In Re: Kaitlyn Layne Boyd Cobb Applying for Intra Family Adoption of A.E.C.

Judgment rendered September 21, 2022.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 54,807-JAC

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

IN RE: KAITLYN LAYNE BOYD COBB
APPLYING FOR INTRA FAMILY
ADOPTION OF A.E.C.

*****

Appealed from the
Fifth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of West Carroll, Louisiana
Trial Court No. A-332

Honorable John Clay Hamilton, Judge

*****

BARRY W. DOWD, A.P.L.C. Counsel for Intervenor-
By: Barry W. Dowd Appellant, Shelby
Danyell Smith

THE LOWERY LAW FIRM Counsel for Appellee,
By: Scotty W. Lowery Kaitlyn Layne Boyd
Cobb

*****

Before PITMAN, STONE, and STEPHENS, JJ.

PITMAN, J.

Shelby Danyell Smith appeals the trial court’s granting of Kaitlyn

Layne Boyd Cobb’s petition for intrafamily adoption. For the following

reasons, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further

proceedings.

FACTS

On December 21, 2021, Kaitlyn Cobb filed a petition for intrafamily

adoption. She wished to adopt her stepdaughter A.E.C., who is the daughter

of her husband Landon Cobb and Shelby Smith. Kaitlyn alleged that Shelby

failed to support, communicate or attempt to communicate with A.E.C. for a

period in excess of six months, without just cause; and, therefore, Shelby’s

consent may be dispensed with pursuant to La. Ch. C. art. 1245. Landon

consented to the adoption.

On December 21, 2021, the trial court ordered that a copy of the

petition and its exhibits be served upon Shelby and set the matter for a

“pretrial scheduling hearing” in chambers on February 14, 2022.

On January 4, 2022, a citation on rule was served on Shelby. It stated

that she was “summoned to comply with the prayer of the petition and order

. . . and to show cause, on February 14, 2022 . . . why: petition for intra-

family adoption, exhibits, verification affidavit, exhibits, affidavit of consent

and order.”

At the February 14, 2022 hearing, the Cobbs were represented by

counsel and Shelby was unrepresented. Counsel for the Cobbs stated that

Shelby was served on January 4, 2022, and failed to file an answer within 15

days of service. Counsel stated that due to this failure, Shelby waived any

opposition to the petition and could not present an opposition pursuant to La.

Ch. C. art. 1247. Counsel stated that her participation could be dispensed

with and that the trial court could move to a hearing on the adoption. Shelby

responded that she did not know she was supposed to file a written

opposition. The trial court stated that, out of an abundance of caution, it

would allow the Cobbs’ counsel to put on a case and allow Shelby to

respond. The trial court notified Shelby that her consent to the adoption was

not necessary. Kaitlyn and Landon testified. Shelby made a statement and

was questioned by the Cobbs’ counsel and the trial court. The trial court

determined that it was in the best interest of A.E.C. for the adoption to move

forward and granted the adoption of A.E.C. to Kaitlyn.

On February 14, 2022, the trial court filed a final decree of adoption

and declared, for all legal purposes, A.E.C. to be the child of Kaitlyn, to the

same extent as if she had been born of the marriage between Kaitlyn and

Landon.

On February 24, 2022, Shelby, now represented by counsel, filed a

motion to enroll and to examine and copy the suit record. She noted that she

received the citation that stated she was to show cause on February 14, 2022,

but it did not say there would be a hearing and/or trial on that date. She also

received the December 21, 2021 petition and order and noted that the order

set the matter for a “pretrial scheduling hearing.” She stated that nothing she

received indicated that she was required to provide a response within

15 days. She also stated that she had not received a written judgment.

On March 5, 2022, the February 14, 2022 judgment was served on

Shelby. She now appeals that judgment.

2

DISCUSSION

In her first assignment of error, Shelby argues that the trial court

abused its discretion and was clearly wrong when it decreed the intrafamily

adoption when she was not given the special adoption notice required by La.

Ch. C. art. 1247. She states that she did not receive this notice and,

therefore, did not know she was required to respond within 15 days.

Kaitlyn argues that the trial court did not err in dispensing with

Shelby’s consent due to her failure to timely file a written opposition and

also did not err in granting the adoption. She notes that Shelby was

personally served with the petition but did not file a written opposition or

answer as required by La. Ch. C. art. 1244.1.

The Louisiana Children’s Code sets forth very specific and clear

procedural steps to be followed in an intrafamily adoption. In re B.J.C.,

49,852 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/15/15), 163 So. 3d 905. Adoption statutes are in

derogation of the natural right of the parent and must be strictly construed.

Id.

La. Ch. C. art. 1247(A) sets forth the specific wording of the notice

that “shall” be served on “on every parent whose consent to the adoption is

required . . . and whose parental rights have not been terminated by a court

of competent jurisdiction.” The notice states:

Notice

Louisiana law provides that under certain circumstances your
consent to the adoption of your child may be dispensed with
and you can permanently lose your rights as a parent by final
decree of adoption. An intrafamily adoption petition has been
filed requesting the court to grant an adoption and terminate
your parental rights to your child. A copy of the petition is
attached to this notice. If you do not file a written answer
stating your opposition to the adoption within fifteen days of
receiving this notice you will lose the right to object to the

3

adoption. If you choose to file a written answer stating your
opposition to the adoption you must file it with the clerk of
court at _______________. Only if you file an answer stating
your opposition to the adoption will you have an opportunity to
present your opposition to the adoption. If you file an answer
stating your opposition, the court will set a hearing, and you
will receive notice of the hearing of your opposition.

If you do not file an answer stating your opposition, and if the
court at the adoption hearing finds that the facts set out in the
petition are true and that adoption is in the best interests of your
child, the court can enter a judgment ending your rights to your
child. If the judgment terminates your parental rights, you will
no longer have any rights to visit or to have custody of your
child or make any decisions affecting your child, and your child
will be legally freed to be adopted.

This is a very serious matter. You should contact an attorney
immediately so that he or she can help you determine your
rights. You have the right to hire an attorney and to have him
or her represent you. If you cannot afford to hire an attorney
and you oppose the adoption, your answer stating your
opposition may request that the court determine if you have the
right to have an attorney appointed. If you have filed an answer
stating your opposition, whether or not you decide to hire an
attorney, you will have the right to attend the hearing of your
case, to call witnesses on your behalf, and to question those
witnesses brought against you.

You may call the telephone number on the attached form for
information concerning free legal aid. If you have any
questions concerning this notice, you may call the telephone
number of the clerk’s office which is ___________.

In this case, Shelby was served with notice of the pretrial conference

and Kaitlyn’s petition; but she was not served with the notice required by

La. Ch. C. art. 1247, which clearly requires that the party whose parental

rights are sought to be terminated shall be served the notice set forth therein.

The record reflects neither waiver of this notice by Shelby nor that her

parental rights had been terminated.

Accordingly, this assignment of error has merit. This determination

pretermits discussion of Shelby’s remaining assignments of error.

4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the trial court

that granted Kaitlyn Layne Boyd Cobb’s petition for intrafamily adoption.

We remand this matter for proceedings consistent with the Louisiana

Children’s Code. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Kaitlyn Layne Boyd

Cobb.

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED.

5