In the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Children: I.B. and W.B.: B.B. v. B.C. and J.L., and Indiana Department of Child Services
32 N.E.3d 1164
| Ind. | 2015Background
- Four half-siblings were removed after parental substance abuse; two youngest (I.B., W.B.) have special needs (I.B. has cerebral palsy and G-tube).
- Maternal grandmother (B.C.) and her fiancé (J.L.) cared for the children for a long period, obtained training for I.B., and were recommended by DCS and CASA; both have distant felony convictions (B.C. pleaded guilty to Class D neglect in 1997).
- Paternal grandmother (B.B.) cross-petitioned to adopt I.B. and W.B.; the trial court found adoption by Maternal Grandmother and Fiancé was in the children’s best interests and granted that petition, denying B.B.’s petition.
- The statutory adoption code (Ind. Code § 31-19-11-1(c)(15)) disqualifies certain felony offenders from adopting; B.C.’s conviction is a statutory bar that cannot be waived.
- The Court of Appeals held the statutory bar unconstitutional as applied (characterizing it as an irrebuttable presumption) and affirmed the adoption; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- The Indiana Supreme Court held the statute constitutional under rational-basis review, vacated the adoption, and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the petitions consistent with the statutory bar (and to accept supplemental evidence if appropriate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ind. Code § 31-19-11-1(c)(15) is unconstitutional as applied because it creates an irrebuttable presumption that prevents individualized best-interests determinations | DCS and B.C. argued the statutory bar operates as an irrebuttable presumption violating due process by foreclosing a showing that adoption is in the children’s best interests | State/Respondents argued the statute is a permissible classification aimed at protecting children and is rationally related to that goal; felons are not a suspect class and adoption is not a fundamental right | Statute is constitutional as applied; irrebuttable-presumption doctrine has been supplanted by classification analysis and the bar survives rational-basis review |
| Appropriate standard of review for challenge (irrebuttable presumption vs. classification/rational-basis) | Court of Appeals relied on irrebuttable-presumption line (Stanley/Vlandis) to require individualized inquiry | Supreme Court: modern precedent (Michael H., Weinberger) treats these questions as classification problems and applies rational-basis review absent a fundamental right or suspect class | Use classification analysis; apply rational-basis review |
| Remedy once statute is found constitutional as applied: whether adoption should be affirmed for Fiancé or reversed in full | B.C./Fiancé sought affirmation at least as to Fiancé (arguing best interests supported it) | B.B. argued the record could support her adoption and asked to be granted adoption on appeal | Court vacated the trial court’s orders, reversed the adoption decree, and remanded so the trial court can reconsider both petitions consistent with the statute and receive supplemental evidence |
| Whether sibling-preservation concerns create a due-process right to adopt in violation of statute | DCS and others emphasized strong sibling bonds and harm from separation | State argued failing to apply the statutory bar because of sibling bonds would improperly elevate best-interests to constitutional status | Sibling bonds are important but do not convert best-interests considerations into a constitutional right that overrides a valid statutory bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (invalidating state practice that deprived unwed fathers of hearing on parental fitness)
- Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973) (discussing disfavored permanent irrebuttable presumptions)
- Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975) (clarifying limits on irrebuttable-presumption doctrine)
- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) (directing analysis toward classification/fit rather than irrebuttable-presumption framework)
- Lindley for Lindley v. Sullivan, 889 F.2d 124 (7th Cir. 1989) (no fundamental right to adopt; rational-basis review appropriate)
- United States Dep’t of Agric. v. Muerry, 413 U.S. 508 (1973) (noting limited use of irrebuttable-presumption invalidation)