228 N.C. App. 151
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Father Gregory Johns sought to intervene in a pending adoption of his biological son Sean.
- Mother placed Sean for adoption; CAS and adoptive couple filed petition; termination was stayed.
- Johns learned of Sean after a termination petition was filed and DNA testing confirmed paternity.
- Trial court granted summary judgment finding father’s consent not required and denied intervention.
- Appellate court reversed in part, finding due process and statutory interpretation issues; case remanded for further fact-finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johns’ consent was required for adoption under § 48-3-601/603 | Johns argues consent is required under statutes. | Petitioners contend consent not required under the statutes. | Remanded; factual record needed to determine consent. |
| Whether application of the statutes as applied violates Johns’ due process | Johns asserts due process rights protected by Lehr/Price require protection of his opportunity. | State statutes apply uniformly; no due process violation shown on record. | Remanded for findings to assess due process implications. |
| Whether Johns was entitled to intervene in the adoption proceeding | Johns should be able to intervene to challenge consent requirements. | If consent not required, Johns is not a party; intervention not appropriate. | Remanded; trial court to determine intervention rights based on whether consent is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (unwed father's inchoate interest depends on opportunity and responsibility)
- Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68 (N.C. 1997) (conduct inconsistent with parental presumption can lose rights)
- In re Byrd, 354 N.C. 188 (N.C. 2001) (mother’s unilateral control undermines fairness; parental rights depend on conduct)
- In re Adoption of Clark, 95 N.C. App. 1 (N.C. App. 1989) (gives historical context; later superseded by Supreme Court ruling)
- In re Adoption of Dockery, 128 N.C. App. 631 (N.C. App. 1986) (brief analysis on notice and rights of biological father)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (reiterated as foundational for biological father rights)
- Doe v. Queen, 552 S.E.2d 761 (S.C. 2001) (prompt and good faith efforts can affect consent requirements)