In the Matter of the Adoption of J. R. B.
505 P.3d 234
| Alaska | 2022Background:
- J.R.S., born Aug. 2016, lived with her parents initially; by July 2018 she had been living with maternal aunt and uncle Randi and Bradley B.
- Randi and Bradley petitioned for custody in April 2019 and then for adoption in March 2020; the superior court bifurcated proceedings to decide whether parental consent was required.
- Dale (the father) had a history of substance abuse, worked intermittently out of state, made some in-person and video contacts through 2018, and made child support payments through CSSD.
- Dale filed an answer to the custody petition in April 2019, sought counsel, participated in mediation and hearings, and (per his attorney’s advice) limited direct contact with the maternal relatives while litigation proceeded.
- The superior court found Samantha’s consent to adoption unnecessary but held Dale’s consent was required, concluding he did not unjustifiably fail to communicate for one year, did not abandon the child for six months, and did not willfully fail to support the child for one year.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, deferring to the superior court’s credibility-based factual findings and applying the clear-error standard.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Randi & Bradley) | Defendant's Argument (Dale) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dale "failed to communicate meaningfully" for 1+ years without justifiable cause | Dale cut off meaningful contact and did not pursue available avenues (calls, OCS, supervised visits) | Dale made reasonable efforts: in-person/video contacts, promptly filed answer, sought counsel, followed counsel’s advice, participated in hearings | Court: Not clearly proven; Dale had justifiable cause — consent still required |
| Whether Dale abandoned the child for 6+ months | Dale was absent from Nov 2018 through trial (and earlier periods) | Dale had intermittent contacts and engaged in legal proceedings; no six consecutive months of conscious disregard | Court: No abandonment; factual finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Dale willfully failed to provide support for 1+ years as required by law | After July 2018 Dale failed to pay the caregivers (Randi & Bradley) directly and thus failed to support | Dale paid CSSD under an administrative order and adoptive parents never requested support or applied to CSSD | Court: No willful failure to support; exception does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruce L. v. W.E., 247 P.3d 966 (Alaska 2011) (court participation and custody actions can show reasonable efforts to communicate)
- David S. v. Jared H., 308 P.3d 862 (Alaska 2013) (efforts to communicate judged by objective reasonableness; child age and custodial cooperation relevant)
- In re Adoption of B.S.L., 779 P.2d 1222 (Alaska 1989) (lack of proactive contact can support finding of unjustified communication failure)
- D.L.J. v. W.D.R., 635 P.2d 834 (Alaska 1981) (young child's inability to meaningfully communicate by phone can justify limited parental contact)
- D.A. v. D.R.L., 727 P.2d 768 (Alaska 1986) (similar holding on child’s young age limiting remote communication)
- In re Adoption of J.M.F., 881 P.2d 1116 (Alaska 1994) (adoptive parents’ failure to request support can negate finding of willful non-support)
- Ebert v. Bruce L., 340 P.3d 1048 (Alaska 2014) (parent’s low income and lack of request for support relevant to support exception)
- In re Adoption of S.F., 340 P.3d 1045 (Alaska 2014) (standards for abandonment and clear-error review in adoption consent exceptions)