Does filing an adoption petition in the wrong district deprive the court of jurisdiction? In re adoption of B.N.A. Explained

In In re adoption of B.N.A., the Utah Court of Appeals clarified an important distinction between subject-matter jurisdiction and venue in adoption proceedings, resolving a question that had confused practitioners for years.

Background and Facts
Prospective adoptive parents residing in Utah County filed an adoption petition in Tooele County’s Third Judicial District rather than in their home district. The biological father, who entered the case after the mother’s relinquishment, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Utah Code section 78B-6-105(1)(a) deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction because the petition was filed in the wrong district.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Utah Code section 78B-6-105(1)(a), which requires adoption proceedings to be “commenced by filing a petition” in “the district where the prospective adoptive parent resides,” creates a jurisdictional limit or merely establishes venue requirements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the Utah Supreme Court’s narrow definition of subject-matter jurisdiction, which encompasses only “(a) statutory limits on the authority of the court to adjudicate a class of cases” and “(b) timing and other limits on the justiciability of the proceeding.” Finding neither situation present, the court determined that all Utah district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over adoption cases as a class. The court noted that the 2004 legislative amendment changed the statute’s title from “Jurisdiction of district and juvenile court” to “District court venue – Jurisdiction of juvenile court,” indicating legislative intent to treat the requirement as a venue provision.

Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that adoption petitions filed in the wrong district should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Instead, any party may request transfer to the proper district. The ruling also demonstrates the Utah Supreme Court’s ongoing effort to “cabin” subject-matter jurisdiction to prevent its inappropriate expansion, requiring practitioners to carefully analyze whether procedural defects truly implicate jurisdictional authority or merely create grounds for other remedies.