In re the Matter of Adoption of A.R. L.R. and P.R. v. D.K.B. (mem. dec.)
55A01-1702-AD-267
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- A.R. (born 2006) lived with Mother (P.R.); Stepmother (L.R.) married Mother in 2016 and sought to adopt A.R.
- Father (D.B.) has long-term substance abuse issues, lost unsupervised parenting time, and defaulted on child support; support order required $52/week since 2013.
- Between July 31, 2015 and August 10, 2016 Father made no child support payments; he entered residential treatment at Indiana Dream Team (IDT) on November 16, 2015.
- IDT required residents to work; participants received a small percentage of earnings via an IDT-controlled joint account and could earn limited funds for child support.
- Stepmother petitioned to adopt, alleging Father’s consent was excused under Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8(a)(2)(B) for knowingly failing to support the child for at least one year when able to do so; trial court found Father’s consent was required, reasoning his rehabilitation limited his ability to pay.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding the record and trial court findings show Father was able to pay during the one-year period and therefore consent was not required, remanding only to resolve the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father's consent to adoption is excused under I.C. § 31-19-9-8(a)(2)(B) for failing to pay support for ≥1 year when able to do so | Mother/Stepmother: Father knowingly failed to pay support for over one year and had the ability to pay (worked mid-2015; earned at IDT), so consent excused | Father: Time in residential rehab and limited access to earnings meant he lacked the ability to pay during the period, so consent required | Reversed trial court: record and findings show Father was "able to pay" during the one-year span; consent not required; remand to decide child's best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Rust v. Lawson, 714 N.E.2d 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (standard for appellate review of adoption rulings)
- In re Adoption of M.A.S., 815 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (burden on petitioner to prove statutory criteria by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Augustyniak, 508 N.E.2d 1307 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (petitioner must show noncustodial parent had ability to make missed payments)
- In re Adoption of K.F., 935 N.E.2d 282 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (ability-to-pay inquiry requires considering totality of circumstances)
- Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007) (incarceration does not relieve child support obligations)
- In re Adoption of N.W., 933 N.E.2d 909 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (satisfaction of statutory bars to consent does not automatically resolve best-interest question)