T.H. and R.H. v. C.J. (mem. dec.), 32A01-1611-AD-2712

Child born Dec. 2010; mother died soon after. Father was guardian but did not initially establish paternity. Guardians (father’s mother and step‑father) later became successor guardians and cared for the child.
Father lived intermittently with Guardians (2012–2014), had unstable employment early on, later obtained more stable work and higher income by 2015; he also married and had another child.
Guardians received the child’s Social Security survivor benefits ($766/month) after appointment as successor guardians; those benefits would have gone to Father if child had been in his custody.
Guardians filed to adopt in May 2016 and argued Father’s consent was unnecessary because he abandoned and failed to support the child; Father intervened and sought to establish paternity and custody.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, applied the clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard, found Father did not knowingly fail to provide care and support when able, and dismissed the adoption petition for lack of consent.
Guardians appealed, arguing the trial court’s findings (regarding Father’s inability to support in 2012–2013, provision of support in 2015–2016, and lack of evidence about 2015 income) were contrary to law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father’s consent to adoption was unnecessary because he knowingly failed to provide care and support when able	Guardians: Father never paid child support in specified periods and thus knowingly failed to provide support	Father: intermittently unable to provide support early on; later provided nonmonetary and some monetary support; Social Security benefits diverted to Guardians covered much of child’s needs	Court: Father’s consent was required; Guardians failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father knowingly failed to provide support when able
Whether trial court applied correct legal standard for reviewing a negative judgment	Guardians: court erred in assessing evidence about Father’s income and support	Court/Defendant: trial court applied clear‑and‑convincing standard and weighed totality of circumstances	Court: trial court applied correct legal standard and its factual findings were supported by the record

M.W. v. A.W. (In re N.W.), 933 N.E.2d 909 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (clear‑and‑convincing burden in adoption consent waiver context)
M.W. v. A.W., 941 N.E.2d 1042 (Ind. 2011) (adoption of appellate panel decision on burden standard)
Serenity Springs v. LaPorte Cty. Convention & Visitors Bureau, 986 N.E.2d 314 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (definition and treatment of a negative judgment)
Kotsopoulos v. Peters Broad. Eng’g, Inc., 962 N.E.2d 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reversing a negative judgment — contrary to law review)
Town of Fortville v. Certain Fortville Annexation Territory Landowners, 51 N.E.3d 1195 (Ind. 2016) (judgment contrary to law includes application of incorrect legal standard)
Je. B. v. Ja. B. (In re M.B.), 944 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (nonmonetary parental contributions may constitute support)
C.L.S. v. A.L.S. (In re M.S.), 10 N.E.3d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (examples of evidence supporting waiver of parental consent)