In the Matter of the Adoption of O.R., N.R. v. K.G. and C.G., 16 N.E.3d 965

O.R. (Child) was born in August 2006 and placed with Adoptive Parents (K.G. and C.G.) in 2006 after being in foster care; they sought adoption in July 2012.
Father N.R., incarcerated for domestic battery and habitual offender, initially consented negligibly; later challenged the trial court’s adoption order.
Trial court found Father’s consent was not required under I.C. 31-19-9-8(a) due to failure to communicate and support for at least one year while able to.
Notice of Appeal from the May 9, 2013 adoption order was due June 10, 2013; Father filed a pro se letter June 6, 2013 but no timely Notice of Appeal.
Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely filing; this Court granted transfer to address jurisdiction and merits.
Trial court’s ultimate order (adoption by Adoptive Parents) was affirmed on the merits; best interests of O.R. supported by six years in the Adoptive Parents’ home.
Father’s incarceration and lack of ongoing relationship with O.R. weighed against reversal; the record showed only one phone contact in six years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether untimely Notice of Appeal is a jurisdictional bar	Father's timely attempt to appeal should be perfected on merits despite filing defects.	The timely filing requirement is jurisdictional and forfeits the appeal if not met.	Untimely filing is not jurisdictional; forfeiture may be remedied and merits determined.
Whether the preservation of appellate jurisdiction allows consideration of the merits	Constitutional interests in parent-child relationship warrant addressing merits despite procedural lapse.	Procedural rules should foreclose review if timely appeal is not filed.	Foregone appeal may be restored for merits due to fundamental rights and orderly justice.
Did the trial court correctly dispense with Father’s consent under I.C. 31-19-9-8(a)	Father failed to communicate significantly with O.R. for over a year while able to do so, justifying non-consent.	Father argues he did communicate sufficiently or that other factors could rebut this.	There was clear and convincing evidence Father failed to communicate without justifiable cause; consent not required.
Is the adoption still in O.R.’s best interests	Adoptive Parents provided a stable, loving home for O.R.; best interests support adoption.	Adoption should consider Father’s rights and any potential future parental involvement.	Adoption by Adoptive Parents is in O.R.’s best interests.

Davis v. Pelley, 102 N.E.2d 910 (Ind. 1952) (assignment of errors prerequisite; lacks jurisdiction otherwise)
Greer v. State, 685 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. 1997) (timeliness as jurisdictional defect; dismissal for belated appeal)
K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 2006) (jurisdictional concept mischaracterized; timely filing is a forfeiture rule, not jurisdiction)
Packard v. Shoopman, 852 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2006) (timely filing as prerequisite to docketing; relates to forfeiture, not jurisdiction)
In re Adoption of T.L., 4 N.E.3d 658 (Ind. 2014) (procedural rules may be deviated from to achieve justice)
In re D.L., 952 N.E.2d 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (merits consideration despite some procedural defects)