In re Adoption of D.M. Michael Mendez v. Brent L. Weaver
82 N.E.3d 354
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- D.M., born June 2010, lived with natural parents Michael and Leilani Mendez until Michael’s 2012 arrest and conviction for class C felony child molesting involving Leilani’s older daughter (C.L.), with D.M. present in the home and reportedly in the same room.
- A 2012 no-contact order prohibited Michael from contacting Leilani, C.L., and D.M.; the dissolution decree suspended his parenting time and required him to petition the court for parenting time upon release.
- Michael was incarcerated 2012–2015 (released to community corrections August 2015, fully released November 2015), completed some correctional programs, and obtained employment but did not seek court-ordered parenting time or pay child support.
- Brent Weaver (Leilani’s later husband) petitioned for stepfather adoption of D.M. in March 2016; Michael filed a motion to contest.
- At the August 22, 2016 hearing, evidence showed Michael’s conviction, lack of contact/support, D.M.’s lack of recollection of him, and Weaver’s three-year parenting role. The trial court found Michael unfit and dispensed with his consent; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mendez) | Defendant's Argument (Weaver) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parent consent could be dispensed with under Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8(a)(11) (parent unfit + child’s best interest) | Mendez argued the court improperly relied on his class C child-molesting conviction; statutory text (§ 31-19-9-10) makes A/B felonies automatic bases in certain situations and he contends class C cannot be treated the same; he emphasized rehabilitation and compliance after release. | Weaver argued the conviction and surrounding circumstances (crime in the child’s home, position of trust, victim sibling, counseling needs), together with Michael’s failure to seek visitation or provide support, show unfitness and that dispensing with consent serves D.M.’s best interests. | The court held the trial court permissibly considered the class C molestation conviction and related circumstances under § 31-19-9-8(a)(11); evidence supported findings of parental unfitness and that dispensing with consent was in the child’s best interests, so adoption decree affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of K.S., 980 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for adoption orders and statutory construction regarding dispensing with parental consent)
- In re Adoption of M.A.S., 815 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (parental duty to support relevant to fitness inquiries)
- In re Adoption of M.L., 973 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (definition and evaluation of parental unfitness in adoption context)
- In re A.P., 981 N.E.2d 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (courts need not wait for irreversible harm before terminating parental rights)
- In re Adoption of H.N.P.G., 878 N.E.2d 900 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (criminal activity bears on ability to develop meaningful parent-child relationships)
- In re T.W., 859 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (parent’s criminal history is relevant to fitness under adoption statutes)
- State v. Brown, 70 N.E.3d 331 (Ind. 2017) (principles of statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)
- Cook v. Atlanta, Ind. Town Council, 956 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (presumption that legislature intended logical application of statutory language)