In re Adoption of T.L. and T.L. M.G. v. R.J. and E.J.
2014 Ind. LEXIS 192
| Ind. | 2014Background
- Father (M.G.) was ordered to pay child support beginning in 2002; the order was modified in 2004 to account for a second child. He paid only $390 total (2002 and 2005) and made no payments after May 18, 2005.
- Father has been incarcerated for much of the past decade, but testimony and records showed periods of freedom during which he made no support payments and at least one payment while incarcerated.
- Mother (R.J.) married E.J. in January 2011; Mother and E.J. petitioned to have E.J. adopt the children in October 2011. Father opposed.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Father “knowingly failed to provide for the care and support of the child[ren] when able to do so” under Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8(a)(2)(B), and entered adoption orders.
- Procedurally, Father’s initial appeal was challenged as untimely; however, the Indiana Supreme Court denied dismissal and reached the merits because the appeal implicated the fundamental parental right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother/E.J.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s consent to adoption is unnecessary under I.C. § 31-19-9-8(a)(2) because he knowingly failed to provide support when able | Father contended he could not pay because he was incarcerated and therefore was not able to provide support | Mother/E.J. argued Father was able to provide some support, failed to do so for the statutory period, and therefore his consent was excused | Court held petitioners proved by clear and convincing evidence Father knowingly failed to provide support when able; consent not required |
| Proper evidentiary standard to prove lack of support under § 31-19-9-8(a)(2) | Implicitly argued higher (older) standard might apply | Petitioners argued clear and convincing evidence suffices consistent with legislative amendment | Court adopted clear-and-convincing standard (following In re M.A.S.) |
| Whether incarceration relieves Father of the support obligation | Father argued incarceration excused nonpayment | Petitioners relied on non-imputation approach: incarceration does not automatically excuse support and minimal capacity may exist | Court applied the non-imputation approach and found incarceration did not absolve Father entirely; some ability to pay existed |
| Whether trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous | Father argued findings unsupported | Petitioners argued record supports findings (payments, periods free, pending modification petitions) | Court found findings and judgment not clearly erroneous and affirmed adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of M.A.S., 815 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (adoption petitioners must prove lack of parental support by clear and convincing evidence)
- Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007) (non-imputation approach for child support of incarcerated parents)
- Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. 2013) (agreements to contract away child support rights are against public policy)
- In re Adoption of T.W., 859 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review for adoption orders with findings and conclusions)
- Rust v. Lawson, 714 N.E.2d 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (deference to trial court adoption rulings)
- Miller v. Dobbs, 991 N.E.2d 562 (Ind. 2013) (appellate rules and preference to decide meritorious claims implicating parental rights)