Sanders v. Savage
2015 Ark. App. 461
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Joshua Sanders is the biological father of two children born in 2007 and 2009; Janice (the mother) had custody after their relationship ended.
- Janice married Tyler in March 2013; Janice and Tyler petitioned in January 2014 for Tyler to adopt the children, asserting Joshua’s consent was not required.
- Joshua had sporadic, mostly supervised contact after 2011, paid child support earlier, and did not seek a court-ordered visitation schedule until September 2013.
- Janice and Tyler presented evidence that Tyler had been the consistent father figure since 2010 and the children called him “dad.”
- The circuit court found Joshua had “failed significantly without justifiable cause” to communicate with the children for over one year, that his consent was not required under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-207(a)(2), and that adoption was in the children’s best interests.
- Joshua appealed, arguing procedural defects deprived the court of jurisdiction, that his lack of communication was justified, and that adoption was not in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sanders) | Defendant's Argument (Savages) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / strict compliance with adoption code | Petition was filed before the one-year failure period accrued; procedural defect deprived court of jurisdiction | One-year period may be any one-year period; statutory requirements satisfied | Court rejected Sanders’s jurisdictional challenge; no defect barring jurisdiction |
| Whether consent unnecessary under § 9-9-207(a)(2) (failure to communicate/support) | His limited contact was justified; he made efforts (calls, visits via mother) and was prevented at times | He failed significantly and without justifiable cause to communicate for over a year; did not prioritize children or pursue court relief earlier | Trial court’s finding that consent was unnecessary was not clearly erroneous; requirement met by clear-and-convincing evidence |
| Whether consent was wrongfully withheld | N/A (court did not need to reach this if consent unnecessary) | N/A | Court did not decide because consent was found unnecessary under statute |
| Best interests of the children | Adoption is not in children’s best interests because biological father exists and had some contact | Tyler is the primary, consistent father figure; adoption serves children’s stability and welfare | Trial court’s best-interest determination affirmed; not against the preponderance of the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Swaffar v. Swaffar, 309 Ark. 73 (1992) (failure to strictly comply with adoption statute deprives probate court of jurisdiction)
- Pender v. McKee, 266 Ark. 18 (1979) ("failed significantly" does not mean total failure; must be meaningful)
- Harper v. Caskin, 265 Ark. 558 (1979) (heavy burden on party seeking adoption without natural parent’s consent)
- Cassat v. Hennis, 74 Ark. App. 226 (2001) (phone calls, letters, packages can evidence sufficient communication to require consent)
- In re Adoption of A.M.C., 368 Ark. 369 (2007) (the one-year period may be any one-year period)
- Racine v. Nelson, 378 S.W.3d 93 (Ark. 2011) (clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review principles in adoption cases)