IN RE: ADOPTION OF K.E. (2026)

Appellant Rosemie Paul appeals from the trial court's order dismissing her petition to adopt a relative named K.E. (“the Child”). Appellant argues the trial court erred in applying the “civil law method” of calculating degrees of consanguinity rather than the “common law method,” under which she would qualify as a “relative” for the purposes of adoption. For the following reasons, we agree with Appellant about which method applies and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Background

“When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court is required to take all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true.” Bankers Mut. Cap. Corp. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 784 So. 2d 485, 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we treat the factual assertions in Appellant's petition as true for the purpose of this appeal.

Appellant resides in Fort Lauderdale. The Child is a 16-year-old girl who was born in Haiti and has been residing in Appellant's care and custody since April 2024. In April 2025, Appellant filed an uncontested “petition for adoption of a minor relative” pursuant to section 63.087(3), Florida Statutes (2024), attaching an affidavit by the Child consenting to the adoption, as well as affidavits by the Child's mother and father consenting to the adoption and relinquishing their parental rights. Appellant's original petition stated that she and the Child are first cousins, but Appellant later amended her petition to clarify that they are first cousins once removed.

The trial court subsequently issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed. The order noted that section 63.032(16), Florida Statutes (2024), limits “relatives” for the purpose of adoption to those within the third degree of consanguinity, and further stated that Appellant's relationship to the Child appeared to fall in the fourth degree of consanguinity, which would not qualify.

Appellant filed a written response to the order, arguing that the order appeared to apply the civil law method to determine degrees of consanguinity, whereas under the properly applicable common law method of calculation, first cousins once removed are third-degree relatives and therefore qualify. Her response cited many of the authorities discussed in this opinion, which she also attached as exhibits.

The trial court issued an order dismissing the petition for adoption and denying Appellant's motion to amend her petition, holding:

[T]he civil law method of computing consanguinity applies. A first cousin is a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity and a first cousin once removed is a relative within the fifth degree of consanguinity. An amendment to the Petition to fix a scrivener's error, to include the words “once removed” after the words “first cousin,” will not change [Appellant]’s status as a nonrelative for purposes of the Florida Adoption Act. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

This appeal follows.

Analysis

“The standard of review of a motion to dismiss is de novo.” Murphy v. Pankauski, 357 So. 3d 149, 151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). “An appellate court will review de novo whether the trial court's determinations are based on a proper interpretation of the law.” G.S. v. T.B, 985 So. 2d 978, 982 (Fla. 2008).

“Any person, a minor or an adult, may be adopted.” § 63.042(1), Fla. Stat. (2024). “Adoptions of relatives ․ are not required to file a separate termination of parental rights proceeding pending adoption. In such cases, the petitioner may file a joint petition for termination of parental rights and adoption, attaching all required consents, affidavits, notices, and acknowledgments.” § 63.087(3), Fla. Stat. (2024). Chapter 63 of the Florida Statutes, which governs adoption, defines a “relative” as “a person related by blood to the person being adopted within the third degree of consanguinity.” § 63.032(16), Fla. Stat. (2024). Unfortunately, this chapter does not define “consanguinity,” “third degree,” or any variation thereof.

Without a statutory definition, we must examine section 63.032(16)’s plain text and apply traditional rules of statutory interpretation to determine what section 63.032(16) means by “the third degree of consanguinity.”

“[W]e interpret Florida's constitution and statutes according to the plain meaning of their text, looking to ‘all the textual and structural clues that bear on the meaning of a disputed text’ and using the traditional interpretive canons for guidance where helpful.” State v. Washington, 403 So. 3d 465, 470 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (quoting Conage v. United States, 346 So. 3d 594, 598 (Fla. 2022)). “One of the most fundamental tenets of statutory construction requires that we give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning, unless the words are defined in the statute or by the clear intent of the legislature. If necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary.” Green v. State, 604 So. 2d 471, 473 (Fla. 1992) (citation omitted).

First, we examine the distinction between the common law and civil law methods of determining consanguinity. Second, we determine which method Florida's adoption law employs.

