IN RE ADOPTION OF K.P.M.A.
2014 OK 85
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Natural father sought termination of parental rights; child born out of wedlock to Mother; adoptive couple had custody since birth; Mother relinquished rights; father claimed paternity, asserted notice and due process defenses; trial court granted directed verdict terminating rights; Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court reverses and remands for proceedings consistent with opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Father's due process violated by notice via Facebook? | McCall argues he lacked proper notice; Facebook notice was constitutionally insufficient. | Andrews contends notice via Facebook sufficed as actual notice. | Facebook notice not sufficient; due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform. |
| Was termination supported by clear and convincing evidence? | Father claims he pursued rights and that record lacks proof of neglect of paternal duties. | Appellees assert failure to exercise rights supports termination. | Record insufficient to prove grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Did trial court err by limiting Father's testimony on attempts to exercise rights before notice? | Father's attempts to protect rights were improperly curtailed. | Record shows limited relevant evidence. | Remand to allow proper evidentiary development; due process requires relevant inquiry. |
| Did Mother’s duty to inform Father about pregnancy rest with her under Baby Boy W. and related due process rulings? | Father asserts duty to inform rested with mother; he was deprived of opportunity to act. | Mother’s notice via Facebook complied with statutory framework. | Notice burden cannot be placed entirely on Father; due process requires proper notice to preserve opportunity interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Termination of Parental Rights of Biological Parents of Baby Boy W., 988 P.2d 1270 (Okla. 1999) (notice and opportunity are central to due process; father must have notice to pursue rights)
- Baby Boy K.B., 264 P.3d 1258 (Okla. 2011) (reaffirms notice to father to exercise opportunity interest)
- Steltzlen v. Fritz, 134 P.3d 141 (Okla. 2006) (reiterates due process right to notice of pregnancy and birth; burden on mother/agency to notify)
- In re Adoption of C.D.M., 39 P.3d 802 (Okla. 2001) (different aspects of consent and termination under Adoption Code)
- In re A.M. & R.W., 13 P.3d 484 (Okla. 2000) (constitutional due process standard for parental rights cases)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (due process limits on paternal rights based on opportunity to develop relationship)