In the Matter of the Adoption of M.M.C.C., R.C. v. C.C. and C.C. (mem. dec.)
10A01-1612-AD-2818
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- Child born in Indiana to Mother on Dec. 10, 2013; Mother moved from Kentucky while pregnant and later married Adoptive Father.
- Biological Father was genetically established as Child’s father by court order on Mar. 26, 2015; the order imposed child support but did not set parenting time.
- Between Mar. 26, 2015 and May 6, 2016 (when Petitioners filed for adoption), Biological Father made no contact with Child and took no steps to obtain contact information or communicate with Mother/Child.
- Biological Father filed one motion for parenting time on Mar. 1, 2016 — nearly a year after paternity was established; he admitted earlier funds were spent on other items rather than retained for legal action.
- Petitioners (Mother and Adoptive Father) sought a judicial declaration that Biological Father’s consent was unnecessary under Indiana law because he failed without justifiable cause to communicate significantly with Child for at least one year.
- Trial court found the single filing amounted to a token effort and concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that Biological Father’s consent was not required; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Biological Father’s consent was unnecessary because he failed without justifiable cause to communicate significantly with Child for ≥1 year | Petitioners: Yes — Father made only a token effort (one late filing) and otherwise failed to communicate or seek contact for the statutory period | Biological Father: Trial court erred; his solitary motion and circumstances did not amount to abandonment or forfeiture of consent requirement | Court: Affirmed — evidence supported finding father knowingly failed without justifiable cause to communicate significantly for one year and consent was not required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.W., 979 N.E.2d 633 (discusses appellate standard and deference to trial court in adoption cases)
- In re Adoption of A.S., 912 N.E.2d 840 (same appellate review principles in adoption context)
- In re Adoption of M.S., 10 N.E.3d 1272 (petitioner bears burden to prove abandonment or token efforts by clear and convincing evidence)