*1 A. J. OF of the ADOPTION Matter No. 2103.
Supreme of Alaska. Court
Aug. 16, 1974.
521 petition granted ommended that be allowing adoption and a decree the was en- tered; appealed from the decree. that there was below error peti- and and the decree vacated the order tion dismissed.
Ordinarily,
natu
the
of the
consent
necessary
guardian
parents
legal
ral
or
adoption
However under
proceedings.
circumstances,
statutorily-specified
certain
Cranston, Gallagher Cran-
Charles K.
&
required.1
no consent is
ston, Anchorage,
appellant.
petition
on three statu
R.T. relied
Miller,
Christie,
Kay,
Reginald
Jr.,
J.
He al
tory exceptions
the
rule.
consent
Fuld, Anchorage,
Libbey, Kelly, Christie &
Annyce’s
been
leged that
father
not
appellee.
custody of
partial
full or
awarded either
her,
the child
that he had abandoned
OPINION
thirty days
filing
peti
of the
preceding the
and
J.,
C.
Before
tion,
the
and
he was unfit
to have
and
CONNOR, ERWIN, BOOCHEVER
custody
and
of her.2
care
FITZGERALD, JJ.
testimony
reviewing the
After
FITZGERALD,
master,
presented
the
hearing
Justice.
in the
before
recommendations, the
Annyce,
considering
a
and
father of
natural
R.N. is the
granting R.T.’s
not
trial court
a decree
was
entered
girl.
ten
old
deci
di-
parents
petition.
were
The rationale of
age her
quite
years of
two
finding was
divorce
sion is
A
months after the
unclear.
vorced. Several
thereupon
and
Annyce’s
was awarded “full
who
mother
married
her mother
custo4y” of
in the divorce
desired
her
Annyce’s stepfather. He
exclusive
became
However,
also
accordingly
proceedings.
filed
adopt
and
superior
given
court.
had been
substantial
found
purpose
petition for
at
petition and
court did not
the
trial
objections to
filed
this court’s
hearing
a mas-
the benefit of
a
before
the matter went to
Fawcett,
rec-
515 P.2d
opinion
Delgado
The master
superior
ter of the
court.
provides
ing
outside
state not less than
:
inside or
20.10.040
AS
hearing;
days
the date
before
adoption
a
of minor
Consent for
parent
(5)
who
from a
was
divorced
quired
custody
part-time
or
awarded full
child;
(1)
parent
was
than one
a
more
from
who
parent
person-
be
shall
filing
petition
year prior
a
petition
ally
copy
and
a
of the
served with
adjudged
insane,
and not
be
hearing
notice of
inside or outside
sane;
legally declared
thereafter
days before the date
state not less than 20
(2)
imprisoned in
from
who
hearing;
of the
filing
penitentiary
time of the
(6)
adjudged
petition
for a term of
under sentence
unfit
be
to have
care
years more;
three
copy
hearing
upon
(3)
shall be served
abandon-
whose wilful
parent by personal service
inside
outside
in a
ment of the child has been established
days
judicial
proceeding;
the state at least
before the hear-
ing;
(4)
abandon-
from a
whose wilful
(7)
person
from the natural
father
days
ment for a
of not less than 30
adopted
illegitimate birth,
be
is a minor of
is es-
subsequently legitimitized,
and notice
adoption proceeding; but
in the
tablished
given
need not
him.
personally
shall be
served
(5),
copy
20.10.040(4),
(6).
hear-
AS
and notice
held that week for
R.N.’s first effort
1973),
wherein
his six weeks’
was
exercise
rights amount
he
frustrated when was informed
purposes of AS
Pennsyl-
nyce
ill
visit him
too
light of Delgado
courts,
sought
He
vania.
the aid of
and cannot
is untenable
conclusion
mother,
necessity of
and in 1968
who
dispensing with the
basis for
*3
contempt
appear, was
in
Because
failed to
held
consent to the
R.N.’s
re-
Pennsylvania
was also
court. R.N.
finding
on the
support
and all ar-
obligation
its
lieved of
only finding
on
which
issue was
testified that
decision,
rearages
were remitted. He
have
face could
validated
fund
he has since established a trust
or-
must
vacate the trial court’s
of course
it.
Annyce
payments to
regular
and makes
der.
R.T.,
Annyce
his wife and
to Or-
moved
Normally
remand this
we would
to
egon,
where in
filed a
1970R.T.
findings on
new
case to the trial court for
adopt Annyce.
