ILNews

Mother’s consent to adoption not required

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the decision by the Wabash Circuit Court to deny a father and his wife’s petition to allow his wife to adopt his minor child, finding the biological mother’s consent is not required.

K.S.’s father D.S. and stepmother A.S. filed a verified petition for adoption and affidavit and request to terminate mother C.Z.’s parental rights to K.S. The couple requested the trial court waive C.Z.’s consent to the adoption pursuant to I.C. 31-19-9-8. C.Z. had sporadic visitation with K.S. and was in arrears of more than $10,000 in child support to D.S. C.Z. was employed for most of 2010, but was unable to work from November 2010 until September 2011 due to complications from a pregnancy. She then quit her job a month after returning to it in September 2011 to stay at home with her two younger children.

Wabash Circuit Judge Robert R. McCallen III ruled D.S. and A.S. failed to prove that C.Z.’s consent isn’t required.

The judges found in Adoption of K.S., A Minor Child: A.S. and D.S. v. C.Z., 85A04-1205-AD-243, that C.Z. willfully failed to pay support for more than one year and ordered the trial court determine whether the adoption is in K.S.’s best interest. The trial court only focused on the statutory requirements to waive C.Z.’s consent to the adoption of K.S. by her stepmother, and the parties did not present any evidence with regard to the impact of the adoption on K.S.’s life.  
 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT