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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT