In Re Adoption of T.A.D., a Minor Child (Cody Johnson v. Derek Beatty), 588 S.W.3d 858

Cody Johnson filed to adopt T.D. on May 1, 2017; T.D. born Oct. 7, 2006. Derek Beatty is the biological father and contested the adoption.
Derek last had meaningful contact/visitation with T.D. in 2011; he has been incarcerated at times (convictions in 2009 and 2011) and is serving a ten-year sentence (parole eligible Feb. 2018).
Derek made only minimal child-support payments after the 2008 order and admitted he paid nothing from about 2010 through the 2017 petition; he participated in a work-release program in 2015 earning substantial wages but paid no support.
Cody married T.D.’s mother in Jan. 2017 and has functioned as T.D.’s father for several years; T.D. refers to Cody as “dad.”
The Faulkner County Circuit Court denied the adoption (Sept. 28, 2018), finding Derek’s lack of contact/support was justifiable and that adoption was not in T.D.’s best interest. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting the adoption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cody)	Defendant's Argument (Derek)	Held
Whether Derek's consent was required under Ark. Code § 9-9-207(a)(2) because he failed significantly, without justifiable cause, to communicate with or support the child for at least one year	Derek failed to support or communicate with T.D. for years (2010–2017), so consent is not required	Incarceration, alleged administrative cancellation of his child-support case, and the mother’s refusal to cooperate justified his nonpayment and lack of contact	Reversed: court erred; Derek’s seven‑year failure to support was unjustifiable and consent is not required
Whether adoption was in T.D.’s best interest	Cody has assumed parental duties; T.D. has a stable father–son relationship with Cody; Derek has been absent and shirked parental duties	Denying adoption preserves T.D.’s right to a relationship with his biological father; future rehabilitation/efforts by Derek could favor preserving parental rights	Reversed: trial court clearly erred—adoption is in T.D.’s best interest

Newkirk v. Hankins, 486 S.W.3d 827 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (adoption proceedings reviewed de novo; consent unnecessary must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
Taylor v. Hill, 661 S.W.2d 412 (Ark. Ct. App. 1983) (defines "justifiable cause" as voluntary and intentional conduct required to excuse failure)
Holloway v. Carter, 579 S.W.3d 188 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019) ("failed significantly" does not require total failure)
Ray v. Sellers, 120 S.W.3d 134 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003) (one-year period may be any year between birth and petition)
In re Adoption of A.M.C., 246 S.W.3d 426 (Ark. 2007) (incarceration does not automatically excuse parental support obligations)
Pender v. McKee, 582 S.W.2d 929 (Ark. 1979) (parental duty not excused by others’ conduct unless performance was prevented)
Gordon v. Draper, 428 S.W.3d 543 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (failure to pay support while imprisoned can be unjustifiable)
Manuel v. McCorkle, 749 S.W.2d 341 (Ark. Ct. App. 1988) (natural-parent preference ends when parental duties are ignored)
McClelland v. Murray, 213 S.W.3d 33 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (reversed when children were thriving without natural parent)