ILNews

Trial court correctly ruled mother’s consent needed for adoption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals noted in a decision Monday that the state adoption statute is a bit of a “puzzle” before affirming the lower court’s decision to deny a woman’s attempt to adopt her fiancé’s child. But it found the fiancée may file another petition for adoption if she so chooses.

Fiancée R.S.P. filed a petition to adopt J.T.A., who is the son of her fiancé J.M.A. and S.S. The father was granted custody of the boy when the child was about 3 years old due to mother’s drug use, and S.S. was ordered to pay child support. R.S.P. and J.M.A. have two children together and R.S.P. wanted to adopt the boy because she was concerned if something happened to J.T.A., she would lose the child and his life would be turned upside down. The father consented to the petition. Jasper Circuit Judge John D. Potter denied the fiancée’s petition on the mistaken belief that because the couple was not married at the time of the hearing, if the adoption were granted then both the biological mother's and father’s parental rights would be severed.

In In the Matter of the Adoption of J.T.A.; R.S.P. v. S.S., 37A03-1212-AD-525, the Court of Appeals pointed to In re Adoption of K.S.P., 804 N.E.2d 1253, 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), to support its decision. Neither R.S.P. nor J.M.A. wanted to have his parental rights terminated by the adoption.

“… (I)t would be absurd and contrary to the intent of the legislature to divest Father of his parental rights where he would continue to live in a family unit with the Child and parent the Child. Father’s parental rights would not have been terminated had the adoption been granted,” Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote.

R.S.P. argued that the mother didn’t have to consent to the adoption because she had abandoned her child and/or failed to pay support. The record supports that mother had regular contact with her child in the six moths before the filing of the adoption petition and that she did not intend to relinquish all parental claims.

Robb also pointed out that the burden falls on R.S.P. to prove that the failure to support ground was met so that the mother’s consent was not required. The record is silent on her ability to provide during the six years that she was ordered to pay support and did not do so.

The COA also rejected R.S.P.’s claim that the mother’s consent was implied because she didn’t consent to the adoption within 30 days of receiving notice. But the adoption statute seems to have been written with the assumption that a mother would give up her child for adoption and that notice would be given to the father. The statute is not gender-neutral and appears on its face not to apply to the mother.

“However, we do not believe that it could be the intent of the legislature to have numerous and detailed requirements for notice to fathers and putative fathers but few or no notice requirements for mothers,” Robb wrote.

There’s no indication that S.S. was ever notified that she needed to consent to the adoption within 30 days or her consent would be implied. Without proper or complete notice, the clock never began ticking on any requirement for her to consent, the court concluded.

Nothing in this decision prevents R.S.P. from filing another petition to adopt the child, the court pointed out.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT