ILNews

High court rules on putative father adoption case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that a putative father who files a paternity action in a court other than the court in which the adoption case is pending meets statutory requirements and doesn't imply his permanent consent to that adoption.

In a 4-1 decision June 26, justices decided the Bartholomew County case of In Re Adoption of Unborn Child of B.W., W.G. v. D.B. and J.B., No. 03S04-0810-CV-560, which is the first to come from the Indiana State Bar Association's pro bono appellate program. Four justices made up the majority, but the chief justice dissented while another justice concurred in result and wrote the debated statutes provide "multiple opportunities for confusion or even intentional obfuscation."

The adoption case revolves around the minor child T.B., who was born out of wedlock in late 2006. Since the biological father, W.G., was incarcerated at the time, the trial court granted temporary custody to the adoptive parents. The jailed father received notice of the pending adoption and filed a motion to establish paternity in Circuit Court, rather than in Superior Court where the adoption case was pending. He later filed a more expansive motion entitled, "Petition to Establish Paternity and Contest Adoption of Unknown Minor Child," in that same Circuit paternity action. The adoptive parents claim that his failure to file it in the proper court nullified the motion; Bartholomew Superior Judge Chris Monroe determined that W.G. had failed to follow the statutory requirements to contest that adoption in Superior Court in a timely fashion, and his consent was irrevocably implied because of that.

The father argued that Indiana Code Sections 31-19-4-5 and -9-12 are in conflict because they require the putative father to file a motion to contest the adoption or to initiate a paternity action within 30 days of being served with the petition for adoption and notice of named father. Also, that county's local court rules require all paternity cases be filed in Circuit Court.

In July 2008, the Court of Appeals ruled the statutes can be "harmonized and rationalized to give effect to both statutes, given the recognition of the named father's obligation" to consult Indiana's adoption statutes as is stated in the notice of pending adoption proceedings.

But a majority of justices disagreed, finding that the biological father's actions of filing a paternity action in a different county court didn't irrevocably imply his consent for an adoption despite his failure to file a motion to contest in adoption court.

"In sum, we hold that under Indiana Code § 31-19-9-12(1), to be deemed to have implied his irrevocable consent to an adoption, a putative father must fail to file both a paternity action and a motion to contest the adoption," Justice Brent Dickson wrote. "The appellant-father here undisputedly timely filed his paternity action. It is therefore unnecessary to decide whether his timely attempt to contest the adoption, filed in the Circuit Court rather than in the Superior Court where the adoption was pending, satisfied the adoption implied consent statute. The paternity action sufficed to preclude a finding of implied irrevocable consent to the adoption."

The majority reversed and remanded the Bartholomew Superior Court ruling, while Justice Ted Boehm concurred in result but has concerns about the statutes.

"The statutes should not permit a filing in another court to suspend the prompt resolution of an adoption," he wrote. "Dueling jurisdictions, or even the need for transfer and consolidation, are formulas for delay. Nor should there be any doubt what a putative father must do to preserve his rights. I hope the General Assembly will consider requiring that a putative father wishing to contest an adoption or declare paternity must file in the court in which an adoption action is pending or otherwise assure consolidation of these two proceedings to reduce the opportunity for delay and confusion, while still preserving all rights of the putative father."

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard dissented, finding the majority's ruling sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

He wrote. "... it will also provide a very simple roadmap for obstructionists, a tool to use in preventing what my colleagues call the 'expeditious placement of eligible children.' In this instance, it prevents the expeditious placement of a child who has known only these adoptive parents during the entire 32 months since his birth."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT