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

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 can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT