Racine v. Nelson
2011 Ark. 50
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Appellant Alfred Henry Racine III and appellee Helane Nelson lived in a nonmarital relationship and had a biological child, L.N., in Arkansas after moving from Virginia.
- Nelson faced substantial pregnancy and birth costs; Racine provided minimal financial support beyond a $750 check and ceased contact after May 2006.
- Nelson relocated to Arkansas in 2006 and established residency, while Racine did not register with the Arkansas Putative Father Registry.
- Nelson filed for adoption of L.N. in February 2008; Racine filed a paternity petition in January 2008, which was supported by a DNA test confirming paternity.
- The circuit court held a trial with conflicting testimony on Racine’s efforts to locate, communicate with, and support L.N., and ultimately granted the adoption petition, concluding Racine’s consent was not required and that adoption was in L.N.’s best interest.
- Racine appealed, challenging the adoption statutes, the best-interest finding, the constitutionality of § 9-9-207, and the handling of his paternity petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Racine’s consent was required for adoption. | Racine argues consent should be required under 9-9-206/9-9-207. | Nelson contends consent is not required due to lack of significant relation and support. | Consent not required under 9-9-207(a)(2). |
| Whether the circuit court properly found failure to communicate or support. | Racine asserts sufficient communication/support existed to require consent. | Nelson urges the court properly credited evidence showing failure to communicate or support. | No clear error; court’s findings supported by credibility determinations. |
| Constitutionality of 9-9-207(a)(ll) as applied. | Racine claims § 9-9-207(a)(ll) violates due process, privacy, and separation of powers. | Nelson argues Racine lacks standing and was not prejudiced; statute operates constitutionally. | Sec. 9-9-207(a)(ll) applied to Racine; constitutionality not challenged further. |
| Best interests of L.N. standard in adoption. | Racine contends the best interest favored maintaining paternal relationship if possible. | Nelson asserts best interest weighed against prolonged instability and lack of paternal involvement. | Adoption in L.N.’s best interest; credibility determinations support the conclusion. |
| Whether paternity petition should have been adjudicated before adoption. | Racine argues tolling should apply if paternity adjudication occurred prior to adoption. | Nelson maintains court should not address tolling where no ruling on paternity petition was made. | Preclusion on considering tolling due to no circuit court ruling on the issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harper v. Caskin, 265 Ark. 558, 580 S.W.2d 176 (1979) (strictly construed adoption statutes; burden to prove unnecessary consent is clear and convincing)
- In re Adoption of A.M.C., 246 S.W.3d 426 (Ark. 2007) (one-year period for significant relationship may precede petition)
- In re Adoption of M.K.C., 318 S.W.3d 513 (Ark. 2009) (trial court credibility given great deference in best-interest analysis)
- McAdams v. McAdams, 109 S.W.3d 649 (Ark. 2003) (definition of putative father and related standards)
- In re Adoption of Tompkins, 20 S.W.3d 385 (Ark. 2000) (strict construction of adoption statutes)
- Escobedo v. Nickita, 231 S.W.3d 601 (Ark. 2006) (due-process considerations in adoption context)
- Wineman v. Brewer, 660 S.W.2d 655 (Ark. 1983) (standing to challenge statute; Arkansas Putative Father Registry context)