In re the Adoption of E.B.F., J.W. v. D.F.
93 N.E.3d 759
Ind.2018Background
- Child born in 2003 to Mother (J.W.) and Father (M.F.); Mother had primary custody for ~10 years.
- By 2013 Mother suffered substance dependence and an abusive relationship; she voluntarily agreed in December 2013 to modify custody, giving Father primary physical custody while retaining legal custody and unspecified parenting time to be mutually agreed.
- After December 25, 2013 Mother had no significant contact with Child for over one year while she focused on recovery, housing, and employment.
- Stepmother filed to adopt on January 2, 2015; Father consented, Mother did not. Trial court found Mother failed without justifiable cause to communicate significantly for one year and dispensed with her consent; adoption decree later entered.
- Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed the trial court’s consent determination, holding Mother had justifiable cause and that Father/Stepmother frustrated her attempts to communicate. Case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father/Stepmother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother’s consent to adoption could be dispensed with under I.C. § 31-19-9-8(a)(2)(A) for failing to "communicate significantly" for ≥1 year | Mother: Her failure was justifiable because she voluntarily relinquished custody to protect Child while she addressed addiction and recovery; she attempted communication but was frustrated by Father/Stepmother | Father/Stepmother: Mother had ability to communicate but made minimal efforts; Child chose not to communicate, and custodial parents need not facilitate communication | Court: Reversed — Mother had justifiable cause (recovery and voluntary relinquishment) and Father/Stepmother thwarted communication, so her consent was required |
| Whether sparse contacts in 2014 qualified as "significant communication" to preserve consent rights | Mother: Occasional encounters and efforts preserved her rights | Father/Stepmother: Contacts were few, fleeting, and not significant | Court: Contacts were not significant (threshold met that she failed to communicate significantly for one year) |
| Whether custodial parents’ conduct can excuse noncustodial parent’s failure to communicate | Mother: Custodial parents frustrated her attempts; they had agreed to mutually arrange parenting time and thus had an obligation to cooperate | Stepmother: Child, not custodial parents, declined contact; custodial parents not required to facilitate | Court: Custodial parents (Father/Stepmother) frustrated Mother’s communication and that conduct is relevant and can excuse failure |
| Proper standard of review for adoption/consent findings | Mother: Deferential review of trial court but errors exist when findings lack support | Father/Stepmother: Trial court findings should stand | Court: Affirms deference but found trial court’s consent determination clearly erroneous on the specific facts and legal assessment of justifiable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. 2005) (trial-court deference in family-law factfinding)
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (presumption of correctness in adoption judgments; scope of review)
- In re Adoption of J.P., 713 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (significance of communication is fact-specific and not reducible to counts)
- In re Adoption of Subzda, 562 N.E.2d 745 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (single significant communication within one year preserves consent right)
- In re Adoption of Augustyniak, 505 N.E.2d 868 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (totality-of-circumstances approach to justifiable cause)
- E.W. v. J.W., 20 N.E.3d 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (custodial parent’s thwarting of communication is relevant)
- In re Adoption of S.W., 979 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (limitations on obligation of custodial parent to facilitate contact)