261 P.3d 1159
Okla.2011Background
- Pearsons petitioned to adopt GD.J. and adjudicate him eligible for adoption without the mother's consent (AWOC) in 2008; GD.J. is alleged to be Seminole Nation member.
- Seminole Nation intervened and participated but did not seek tribal transfer; Nation objected to waiving ICWA rights.
- Tessia Stubbs contested, alleging ICWA applicability and that removal of parental rights requires federal and state protections; custody history included emergency custody (2007) and later custody orders.
- Evidence showed Stubbs paid no support for GD.J. during the relevant 14-month window and had limited, often problematic contact with GD.J.
- Trial occurred March–April 2010; trial court entered two August 11, 2010 orders addressing failure to support and failure to maintain a relationship; later December 2, 2010, journal-entry findings and final order adjudicated GD.J. eligible for adoption without Stubbs’ consent.
- Appeal consolidated, and this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing the adoption to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICWA requires a beyond-reasonable-doubt standard in adoption without consent | Stubbs contends ICWA demands beyond reasonable doubt for all issues | Pearsons argue clear and convincing standard applies under state law except where ICWA dictates otherwise | Clear and convincing standard applies; not a termination proceeding under ICWA |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the standard for failure to support under 10 O.S. Supp.2007 §7505-4.2(B) | Stubbs asserts lack of explicit support obligation negates failure to support | Pearsons rely on Slover v. Smith to show no explicit order is required to prove nonpayment during the relevant period | Trial court erred in finding willful failure to support; reversed on this issue |
| Whether the evidence supported a finding Stubbs failed to establish/maintain a substantial and positive relationship | Stubbs maintained some contact and sought opportunities to engage | Pearsons showed limited, inconsistent contact and presence of negative influences | Court upheld the finding that Stubbs failed to establish/maintain a substantial and positive relationship |
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction given a separate FA 2009-24 proceeding | Stubbs argues res judicata and lack of jurisdiction | Appellees contend timelines differ; one does not bar the other | Trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction; separate timelines govern eligibility without consent |
| Whether the August 11, 2010 orders were final and appealable; whether December 2, 2010 order was necessary | Stubbs argues lack of final appealable orders | Court found August 11 orders final; December 2 order moot or redundant | August 11, 2010 orders were final and appealable; the December 2, 2010 order was moot for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Slover v. Smith, 765 P.2d 1202 (Okla. 1988) (no explicit support order defeats no-support defense under Slover)
- Merrell v. Merrell, 712 P.2d 35 (Okla. 1985) (clear and convincing standard appropriate in adoption/consent contexts)
- In the Matter of the Adoption of J.R.M., 899 P.2d 1155 (Okla. 1995) (reiterates consent vs. termination distinctions under Oklahoma law)
- In re Adoption of C.D.M., 39 P.3d 802 (Okla. 2001) (analysis of standards in adoption without consent)
- In the Matter of the Adoption of R.L.A., 147 P.3d 306 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (ICWA/non-ICWA considerations in adoption without consent)
- In re A.N.O., 91 P.3d 646 (Okla. 2004) (standards for findings of fact/conclusions of law in adoption cases)
- In re Adoption of K.D.K., 940 P.2d 216 (Okla. 1997) (ICWA-related standards in adoption proceedings)