In the Matter of the Adoption of J.T.A. R.S.P. v. S.S.
988 N.E.2d 1250
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Fiancée filed a petition to adopt the Child in September 2010; Father signed a consent to the adoption.
- Mother was served and appeared; visitation was arranged with a home study ordered.
- Child lived with Fiancée and Father as a family; Fiancée was the Child’s primary caregiver and Mother did not consistently pay support.
- Adoption hearing occurred in August 2012; trial court denied Fiancée’s petition to adopt the Child.
- This appeal concerns whether Father’s parental rights would be terminated if the adoption were granted and whether there was sufficient evidence to deny the petition.
- Indiana cases and statutes governing intra-family adoptions and consent were central to the court’s analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father's rights would be terminated if Fiancée adopted | Fiancée argues termination would occur due to nonmarital status. | Father argues rights should not be terminated where both are acting as parents in an intra-family setting. | Father’s rights would not necessarily be terminated; error in the trial court. |
| Whether Mother’s consent to the adoption was required | Fiancée contends Mother’s consent was not required due to abandonment or failure to support. | Mother contends consent was required. | Mother’s consent was required; cannot grant petition without consent. |
| Whether Mother’s consent could be implied from notice failure | Fiancée argues implied consent due to no timely contest. | Mother argues adequate notice and ability to contest were not properly provided. | Notice to Mother was deficient; consent could not be implied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of K.S.P., 804 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (divesting statute not applied to stepparent/second-parent adoptions; best interest policy)
- In re Adoption of T.W., 859 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (consent not required when child in custody of another and statute disjunctive grounds apply)
- In re Childers, 441 N.E.2d 976 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (standard for disturbing adoption decisions; clear and indubitable evidence burden)
- Matter of Snyder, 418 N.E.2d 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (incarceration or unemployment affecting ability to pay support)
- Baby Girl, 661 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (substantial compliance with notice may suffice to achieve statutory purpose)
- In re Augustyniak, 508 N.E.2d 1307 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (statutory requirements for support focus on periods with obligation to pay)