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. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT