Enter your search text in the box above

Select a result to preview

1980-06-19

#event/appeal

Martin v. Aubuchon,

Summary of Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282 (8th Cir. 1980), focusing on the facts and the court's ruling.

Basic Facts

In February 1970, Favis Clay Martin was arrested in Potter County, Texas, and charged with murdering his former wife, June Etta Martin. That same day, Potter County child welfare authorities filed a dependency and neglect petition concerning the couple's two-year-old son, Michael Henry Clay Martin. (Justia Law)

Later that year, then-181st District Judge Don M. Dean ruled that Michael was a dependent child, terminated Martin's parental rights, and awarded custody to the child's maternal aunt and uncle, Lester and Celina Aubuchon of St. Louis, Missouri. In 1971, Judge Dean approved the child's adoption by the Aubuchons, and a Missouri court finalized the adoption in 1972, changing the child's name to Michael Henry Aubuchon. (Justia Law)

Nearly nine years later, in 1979, Martin filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against:

Martin alleged that his constitutional due process rights had been violated because he did not receive adequate notice of the parental-rights termination hearing and was never advised of his right to counsel. He sought money damages and asked the federal court to set aside the Texas termination order and the Missouri adoption decree. (Justia Law)

The Court's Decision

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Martin's lawsuit.

The court held that:

The court also concluded that Martin could not obtain equitable relief overturning the decades-old termination and adoption orders because Texas law afforded those judgments a presumption of validity. As a result, the court affirmed the dismissal of the entire case. (Justia Law)

Relevance

This opinion does not decide whether the 1970 termination of parental rights was constitutionally proper. Instead, it holds that Martin could not use a federal civil rights lawsuit years later to recover damages or undo the adoption because the defendants were either immune from suit or were not proper § 1983 defendants, and because the adoption decree had become legally protected from collateral attack. (Justia Law)

Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282 (1980)

June 19, 1980 · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · No. 79-1596

623 F.2d 1282

Favis Clay MARTIN, Appellant, v. Lester A. AUBUCHON, Individually and in his official capacity as a private citizen of America; Celina C. Aubuchon, Individually and in her official capacity as a private citizen of America; Mary Beth Blackwell, Individually and in her official capacity as a Child Welfare Officer of Potter County, Texas; Tom Curtis, Individually and in his official capacity as the District Attorney of Potter County, Texas; Don M. Dean, Individually and in his official capacity as Former Judge and private citizen of Potter County, Texas; Gary M. Gaertner, Individually and in his official capacity as Judge of the Circuit Court of Saint Louis, Missouri; Joseph J. Simeone, Individually and in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the Missouri Court of Appeals. Appellees

No. 79-1596.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 14, 1980.

Decided June 19, 1980.

Rehearing Denied July 23, 1980.

*1284Timothy F. Devereux, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Mark I. Bronson, Newman & Bronson, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees, Aubuchon, et al.

Stephen G. Nagle, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Texl, Austin, Tex., argued, for remainder of appellees; are Mark White, Atty. Gen. of Tex., John W. Fainter, Jr., First Asst. Atty. Gen., Ted L. Hartley, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., W. Barton Boling, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief, Enforcement Division, Austin, Tex., on brief for Don M. Dean.

Jack L. Koehr, City Counselor, and John J. Fitzgibbon, Associate City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees, Gaertner, et al.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, BRIGHT and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.

Favis Clay Martin appeals the dismissal of his pro se civil rights suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 We affirm.

According to the complaint,2 Martin was arrested in Potter County, Texas on February 21, 1970, for the murder of his former wife, June Etta Martin.

The same day, Mary Beth Blackwell, a child welfare worker, filed a dependency and neglect petition in Potter County Court, requesting that court to award temporary custody of Martin’s two year old son, Michael Henry Clay Martin, to the Potter County Child Welfare Unit, and to enter judgment declaring Michael dependent and neglected.

Favis Martin was present at a hearing held on the petition in October 1970 before defendant Dean, who at that time was a judge of the 181st Judicial District Court in Potter County, Texas.

On November 13, 1970, Judge Dean entered an order declaring Michael a dependent child, terminating Favis Martin’s parental rights, and awarding custody to intervenors in the Potter County action, Lester and Celina Aubuchon, of St. Louis, Missouri.

Upon the request of the Aubuchons, Judge Dean entered an order in December 1971 consenting to the adoption of Michael by Lester and Celina Aubuchon.

On February 25, 1972, a decree of adoption was entered in the circuit court for St. Louis, Missouri granting the Aubuchons’ petition for adoption. Michael’s name was changed to Michael Henry Aubuchon.

Favis Martin filed a pro se “Bill for Review” in November 1974 in the St. Louis Circuit Court, challenging the validity of the adoption. He contended, inter alia, that the notice and hearing granted him in the termination proceeding in Texas were deficient and thus deprived him of due process of law. Judge Gary M. Gaertner rejected Martin’s contentions. He held that the orders of the Potter County Court terminating parental rights and consenting to the adoption were entitled to full faith and credit. After reviewing the adoption proceeding he sustained its validity. In denying Martin’s bill, he relied in part upon Mo.Rev.Stat. § 453.140 (1969) which prohibits collateral or direct attack upon the validity of a Missouri adoption “for irregularities” in the proceedings after the expiration of one year following entry of the adoption order. Martin’s appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals was dismissed in 1978, on the ground that his brief, prepared by counsel representing him in the appeal, was fatally defective because it failed to make specific allegations of error as required by the rules of the court. His motion to set aside the dismissal was denied.

In the instant civil rights suit, filed February 12, 1979, Martin sought damages and equitable relief, to wit, an order vacating the Texas and Missouri judgments, and awarding custody of Michael to Michael’s sister, Jean Ellen Martin Bodner. Martin contended the Aubuchons, Blackwell, Judge Dean, and Potter County District Attorney Tom Curtis deprived him of due process of law in violation of the fourteenth amendment because he was not given adequate notice of the termination hearing or advised of his right to obtain counsel. He claimed Judge Gaertner deprived him of due process by giving full faith and credit to an invalid Texas decree in the Missouri adoption proceeding, and that Judge Simeone of the Missouri Court of Appeals deprived him of due process by dismissing his appeal for failure to comply with the local rules.

The district court granted the defendants’ individual motions to dismiss. It held: (1) Martin’s claims against Judges Dean, Gaertner and Simeone, and District Attorney Curtis were barred by official immunity; (2) the claim against the Aubuchons was barred by the Texas statute of limitations; and (3) the claim that Blackwell conspired with the other defendants to deprive him of due process of law in the Texas proceeding was rendered insufficient as a matter of law by the dismissals of the other defendants.