Martini v. Price, 2016 Ark. 472

Background

Antonio Martini and Renita (now Price) divorced in 2012; they had one biological daughter (E.M.) and Antonio had acted in loco parentis to Renita’s son from a prior relationship (G.L.).
After a 2009 domestic-violence incident in Washington, protective orders barred Antonio from contacting Renita (but not explicitly the children) until March 2012; Antonio pled guilty to related charges and received counseling and a suspended sentence.
Renita moved with the children to Arkansas; she supplied Antonio with an email account, a letter, and a phone number for arranging contact; Antonio sent three emails in 2010 but otherwise had little contact until supervised visits arranged after the divorce decree.
Renita married Christopher Price in July 2013; Price petitioned to adopt both children in November 2013, alleging Antonio’s consent was unnecessary under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-207 because Antonio failed for at least one year without justifiable cause to communicate with the children.
The Faulkner County Circuit Court found Antonio’s consent not required and granted the adoptions; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed by a 5-4 vote; the Supreme Court accepted review and affirmed as to G.L. but reversed and dismissed as to E.M.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Antonio)	Defendant's Argument (Price)	Held
Whether Antonio’s consent to adopt E.M. was unnecessary under § 9-9-207 because he failed for ≥1 year to communicate without justifiable cause	Protective orders and lack of knowledge of children’s location justified his limited communication	Protective orders did not prevent contact with the children; Renita provided means to contact and Antonio failed to use them	Reversed: court held consent was required; protective-order obstacles justified Antonio’s lack of communication so adoption of E.M. without his consent was not warranted
Whether Antonio could withhold consent to adopt G.L., a child to whom he acted in loco parentis	Antonio argued he should be able to object because of family unity and best-interest concerns	Price argued Antonio was not a legal parent and loco parentis status does not trigger § 9-9-207 consent requirement	Affirmed: Antonio is not G.L.’s parent; his consent not required and adoption by Price was in G.L.’s best interest
Whether the probate/circuit court’s factual findings about justifiable cause were clearly erroneous	Antonio argued court misapplied facts and should have found justifiable cause	Price relied on circuit court credibility determinations and evidence that opportunities to communicate existed	Mixed: Court deferred to credibility on G.L. issue but found clear error as to E.M. because pre-petition protective-order barriers justified Antonio’s noncommunication
Whether reversal of E.M.’s adoption affects best-interest finding for G.L.	Antonio argued separable outcome affects G.L.’s best interest and parentage dynamics	Price argued G.L.’s best interest is independent and adoption should stand	Court held G.L.’s adoption decision unaffected; affirmed adoption of G.L.

Key Cases Cited

Dillard v. Nix, 345 Ark. 215 (standard for appellate review of probate proceedings)
Morningstar v. Bush, 2011 Ark. 350 (clarifies clearly erroneous standard and deference to probate judge credibility)
In re Adoption of Lybrand, 329 Ark. 163 (requirement of clear and convincing evidence and definition of failure to communicate without justifiable cause)
In re K.F.H. & K.F.H., 311 Ark. 416 (definition of voluntary, willful, arbitrary failure to communicate)
Lucas v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 365 (failure need not be total to be "significant")
Racine v. Nelson, 2011 Ark. 50 (meaning of "significant" failure)
In re Adoption of A.M.C., 368 Ark. 369 (review standard for finding consent unnecessary under adoption statutes)
In re Adoption of M.K.C., 2009 Ark. 114 (deference to trial court credibility findings in child-welfare matters)