In Re: The Adoption of N.D.K., and A.A.K., D.R.K. v. A.S.K (mem. dec.)
01A02-1612-AD-2788
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- Birth Mother (D.R.K.) and Father divorced; Father has lived with and later married Adoptive Mother (A.S.K.), who petitioned to adopt children N.D.K. (b.2000) and A.A.K. (b.2003).
- Children were adjudicated children in need of services; Father obtained custody in 2009 with Birth Mother limited to supervised visitation and ordered to pay support.
- Birth Mother had extensive criminal history and recurring substance-abuse problems, with multiple incarcerations and probation violations from 2002–2016; visitation was sporadic (mainly Dec 2012–Apr 2013) and informal/secret in late 2015–early 2016.
- Adoptive Mother filed to adopt in April 2016 with Father’s consent and alleged Birth Mother’s consent was unnecessary under several statutory grounds (abandonment, failure to communicate/support, and unfitness).
- Trial court admitted two neuropsychological reports about A.A.K. over Birth Mother’s hearsay objection but did not rely on them in its written findings; it found by clear and convincing evidence that Birth Mother was unfit and that adoption without her consent was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of neuropsych reports | Father: reports are relevant to child’s needs and admissible | Birth Mother: reports are hearsay and inadmissible | Court allowed admission but any error was harmless — reports not relied on in findings |
| Necessity of Birth Mother’s consent to adoption | Adoptive Mother: consent unnecessary under statutes (abandonment, failure to communicate/support, or unfitness) | Birth Mother: consent required; she contested findings and presented explanations for limited contact | Trial court’s finding that Birth Mother was unfit and that adoption without consent was in children’s best interests is supported by clear and convincing evidence; consent dispensed with |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Earl, 33 N.E.3d 337 (Ind. 2015) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings uses abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Santelli v. Rahmatullah, 993 N.E.2d 167 (Ind. 2013) (prejudice standard for evidentiary error)
- In re Adoption of S.W., 979 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review and evidence in adoption proceedings)
- In re Adoption of M.L., 973 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (burden of proving consent unnecessary by clear and convincing evidence)
- S.L. v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Servs., 997 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (factors relevant to parental fitness include criminal history and failure to support)
- In re Adoption of J.B.S., 843 N.E.2d 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (adoption’s role in providing stable permanent placement and related benefits)