In the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Children: C.B.M. and C.R.M.: C.A.B. v. J.D.M. and K.L.M.
979 N.E.2d 174
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Birth Mother's parental rights to the Children were terminated on January 28, 2008, and she appealed.
- During the pendency of that appeal, Adoptive Parents petitioned to adopt; the adoption court granted the petition on July 31, 2008.
- Birth Mother filed a Verified Petition to Set Aside Judgment of Adoption on January 15, 2009; Adoptive Parents opposed.
- DCS consented to the adoption without notice to Birth Mother during the pendency of the appeal, and the adoption proceeded.
- This Court later reversed the termination order on September 29, 2008; the adoption decree remained under consideration.
- The adoption decree was ultimately set aside on remand due to DCS's arbitrary and capricious consent, with directions for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCS's consent to the adoption without notice violated due process | Birth Mother contends consent was arbitrary and deprived meaningful appeal | DCS/Adoptive Parents argue statutory scheme allows consent during pendency with discretion | Consent found arbitrary and capricious; due process violation and decree void |
| Constitutionality of adoption statutes as applied | Birth Mother claims notice/consent provisions are unconstitutional when rights are pending appeal | Adoptive Parents/State argue statutes constitutional and provide discretionary procedures | Statutes not unconstitutional as applied; issues remanded for further proceedings |
| Scope of relief and remand authority | Birth Mother seeks set aside of adoption decree and possible reinstatement of CHINS context | Adoptive Parents/State urge limited or renewed adoption considerations | Remand to adjudicate Birth Mother's petition to set aside; adoption decree void for due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. 1998) (void judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction; collateral attack permissible)
- In re Adoption of L.D., 938 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. 2010) (due process considerations in adoption context)
- Hite v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 845 N.E.2d 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (right to raise one's children protected by due process)
- A.B. v. State, 949 N.E.2d 1204 (Ind. 2011) (AOPA standards; discretionary agency actions reviewed narrowly)
- In re E.E., 853 N.E.2d 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (balancing private interests, risk of error, and governmental interest in due process)