The Supreme Court held that the trial court should have dismissed the case because the minor child failed to satisfy a residency requirement prior to filing the adoption petition.
Under commonwealth law, a minor child must be physically present and living in the commonwealth for at least one year before filing a petition for adoption.
The trial court ruled that the time the minor child spent in the CNMI on a tourist visa could not count toward this one year requirement because, as a tourist, the child did not intend to stay in the commonwealth.
The Supreme Court disagreed, because the adoption residency statute does not require that the minor child intend to remain in the commonwealth.
Accordingly, the high court held that time spent in the CNMI on a tourist visa can count toward the one year adoption residency requirement.
However, the Supreme Court ultimately determined that the minor child had not been in the commonwealth for one full year before filing the adoption petition.
The high court held that given this fact, the trial court should have dismissed the adoption petition for failure to satisfy the residency requirement.
In reaching this decision the high court stressed that immigration matters in the commonwealth are now governed by federal law and the decision did not speak to immigration consequences arising from the potential adoption.
