## Facts

- Julia Catherine Boseman and Melissa Ann Jarrell, partners in a same-sex relationship, planned to conceive and raise a child together, with Jarrell as the biological mother.
- The couple jointly selected a sperm donor, attended pregnancy-related appointments, and shared parenting responsibilities after the child’s birth; the child referred to Jarrell as “mommy” and Boseman as “mama.”
- In 2004, they sought to formalize Boseman’s parental status through an adoption decree entered in Durham County.
- The adoption decree purported to create an adoptive parent-child relationship between Boseman and the child while expressly preserving Jarrell’s parental rights.
- The decree was entered despite statutory provisions requiring termination of an existing parent’s rights when a nonspouse adopts, and it included atypical handling instructions for record transmission.
- After the relationship ended in 2006, Boseman continued parenting and supporting the child.
- Boseman later filed a custody action relying on the adoption decree; Jarrell challenged the decree as void and argued Boseman lacked standing as a parent.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction under North Carolina adoption statutes to enter an adoption decree allowing a nonspouse to adopt while preserving the biological parent’s rights.
2. If the adoption decree is void, whether the biological mother acted inconsistently with her constitutionally protected paramount parental status so that a nonparent may obtain custody based on the child’s best interests.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina held the Durham County adoption decree was void ab initio because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction where statutory prerequisites for adoption were not satisfied.
- The Court held North Carolina adoption statutes did not authorize a “second-parent adoption” by a nonspouse that adds a parent without terminating the existing legal parent-child relationship.
- The Court further held Jarrell acted inconsistently with her paramount parental status by intentionally creating, fostering, and acknowledging a parent-like relationship between Boseman and the child.
- The Court affirmed the joint custody award on constitutional custody principles applicable to a parent-versus-nonparent dispute, notwithstanding the invalid adoption.

## Legal Principles

- Adoption is purely statutory; strict compliance with statutory prerequisites is necessary for a court to have subject-matter jurisdiction to enter a valid adoption decree.
- A judgment entered without subject-matter jurisdiction is void ab initio and has no legal effect.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be created by consent, waiver, estoppel, or party agreement.
- A natural parent has a constitutionally protected paramount right to custody, care, and control, but that right may be forfeited when the parent’s conduct is inconsistent with it.
- When a parent’s inconsistent conduct is shown, a court may resolve custody between the parent and a nonparent by applying a best-interests-of-the-child analysis.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a nonstatutory second-parent adoption for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but affirmed joint custody because the biological mother’s deliberate facilitation of a permanent parental relationship between the child and the nonbiological caregiver constituted conduct inconsistent with her paramount parental rights.


Boseman v. Jarrell, 704 S.E.2d 494 (N.C. 2010)