In Re the Adoptions of D.A.M.S. and N.D.S., N.S. and J.H. v. J.S. and L.S. (mem. dec.)
20A04-1705-AD-1108
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Parents (N.S. father; J.H. mother) had two children (born 2009, 2010) who were removed in 2011 after a domestic-violence incident; children were placed with maternal aunt and her husband (Adoptive Parents).
- Children were adjudicated CHINS; parents were ordered services but failed to remedy issues (Father had criminal history and continued domestic abuse; parents deceived authorities).
- In 2013 Parents consented to guardianship in favor of Adoptive Parents (guardianship rather than termination); thereafter Parents had little or no contact and provided no financial support; they never petitioned the court for visitation or to terminate the guardianship.
- Adoptive Parents filed petitions to adopt in 2016; trial court held hearings and found Parents had failed to significantly communicate for years, were unfit, and adoption served the children’s best interests.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Adoptive Parents proved by clear and convincing evidence that parental consent was not required and that adoption was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in granting adoption without parental consent | Parents argued adoption required their consent because lack of communication was justified—Adoptive Parents cut off contact | Adoptive Parents argued consent unnecessary under I.C. §31-19-9-8(a): parents failed to significantly communicate and were unfit; adoption in children’s best interests | Affirmed: consent not required—Parents failed without justifiable cause to significantly communicate for at least one year; court properly dispensed with consent |
| Whether Parents’ lack of communication was excused by Adoptive Parents’ interference | Parents asserted Adoptive Parents blocked attempts to see/contact children, so failure to communicate was justified | Adoptive Parents denied blocking contact and pointed to parents’ failure to pursue court remedies (petition for visitation/terminate guardianship) | Held: interference is relevant but not dispositive; parents had duty to pursue court remedies and failed to do so, so lack of communication unjustified |
| Whether adoption served children’s best interests and adoptive parents were suitable | Parents argued Mother was stable and could care for children; Father contended he was improving; Parents challenged Adoptive Mother’s medical condition | Adoptive Parents showed long-term caregiving, CASA and social worker recommendations, stable home, and children’s need for permanence | Held: adoption is in children’s best interests; Adoptive Parents are suitable despite Adoptive Mother’s chronic illness; trial court’s findings supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (deference to trial court credibility findings in family-law matters; duty to investigate means of communication)
- MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. 2005) (trial court’s superior position to assess family dynamics and credibility)
- In re Adoption of S.W., 979 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory bases for dispensing with parental consent are disjunctive)
- E.W. v. J.W., 20 N.E.3d 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (conduct of prospective adoptive parents that thwarts communication is relevant to consent inquiry)
- In re Adoption of M.S., 10 N.E.3d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (best-interests analysis considers totality of evidence, permanence, and stability)
- K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H., 903 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2009) (standards for setting aside family-court findings)