## Facts

- V.M.S. (Father) and J.A.S. (Mother) were married and lived in Iowa; they had two children before separating.
- After separating, Father and Mother occasionally had sexual relations.
- Mother told Father she was pregnant but said he was not the child’s father; she identified J.P., also an Iowa resident, as the father.
- J.P. signed a consent to termination of his parental rights.
- Mother gave birth to M.C.S. in Minnesota, in a town near her Iowa home.
- Shortly after the birth, Mother traveled to South Dakota and contacted Christian Counseling Service, a South Dakota adoption agency.
- In South Dakota, Mother signed and filed a petition to terminate her parental rights.
- The South Dakota circuit court was told Mother was married, yet Father received no notice of the termination proceeding.
- Nine days after M.C.S. was born, the circuit court entered an order transferring parental rights/custody of M.C.S. to the agency.
- Because Father and Mother had sexual relations in February 1991, it was possible Father was M.C.S.’s biological father.
- Father contacted the agency before the adoption was finalized, then filed a writ of habeas corpus and moved for relief from the termination order.
- The adoption was completed before Father could obtain a hearing; the circuit court later denied relief.
- Father appealed, arguing South Dakota lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA).

## Issues

1. Whether a proceeding to terminate parental rights and complete an adoption is a “custody proceeding” governed by the UCCJA.
2. Whether South Dakota had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJA to enter the termination order and related custody transfer to the adoption agency.
3. If the UCCJA’s jurisdictional requirements were not met, whether the termination (and resulting adoption) could stand.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that termination of parental rights and adoption proceedings function as custody determinations and therefore fall within the UCCJA.
- Applying the UCCJA’s jurisdiction rules, the court held South Dakota lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the child and relevant parties’ connections and evidence were centered in Iowa/Minnesota, and the child’s presence in South Dakota was brief and tied to the adoption plan.
- Because subject-matter jurisdiction was absent, the court ruled the South Dakota orders based on that defective jurisdiction could not stand.
- The court reversed the denial of relief and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its jurisdictional holding.

## Legal Principles

- The UCCJA reaches proceedings that decide who will have legal custody of a child, including termination of parental rights and adoption, because those proceedings permanently reassign custodial rights.
- A court must have a statutory jurisdictional basis under the UCCJA (such as home-state jurisdiction or significant-connection/substantial-evidence jurisdiction) before entering custody orders in an interstate setting.
- A child’s short, adoption-related stay in a state does not by itself create UCCJA home-state jurisdiction or a meaningful “significant connection” sufficient for custody jurisdiction.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be created by consent, waiver, or delay; orders entered without it are void and must be set aside when properly challenged.

## Conclusion

In re M.C.S. holds that the UCCJA applies to termination and adoption proceedings because they decide permanent custody, and it invalidates South Dakota orders transferring custody through an adoption agency when the child and parents were connected to Iowa/Minnesota and South Dakota lacked UCCJA subject-matter jurisdiction.


In re M.C.S., 504 N.W.2d 322 (1993)