In The Matter of The Adoption of: K.M. B.M. v. J.R. and M.R.
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 370
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother (B.C.) and Father (J.R.) are biological parents of K.M., born 2008; Father married M.R. (Stepmother) in 2012.
- Stepmother filed a verified petition to adopt K.M. on November 12, 2013; Mother was personally served in open court on January 9, 2014 with notice that any contest must be filed within 30 days per I.C. § 31-19-10-1.
- Mother did not file a written motion within 30 days; she later testified she attempted to communicate an objection by contacting an unrelated attorney’s office, searching online, visiting the county clerk, and calling the court.
- On February 14, 2014 the court found Mother had not timely filed a motion; pursuant to I.C. § 31-19-9-18 the court held her consent was "irrevocably implied" and she could not contest the adoption.
- Mother (pro se at the hearing) obtained counsel later the same day and filed a motion to contest; the trial court denied relief, granted the adoption, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether I.C. § 31-19-9-18 violates procedural due process by allowing consent to be "irrevocably implied" without a hearing | Mother: parental relationship is fundamental; statute denies meaningful hearing and opportunity to be heard | State/Stepmother: statute provides notice and a 30-day opportunity to file; lack of timely filing, not state action, deprived Mother of a hearing | Court: statute provides procedural due process (notice + opportunity to file); no hearing required by text; upheld statute |
| Whether equitable tolling or equitable deviation can save Mother’s untimely contest | Mother: her communications and attempts to object justify equitable tolling of the 30-day nonclaim period | Stepmother: the statute is a nonclaim statute that creates a condition precedent and precludes equitable tolling | Court: statute is a nonclaim statute; equitable tolling/equitable deviation not available; Mother’s consent irrevocably implied; appeal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of H.N.P.G., 878 N.E.2d 900 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard of review for adoption rulings)
- In re Adoption of M.A.S., 815 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App.) (affirming deference to trial court in adoption matters)
- McGee v. McGee, 998 N.E.2d 270 (Ind. Ct. App.) (court will not read extra requirements into statute)
- Morton v. Ivacic, 898 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind.) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Adoptive Parents of M.L.V. v. Wilkins, 598 N.E.2d 1054 (Ind.) (adoption statutes strictly construed to protect natural parents)
- In re Paternity of M.G.S., 756 N.E.2d 990 (Ind. Ct. App.) (construing similar statutory language as creating a nonclaim statute)
- Burnett v. Villaneuve, 685 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. Ct. App.) (distinction between statutes of limitation and nonclaim statutes)
- Wawrinchak v. United States Steel Corp., 267 N.E.2d 395 (Ind. App.) (definition and effect of a nonclaim statute)
- Donnella v. Crady, 185 N.E.2d 623 (Ind. App.) (contrast of nonclaim statute and statute of limitations)
- Rising Sun State Bank v. Fessler, 400 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App.) (legislative intent may remove right to recovery where condition precedent not met)