D.D. v. D.P., 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 187

Mother was awarded sole custody of two young children after a 2004 dissolution; Father moved to Washington, D.C., had limited in-person contact thereafter, and paid child support.
Mother married Stepfather (D.D.) in 2007; Stepfather sought to adopt the children. Father (D.P.) opposed and lived in Arlington, VA.
Stepfather’s 2009 adoption petition proceeded in Hendricks County without serving Father; a 2010 adoption decree was later vacated for lack of notice.
Father repeatedly emailed and called Mother (over 60 emails), seeking to arrange parenting time; Mother rarely responded and pushed for termination of his rights or consent to Stepfather’s adoption.
After procedural transfers and appeals, the Marion Superior Court reconsidered whether Father’s consent was unnecessary under I.C. § 31-19-9-8(a)(2) and, applying the clear-and-convincing standard on remand, found Father’s consent was required because Stepfather failed to prove Father lacked significant communication for one year without justifiable cause.

Issue	Stepfather's Argument	Father/Mother's Argument	Held
Whether Father’s consent to adoption was unnecessary because he failed to significantly communicate for ≥1 year	Father failed to communicate with the children for five years while able to do so, so consent not required	Father attempted to arrange contact through Mother; Mother hampered/thwarted his efforts, providing justifiable cause for lack of direct contact	Trial court did not err: consent required; Stepfather failed to prove lack of significant communication by clear and convincing evidence

In re Adoption of T.L., 4 N.E.3d 658 (Ind. 2014) (standard for reviewing findings of fact and conclusions in adoption cases)
In re Adoption of S.W., 979 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (burden on adoption petitioner to prove lack of parent communication)
Devlin v. Peyton, 946 N.E.2d 605 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (jurisdictional and procedural issues in prior appeal of these adoption proceedings)