In the Matter of the Adoption of J.R.O. (Minor Child) J.O. (Father) v. A.T. and M.H.
87 N.E.3d 37
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Child J.R.O. was removed in CHINS proceedings; father J.O. acknowledged paternity and was incarcerated for much of the early proceedings.
- Maternal great-aunt A.T. and her wife M.H. (Appellees) filed to adopt J.R.O.; proceedings (CHINS, guardianship, adoption) were consolidated by the trial court.
- At an April 23, 2015 hearing, attorney Jacob Warrum (then representing father in the CHINS case and paternal grandparents in a guardianship matter) orally objected to the adoption, stating it would terminate father’s parental rights.
- Appellees later moved under Ind. Code § 31-19-9-18 to declare father’s consent irrevocably implied because he had not filed a written motion to contest the adoption within 30 days of notice.
- The trial court agreed, found consent irrevocably implied, vacated the TPR hearing, and granted the adoption; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "motion to contest the adoption" under Ind. Code § 31-19-9-18 must be written | Appellees: statute language "file" and practice require a written motion; no written filing was made, so consent is implied | Father: statute does not expressly require writing; Warrum’s oral objection functioned as a motion to contest | Court: "motion to contest" need not be written; oral motion/objection sufficed; trial court erred in finding consent irrevocably implied |
| Whether father’s rights were forfeited by failing to file a written objection | Appellees: failure to file written motion forfeits contest right | Father: substantive preservation via oral objection and later TPR defense; form should not defeat rights | Court: substance over form; oral objection preserved father’s ability to contest; reversal required |
| Whether consolidation and counsel’s multiple roles affected notice/representation | Appellees: served notice in open court to father in care of his attorney; consolidation proper | Father: consolidation and Warrum’s multiple representations created confusion; Warrum acted for father in CHINS and objected | Court: practical realities mean Warrum’s oral objection was attributable to father; father should not be penalized for procedural confusion |
| Remedy: whether proceedings must be reinstated | Appellees: adoption finalized; no further action needed | Father: remand for further proceedings including TPR/adoption determinations | Court: reversed and remanded for further proceedings; adoption consent determination to be reconsidered on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Pounds v. State, 443 N.E.2d 1193 (Ind. 1983) (recognizing oral motions may be made in court)
- J.J. v. State, 58 N.E.3d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (discussing an oral motion to suppress)
- In re J.W., Jr., 27 N.E.3d 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (statutory interpretation principles; de novo review)
- Matter of Adoption of Topel, 571 N.E.2d 1295 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (parental right to raise child is fundamental)
- Allen v. Allen, 54 N.E.3d 344 (Ind. 2016) (court will not read requirements into statute that legislature omitted)
- Parham v. Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (court favors substance over form when statutory purpose is satisfied)