gave birth to the child, M.C.S., in a Minnesota town not far from her home in Iowa. After M.C.S. was born, Mother traveled out of state to South Dakota to Christian Counseling Service (defendant), an adoption agency. There, Mother signed a petition to terminate her parental rights. The petition was subsequently filed. Although a circuit court was informed that Mother was married to Father, Father was not given notice of the proceeding at which the parental rights of M.C.S. were transferred to the agency, nine days after the child was born. Because Father and Mother had sex in February 1991, it was possible that M.C.S. was Father’s child. Father contacted the agency before an adoption was finalized. Father submitted a writ of habeas corpus and moved for relief from the termination order. However, the adoption was completed before a hearing could be held, and relief was later denied. Father appealed, arguing that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), South Dakota lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to make a determination regarding custody of M.C.S. The agency argued that the UCCJA was not applicable to a proceeding to terminate parental rights, which it argued was not a custody proceeding. The UCCJA did not state whether proceedings for terminating parental rights and for adoption were considered custody proceedings. Some jurisdictions did not regard the UCCJA as applicable. However, the South Dakota Supreme Court sided with other jurisdictions that noted that an adoption hearing was the most drastic of custody-determining hearings and found the UCCJA applicable.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Dobberpuhl, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership