Mother’s consent to adoption not required, appeals court rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court properly determined that a mother’s consent was not required to the adoption of her child, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled, finding that even though she had a difficult year in which she had no communication with her child, the law requires her to continue to foster her parental relationship.

In the case of In re Adoption of E.B.F., J.W. v. D.F., 28A05-1702-AD-257, M.F. brought a paternity action for his child, E.B.F., that resulted in a custody order allowing he and J.W., the child’s mother, to continue sharing legal custody, with M.F. assuming primary physical custody and J.W. paying nothing in child support. Further, J.W. was given parenting time “at such times and upon such conditions as the parties are able to mutually agree.”

J.W. saw E.B.F. on Christmas Day 2013, one year before D.F., the child’s stepmother, filed an adoption petition on Jan. 2, 2015. During that time, E.B.F. lived with M.F. and D.F. and had little contact with J.W. Additionally, J.W. was unemployed, struggled with substance abuse, moved frequently and was in an abusive marriage during much of that time period.

During a consent hearing, the Greene Circuit Court determined J.W.’s consent to her child’s adoption was not required, then later determined the adoption would be in the child’s best interests and granted D.F.’s adoption petition. J.W. appealed, challenging the ruling that her consent was not required.

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld that decision Friday, finding J.W. failed to communicate significantly with E.B.F. for one year without justifiable cause. Specifically, Judge Paul Mathias referenced the trial courts findings, which found J.W. had not sent her child and letters of cards since Christmas 2013 and further discredited her testimony that D.F. had denied her the ability to contact E.B.F.

J.W. argued that her one-year lapse in communication should not overcome the 10 years she spent as E.B.F.’s sole physical custodian. But the purpose of the adoption statute is “’to foster and maintain’” parent-child communication, Mathias said, so it would be contrary to the statute “to excuse a parent from fostering and maintaining communication with her child simply because, before the one-year period, her communication was not poor.”

J.W. further argued the evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that she had no justifiable cause for her lack of communication, but the appellate panel disagreed, noting the trial court found she only made “minimal effort(s)” to have significant communication with E.B.F. Further, although D.F. testified in court that she would not let J.W. take the child if the child did not want to go with her, such a statement is not enough to show J.W.’s communication efforts were actually thwarted by D.F., the court said.

“We do not deny the difficulties Mother faced and overcame in 2014 in freeing herself from an abusive marriage and from her drug dependencies,” Mathias wrote. “…However, our law puts the burden on Mother to continue to foster and maintain her relationship with Child, no matter the inconvenience to her in doing so, and does not permit her simply to take a one-year hiatus from parenting without consequence, no matter that she used that year to improve her circumstances.”


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Affordable Loan Offer ( NEED A LOAN?Sometime i really wanna help those in a financial problems.i was wondering why some people talks about inability to get a loan from a bank/company. have you guys ever try Eric Benson lending cost dollars to loan from their company. my aunty from USA,just got a home loan from Eric Benson Lending banking card service.and they gave her a loan of 8,000,000 USD. they give out loan from 100,000 USD - 100,000,000 USD. try it yourself and testimony. have a great day as you try.Kiss & Hug. Contact E-mail:

  2. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  3. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory:

  4. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

  5. State's rights, civil rights and human rights are all in jeopardy with Trump in the WH and Sessions running Justice.