In Re Adoption of S.F., a Minor
2014 Alas. LEXIS 231
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Shawna born 2004; parents Denise and Robert separated within months; family lived in Oklahoma.
- In October 2005 an Oklahoma court entered a Decree of Paternity awarding Denise full custody and ordering child support; Robert was not at the hearing but was represented by counsel.
- Robert left Oklahoma for California multiple times around Shawna’s first year and thereafter had only sporadic contact (occasional Facebook messages to his mother-in-law); he did not provide support or meaningful contact after age one.
- Denise married James; the family moved out of state and to Alaska; James petitioned in Alaska (2012) to adopt Shawna and alleged Robert’s consent was unnecessary under AS 25.23.050 due to abandonment, lack of support, and lack of meaningful communication.
- A superior court master found Robert abandoned the child (no forwarding info, failed to follow up, didn’t use offered intermediaries); the superior court adopted the master’s findings and denied Robert’s claim that others prevented contact.
- Robert appealed; the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the factual findings for clear error and affirmed the superior court’s conclusion that Robert’s consent was not required because he abandoned Shawna.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robert’s consent to adoption was required under AS 25.23.050 (abandonment) | James: Robert abandoned Shawna for at least six months, negating consent | Robert: He attempted to locate/contact but was blocked by Denise and Beverly; thus no abandonment | Held: Robert abandoned the child; consent not required |
| Whether Robert’s lack of support/communication for over one year negated consent | James: Robert failed to provide support and meaningful communication for over a year | Robert: Interference by Denise/Beverly prevented contact and support | Held: Court affirmed abandonment finding and did not need to reach these alternate bases |
| Whether interference by mother/grandmother excuses noncontact | James: No persuasive evidence of interference; Robert made minimal efforts | Robert: Denise and Beverly refused to give contact info and obstructed him | Held: Credibility findings favored Denise/Beverly; no convincing evidence of interference |
| Standard of review for master’s factual findings | James: Deference to master’s findings based on credibility determinations | Robert: Challenges master’s factual findings as erroneous | Held: Clear-error standard applies; master’s oral-testimony-based findings get particular deference and were not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- David S. v. Jared H., 308 P.3d 862 (Alaska 2013) (deference to master’s findings adopted by superior court)
- D.M. v. State, 515 P.2d 1234 (Alaska 1973) (definition of abandonment as conscious disregard destroying parent-child relationship)
- Jon S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009) (only one statutory basis required to support termination/consent elimination)
- In re Adoption of A.J.N., 525 P.2d 520 (Alaska 1974) (reversal of abandonment finding where father made ongoing efforts and was actively frustrated)
- William P. v. Taunya P., 258 P.3d 812 (Alaska 2011) (discussing deference to trial court credibility determinations)