Oregon
The
court denied
How
allegations
R.T.
the other
rejecting
that R.
petition,
claim
ever,
matter
bringing this
in the interests of
wilfully
neglected to
N. had
deserted or
appeal
in this
to a conclusion and because
statutory
provide
Annyce
court
entire lower
we have examined the
steadily
period.5
has
that
R.N.
maintained
record,
determine
we have
to
decided
willing
support
he is
to
contribute to
find
support a
whether the evidence could
Annyce if he were
his visitation
afforded
his unfit
ing that
shown
R.N.
either
rights. Annyce’s
informed of
mother was
his child.
as
ness
abandoned
pro-
Oregon
offer at the time
her di
mother obtained
ceeding
pursue
but declined to
it.
Pennsylvania
in
in
vorce
R.N.
to
R.T.,
his wife and
moved
Within a few months she married
initiated
Alaska and soon thereafter R.T.
At the
now
Air Force psychiatrist.
an
present petition.
communica-
placed in
the divorce
in
parties
appears
tion between
mother;
the care of her
it was understood
adoption proceedings, and
connection with
that R.N. would
have reasonable
has
little
R.N.
or no contact with
rights. R.N. was able
visit her several
years.
in recent
in
mother’s
times
to the
prior
persuades
can
history
us
there
that
R.T.
be
marriage
point
At that
R.N.
finding that
has “abandoned”
be no
attempts to
having problems
gan
as that
in AS
term used
accepted
daughter.
visit his
R.T.
Carolina, Pennsyl
employment in North
modified
vania court
the divorce decree
The trial court
concluded
year.
six
allow R.N.
weeks’ visitation each
Annyce. This
is in the best interests of
pay
At the same time
R.N. was ordered
interests of
court has stated
the best
per
support
in the amount of $25
deciding an
the child are a valid
in
factor
3. “We hold that a
who has the
being
“Upon hearing
had,
finds
adop-
visit his children must consent
to the
wilfully
deserted
tion of his children.”
duct which on pornographic have sent him unwelcome lit- plies obliga conscious this, erature. R.N. denied and testified by parent leading tions owed ignorant that he was of R.T.’s address to the destruction of Oregon. relationship.”7 The test focuses on two Finally, urged suffers questions —has anxiety acute resulting and insomnia parental denced a for his stress was in- situations. Judicial *4 tions, disregard and has the de led to deed raising taken parent-child relationship? struction of stress, child involves no there was The best interests of the are relevant showing experi- that the stress reactions question, latter because indica any way enced R.N. his would affect tive of a breakdown re of dispute fitness as a parent. do not lationship if the interests are child’s best assumption, this but we note promoted by legal severance of the rela asking for “full-time” of tion. But the child’s interests best nyce. only sought He has to enforce his always directly question relevant to the rights against to defend parent’s disregard obligations. his of only the test can be satisfied disputed The sum total of these asser- by proof tions cannot warrant R.N. unfit as dences a conscious his parent. study of the record leads us Our respect tions. his R.N.’s conduct with prove to conclude that R.T. has failed to does not evidence a claims, and we remand the with case parental obligations. He has consist directions that the decree be vacated and ently sought enjoy rights dismissed. only to be frustrated the obstructions placed way by R.T. He has estab (concur- Chief Justice daughter’s lished a trust' account for part, dissenting ring part). inability His a close benefit. to establish dis- agreement I am in relationship with his is not of position issues in this case with of all choice, doing spite but in his wishes. the fitness of exception question To constituted an hold R.N.’s conduct custody An- R.N. to have the totally abandonment would be unfair pre- nyce. this issue I would regard encourage could serve to the obstruc and re- practice fer to follow our “normal” tion of court-ordered superior court with mand the matter to the findings of instructions make additional R.
R.T.’s final contention was that
regarding R.
fact and conclusions of law
was unfit to continue as the
impor-
parent.
N.’s fitness as a
testimony were
Given
Photographs and
dispute
tance of this
all involved and
prove
placed ink
admitted to
that R.N. had
evidentiary background pertaining to R.N.’s
leg daughter’s
marks on his
stomach and
preferable
su-
fitness I
it
that the
stamp.
al
think
1967with a rubber name
It was
perior
initially
requisite
leged
placed
make
that the
marks were also
private
pho-
findings
no
of fact.
parts
girl
(footnote omitted).
7.