Lagios v. Goldman
2016 Ark. 59
Ark.2016Background
- M. was born Feb. 2012; her mother died when M. was ~1 month old. Lonnie Henson, who had been caring for M., left the child with Deanne Goldman on March 30, 2012; Henson later asked Deanne to adopt M.
- Deanne and her husband (the Goldmans) obtained guardianship June 1, 2012, and filed an adoption petition Sept. 6, 2012. Thomas Lagios, a friend of Henson, filed a paternity/custody petition June 20, 2012; DNA tested August 2, 2012 showed 99.992% probability of paternity.
- Union County adjudicated Lagios as legal father Jan. 14, 2013; custody issues were transferred to Columbia County to join the pending adoption.
- At the June 28, 2013 adoption hearing the Goldmans sought to introduce a home-study report; the social worker was absent. The court recessed, later reopened the record (Aug. 30) to receive the home study and testimony, and accepted it into evidence.
- The probate court found (Sept. 17, 2013) that Lagios was not fit, the Goldmans were fit, the adoption was in M.’s best interest, and that the Goldmans had substantially complied with adoption statutes. Lagios appealed; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lagios) | Defendant's Argument (Goldmans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction — compliance with adoption statutes (§9-9-210, §9-9-211, §9-9-212) | Petition omitted required statutory details; affidavits/home study filed after initial hearing; lack of notice to maternal grandparents deprived court of jurisdiction | Missing statutory items were placed into the record by testimony/pleadings; substantial compliance satisfied jurisdictional requirements; notice issues relate to personal jurisdiction, not subject-matter | Court: Substantial compliance sufficed; only jurisdictional requirements (consent-related) require strict compliance; absence of some formalities did not defeat jurisdiction |
| Whether Lagios’s consent was required (§9-9-206, §9-9-207) | DNA/paternity established and later adjudicated; his consent was required and court erred by permitting adoption without it | Lagios did not meet any statutory categories that mandate consent (no prior adjudication at time petition filed, no significant custodial/financial relationship before petition) | Court: Lagios’s consent was not required under the statute because he did not fall into §9-9-206(a)(2) categories; §9-9-207 exclusion also applies |
| Reopening the record to admit home study | Reopening sua sponte after both sides rested was improper and prejudicial | Trial court has broad discretion to reopen record in bench trials and §9-9-214(b) permits continuances for further investigation; parties were given opportunity to be heard | Court: No abuse of discretion; reopening and subsequent hearing were permissible to complete the record |
| Best interest of the child — sufficiency of evidence for adoption | Court ignored strengths of Lagios as natural parent and improperly weighed socioeconomic differences; findings insufficient to show clear-and-convincing evidence of best interest | Goldmans provided continuous care since M. was ~1 month old; strong parent–child bond; Lagios had little contact/support after learning of paternity and some factors (living situation, smoking) raised concerns for child’s welfare | Court: Decree supported by clear-and-convincing evidence; trial court had superior opportunity to judge credibility and observe parties; adoption affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of J.P., 385 S.W.3d 266 (Ark. 2011) (adoption requires clear and convincing evidence that adoption is in child’s best interest)
- Martin v. Martin, 875 S.W.2d 819 (Ark. 1994) (strict compliance required for jurisdictional statutory requirements; substantial compliance for non-jurisdictional items)
- Swaffar v. Swaffar, 827 S.W.2d 140 (Ark. 1992) (adoption statutes strictly construed where jurisdictional; lack of evidence of consent defeats jurisdiction)
- Midwest Lime Co. v. Independence Cnty. Chancery Ct., 551 S.W.2d 537 (Ark. 1977) (trial court has broad discretion to reopen case for further proof before judgment)
- Tackett v. First Sav. of Ark., F.A., 810 S.W.2d 927 (Ark. 1991) (trial court may reopen record before final decree if parties can be heard)
- In re Adoption of Lybrand, 946 S.W.2d 946 (Ark. 1997) (notice requirements relate to personal jurisdiction; failure to strictly comply is not necessarily fatal to proceedings)
- Racine v. Nelson, 378 S.W.3d 93 (Ark. 2011) (standard of review and considerations in parental-rights/adoption contexts)