In the mode of computing the degrees of consanguinity, the civil law ․ begins with the intestate, and descends from that ancestor to the next heir, reckoning for each person, as well in the ascending as descending lines. According to this rule of computation, the father of the intestate stands in the first degree, his brother in the second, and his brother's children in the third. Or, the grandfather stands in the second degree, the uncle in the third, the cousins in the fourth, and so on in a series of genealogical order. In the canon law, which is also the rule of the common law, in tracing title by descent, the common ancestor is the terminus a quo. The several degrees of kinship are deduced from him. By this method, the brother of A is related to him in the first degree instead of being in the second ․ for he is but one degree removed from the common ancestor. The uncle is related to A in the second degree, for though the uncle be but one degree from the common ancestor, yet A is removed two degrees from the grandfather, who is the common ancestor.

Consanguinity, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (quoting 4 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law *412–13 (George Comstock ed., 11th ed. 1866)).

Thus, under the civil law method, first cousins once removed like Appellant and the Child have fifth-degree consanguinity, as the analysis ascends two generations from Appellant to the common ancestor, then descends three generations to the Child, and adds the two and three together to get five degrees. Under the common law method, the analysis counts only the number of degrees in the longest line, which is the three degrees from the Child to the common ancestor, making Appellant and the Child relatives “within the third degree of consanguinity” under that method. Accord Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5002 note (“Persons within the third degree under the common law system are as follows: ․ third degree-great grandparents, great uncles and aunts, first cousins once removed, second cousins, grand nephews and nieces, great grandchildren.” (emphasis added)).

In summary, Appellant and the Child are within the fifth degree of consanguinity under the civil law method, but within the third degree under the common law method. We next turn to which method section 63.032(16), Florida Statutes (2024), meant to incorporate.

“In Florida, the rule to be applied in determining degrees of kinship is the common law rule, under which second cousins are held to be related within the third degree.” Mobil Chem. Co., a Div. of Mobil Corp. v. Hawkins, 440 So. 2d 378, 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, in 1911, “a juror who was a second cousin of the decedent's wife was held related by affinity to the decedent within the third degree.” Id. (citing Walsingham v. State, 56 So. 195 (Fla. 1911)).

The conclusion that Florida employs the common law method of determining consanguinity is further supported by canons of statutory construction and other authorities.

The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.

§ 2.01, Fla. Stat. (2024). “[U]nder the imputed common law canon of construction, when a statute ‘uses a common-law term, without defining it,’ the statute then ‘adopts its common-law meaning.’ ” Nunes v. Herschman, 310 So. 3d 79, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (quoting Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 320 (2012)). Statutes “will not be interpreted to displace the common law further than is clearly necessary․ the presumption is that no change in the common law is intended unless the statute is explicit in this regard.” Id. at 83–84 (quoting Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n, 354 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla. 1977)).

Following Nunes’s reasoning, we may assume that by using the common-law term “consanguinity” without defining it, section 63.032(16) adopted its common-law meaning rather than any civil law meaning.

Although not dispositive to our determination, we note that other Federal and Florida statutes explicitly provide for the use of the common law method to define the word “relative.” For example, the federal bankruptcy code states: “The term ‘relative’ means individual related by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree as determined by the common law, or individual in a step or adoptive relationship within such third degree.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(45) (2024). Additionally, the Florida Statutes chapter governing “Final Process” specifies that the common law method should be used to define the word “relative” in that chapter, and even mentions adoption. See § 56.0101(7), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“ ‘Relative’ means an individual related by consanguinity within the third degree as determined by the common law, a spouse, or an individual related to a spouse within the third degree as determined by the common law, and includes an individual in an adoptive relationship within the third degree.”).

Conclusion

We hold that “consanguinity” under section 63.032(16), Florida Statutes (2024), is determined by the common law definition rather than the civil law definition. Under this method, first cousins are second-degree relatives and first cousins once removed are third-degree relatives. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing Appellant's petition for adoption by a relative based on its understanding that the civil law method applied. We reverse the order dismissing Appellant's petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Forst, J.

Gerber, C.J., and Shaw, J., concur.