Maribel Faubert-Rocha v. Glenda Sochitl Perez Bautista

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 9, 2016
DocketA17D0038
StatusPublished

This text of Maribel Faubert-Rocha v. Glenda Sochitl Perez Bautista (Maribel Faubert-Rocha v. Glenda Sochitl Perez Bautista) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maribel Faubert-Rocha v. Glenda Sochitl Perez Bautista, (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ September 07, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0038. MARIBEL FAUBERT-ROCHA v. GLENDA SOCHITL PEREZ BAUTISTA.

Maribel Faubert-Rocha filed a petition to legitimate a minor child, have herself declared to be the child’s legal parent, and enforce a parenting agreement that she had entered into with the child’s biological mother, Glenda Sochitl Perez Bautista. Bautista moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim, arguing among other things that Faubert-Rocha lacked standing to pursue a legitimation claim. Faubert-Rocha opposed the motion, arguing that Georgia’s legitimation laws deprive her of due process and equal protection under the law. The trial court granted Bautista’s motion, ruling that Faubert-Rocha could not legitimate the child because she is not the child’s father. Faubert-Rocha now seeks discretionary review in this Court. The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in “all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been drawn in question.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Para. II (1); see also Zarate- Martinez v. Echemendia, 299 Ga. 301, 304 (2) (788 SE2d 405) (2016). In granting Bautista’s motion to dismiss, the trial court necessarily rejected Faubert-Rocha’s challenge to the constitutionality of Georgia’s legitimation laws. Accordingly, jurisdiction over this application may lie in the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med. Clinic, 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), this application is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 09/07/2016 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Medical Clinic, Inc.
476 S.E.2d 587 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
Zarate-Martinez v. Echemendia
788 S.E.2d 405 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Maribel Faubert-Rocha v. Glenda Sochitl Perez Bautista, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maribel-faubert-rocha-v-glenda-sochitl-perez-bautista-gactapp-2016.