Childress v. Braden
2017 Ark. App. 569
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Child D.B. born in 2009 to Lauren Childress and Robert Braden; parents never married.
- Robert obtained emergency and then final custody in Perry County (Jan. 2013); court ordered Lauren to pay $26/week in child support and reserved visitation pending Lauren’s petition.
- Lauren did not pay court-ordered support from 2013–2015 and had little to no contact with D.B.; she says she lacked notice of the Perry County proceedings and that Robert blocked her contact attempts.
- Tami Braden (Robert’s wife) filed to adopt D.B. in Feb. 2016, arguing Lauren’s consent was not required because Lauren failed significantly for one year to communicate with or support the child.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Lauren failed to support and communicate for the requisite period, discredited Lauren’s lack-of-notice claim, and concluded adoption was in D.B.’s best interest.
- Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, deferring to trial-court credibility findings and best-interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Childress) | Defendant's Argument (Braden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lauren’s consent to adoption was unnecessary because she failed significantly for ≥1 year to provide court-ordered support | Lauren: She had no notice of the Perry County order requiring support; she attempted other forms of support; began paying once she learned of the order | Tami: Lauren failed to pay court-ordered support from 2013–2015; gifts were minimal and not meaningful support | Held: Trial court not clearly erroneous; Lauren’s consent not required due to failure to support for over one year |
| Whether Lauren’s consent was unnecessary because she failed significantly for ≥1 year to communicate with D.B. | Lauren: Robert blocked her and thwarted contact; she sent gifts via family; she attempted contact after learning of order | Tami: Lauren largely had no contact with D.B. for years despite ability to seek visitation | Held: Court relied on support ground and did not need to reach communication ground; findings on communication were supported by evidence |
| Whether the adoption was in the best interest of D.B. | Lauren: No current evidence of harmful lifestyle; adoption would harm D.B.’s relationship with her parents; Robert/Tami impeded contact | Tami: D.B. had a strong, parental relationship with Tami; continuity and stability favor adoption; parties would preserve bond with Lauren’s parents | Held: Trial court’s best-interest determination was not against preponderance of evidence; affirmed due deference to credibility findings |
| Standard of review on consent and best-interest findings | Lauren: urges reversal based on asserted factual errors | Tami: urges deference to trial court’s credibility and factual findings | Held: Adoption statutes strictly construed; but appellate court defers to trial court on credibility; findings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Racine v. Nelson, 378 S.W.3d 93 (Ark. 2011) (party seeking to adopt without parental consent must prove failure to support or communicate by clear and convincing evidence)
- Pender v. McKee, 582 S.W.2d 929 (Ark. 1979) ("failed significantly" means meaningful or important failure, not total failure)
- In re Adoption of A.M.C., 246 S.W.3d 426 (Ark. 2007) (one-year period may be any one-year period, not only the year before the petition)
- Sanders v. Savage, 468 S.W.3d 795 (Ark. App. 2015) (appellate deference to trial court’s credibility and observations in child-welfare best-interest determinations)