In the Matter of the Adoption of A.Y.S.: J.S. (Father) v. C.A.K. (mem. dec.), 19A04-1606-AD-1439

Child born 2005 to Mother and J.S. (Father); parents divorced 2008 with Mother awarded custody and Father given supervised visitation that was later expanded.
Father has an extensive criminal history and substance-abuse problems; much of Child’s life he was incarcerated, on work release, or on home detention.
Last verified in-person contact was October 25, 2013; Father was jailed June 5, 2014 on a Class B methamphetamine-dealing conviction and remained incarcerated through the adoption hearing; earliest possible release June 1, 2018.
Stepfather (C.A.K.) married Mother, acted as Child’s de facto father for years, and filed to adopt Child on May 12, 2015.
Trial court found Father failed for at least one year, without justifiable cause, to communicate significantly with Child and that adoption was in Child’s best interests; consent deemed unnecessary and adoption granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father’s written consent was required for adoption under IC 31-19-9-8(a)(2)(A) (failure to communicate significantly for ≥1 year)	Stepfather: Father failed without justifiable cause to have significant communication during the relevant period and thus consent not required	Father: He made some contacts (letters), improved behavior in prison, and Mother was allegedly uncooperative; thus consent required	Court: Held consent not required; clear-and-convincing evidence showed Father failed to communicate significantly while able to do so (only three letters, no calls, long incarceration)
Whether the adoption was in Child’s best interests	Stepfather: Stepfather provided stability, care, and permanence for years; adoption serves Child’s need for continuity	Father: His rehabilitation in prison shows improved fitness and adoption is not necessary	Court: Held adoption was in Child’s best interests given Father’s long-term instability, incarceration, support arrearage, and Stepfather’s role as de facto parent

In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review and deference to trial court in family matters)
MacLafferty v. MacLafferty, 829 N.E.2d 938 (Ind. 2005) (trial judge’s superior position to assess family dynamics and credibility)
In re Adoption of T.L., 4 N.E.3d 658 (Ind. 2014) (two-tiered review for findings and judgment in adoption cases)
In re Adoption of S.W., 979 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory test for significant communication and avoiding token efforts)
In re Adoption of C.E.N., 847 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (noncustodial parent must make more than token efforts to communicate)
In re Adoption of E.A., 43 N.E.3d 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (incarcerated parent’s limited mail contact can be insufficient to preserve consent requirement)
Lewis v. Roberts, 495 N.E.2d 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (contrasting example where regular writing and visits during incarceration constituted significant communication)
In re Adoption of M.S., 10 N.E.3d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (use of totality-of-the-evidence and termination-law factors to assess child’s best interests)