In the Matter of the Adoption of J.L.J. and J.D.J., Minor Children J.J. and T.H. v. D.E.
4 N.E.3d 1189
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Twins (J.L.J. & J.D.J.) born 2010; parents (Mother and Father) had unstable relationship, intermittent incarceration, and children were cared for by various relatives and friends.
- Father was adjudicated the twins’ father in July 2011 and ordered to pay child support but never paid; he spent periods incarcerated and later claimed disability income intermittently.
- Guardian (D.E.) met Mother in September 2011, obtained Mother’s signed consent, took the twins to Bloomington, and filed guardianship and adoption petitions on September 29, 2011.
- Grandmother (T.H.) intervened in 2012 seeking guardianship and adoption; she alleged she had been a primary caregiver for portions of the twins’ early life.
- Trial court (after bench trial) held Father’s consent to adoption was dispensed with because he knowingly failed to provide support for at least one year and failed to timely contest; denied Grandmother’s petitions and approved Guardian’s adoption as in the twins’ best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s consent to adoption could be dispensed with for failure to support | Guardian: Father knowingly failed to provide support and thus consent not required under I.C. § 31‑19‑9‑8 | Father: He lacked ability/income to pay and received disability; Guardian failed to prove ability to pay | Held: Father able to support and knowingly failed to do so; consent dispensed with |
| Whether Father implied consent by failing to timely contest due to defective notice | Guardian: Father did not contest within 30 days; implied consent applies | Father: Notice was defective (used wrong form) and he sought extension | Held: Court relied on failure-to-support ground and did not need to resolve alternative 30‑day notice argument |
| Whether Grandmother was entitled to notice of guardianship hearing as 60‑day principal caregiver | Grandmother: She cared for the twins and thus was entitled to notice under I.C. § 29‑3‑6‑1(a)(3) | Guardian: Twins were not in Grandmother’s continuous care in the 60 days before filing; Guardian did not know of any claim | Held: Grandmother was not shown to be primary caregiver in the 60 days before filing; no entitlement to notice |
| Whether ICPC applied to Guardian’s interstate placement | Grandmother: ICPC governs and procedures were not followed, invalidating placement | Guardian: Mother (parent) placed the children with Guardian without agency/court action; Article VIII exempts parent-initiated placements with relatives/nonagency guardians | Held: ICPC did not apply because placement was by the parent, so appointment was valid |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding adoption to Guardian over Grandmother | Grandmother: Trial court ignored parents’ willingness and familial ties; relative preference should favor her | Guardian: Twins have stable, bonded home with Guardian; best interests favor continuity and services | Held: Trial court reasonably found best interests favored Guardian’s adoption; Grandmother’s kinship not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Rust v. Lawson, 714 N.E.2d 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (presumption of correctness for trial court in adoption matters)
- McElvain v. Hite, 800 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (burden to prove ability to support and failure to do so)
- In re Adoption of J.T.A., 988 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (failure to support may occur during any year parent had obligation and ability)
- In re Adoption of N.W., 933 N.E.2d 909 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (parental duty to support exists independent of court order)
- In re Adoption of K.F., 935 N.E.2d 282 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (ability to pay considers income stability and expenses)
- In re Adoption of M.A.S., 815 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (totality of circumstances used to assess ability to support)
- Irvin v. Hood, 712 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (parent capable of supporting yet offered no legitimate reason for failing to do so)
- In re Adoption of A.M.K., 698 N.E.2d 845 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (voluntary unemployment can support finding of failure to provide)
- Wells v. Guardianship of Wells, 731 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (failure to mail statutorily required notice does not automatically invalidate guardianship)
- In re Adoption of M.L.L., 810 N.E.2d 1088 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (ICPC does not apply where a parent places a child with a relative/nonagency guardian)
- In re Adoption of S.A., 918 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (child’s best interest is paramount in adoption decisions)
- In re Adoption of Childers, 441 N.E.2d 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (blood relation is a factor but not controlling; relatives have no preferential legal right to adopt)