Case Title: In Re Guardianship of TCW

Citation: 235 Neb. 716, 457 N.W.2d 282

Docket Number: 

State: nebraska

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Date: 1990-07-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
457 N.W.2d 282 (1990) 235 Neb. 716 In re GUARDIANSHIP OF T.C.W., a Minor Child. K.T. and J.T., Appellees, v. D.W., Appellant. No. 89-1141. Supreme Court of Nebraska. July 6, 1990. *283 Michael K. High, of Bruckner, O'Gara, Keating, Sievers & Hendry, P.C., Lincoln, for appellant. Victor Faesser, of Witte, Donahue & Faesser, P.C., Pawnee City, for appellees. HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ. WHITE, Justice. On the petition of K.T. and J.T., the stepfather and natural mother of T.C.W., then age 5, the county court for Pawnee County entered an order which was filed January 26, 1989, appointing a guardian for T.C.W. and authorizing the guardian to sign a substitute consent for adoption pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-105 (Reissue 1988). The court found by clear and convincing evidence that D.W., the natural father, had acted D.W., who had objected to the appointment of a guardian in the county court, appealed to the district court, which affirmed the county court. From that order and judgment the father appeals to this court, his sole assignment of error being that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of abandonment. These proceedings were initiated for the ultimate purpose of the adoption by K.T. of his stepdaughter. Appeals in adoption proceedings are reviewed by the district court and this court for error appearing on the record. In re Adoption of *284 C.L.R. and J.M.R., 218 Neb. 319, 352 N.W.2d 916 (1984); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-2733 (Reissue 1989). The marriage of J.T. and D.W. was dissolved April 9, 1986, by a decree of the circuit court of Warren County, Missouri. The mother was awarded custody of the couple's minor child born May 29, 1983. K.T. and the mother were married in Missouri on May 18, 1986, and on May 20 the family moved to Pawnee County, Nebraska. The evidence is uncontroverted that from June 1986 through December 1987, D.W. had no contact whatsoever with his child. He did not attempt to visit her, to call her on the telephone, nor to send her any letters or gifts. He did not pay any child support during this time. He admitted that no one kept him from having contact with the child. D.W., who was 27 years old at the time of the hearing, testified that when J.T. told him of the divorce, she also said that "maybe in a couple of years when you get your stuff together, get an apartment of your own, you'll be able to spend time with [T.C.W.]...." Although the divorce decree had granted him visitation of one Sunday per month, D.W. said that he set a goal of 2 years to try to rebuild his life so that he could carry on a productive relationship with his child. From the last time he saw T.C.W. until February 1988, D.W. testified that, apparently for employment opportunities, he moved from Missouri to Sacramento, California, and then on to several different locations in the Boston, Massachusetts, area. He was living in Boston at the time of the hearing. D.W.'s father contacted him in January 1988, informing him of the adoption proceedings. D.W. called J.T. in February to discuss the matter, but did not inquire about his daughter after talking to J.T. and K.T. for approximately 1 hour. On March 19 and 20, 1988, D.W. visited his daughter, and he testified that during the visit he established a father-to-daughter bond with her. Since then he has called his daughter several times and has sent her letters and gifts. The appellant's brief cites In re Adoption of Simonton, 211 Neb. 777, 320 N.W.2d 449 (1982), and In re Guardianship of Sain, 217 Neb. 96, 348 N.W.2d 435 (1984), for authority in adoption cases where abandonment was the issue. In Simonton, we reversed the county court's finding of abandonment where the father showed sporadic contact with his two minor children. In the syllabi of the court we held: .... In Sain, we affirmed the lower court's finding that the father had not abandoned his minor child. We said that the record showed that the father's ex-wife, who had custody of the child and had remarried, played an active role in preventing the father from exercising his rights of visitation. No one prevented D.W. from seeing his daughter in this case, and there was not even sporadic contact during the statutory *285 period, nor for some 12 months prior to that. While the ties of a natural parent are not to be treated lightly in adoption proceedings, neither should noncustodial parents treat lightly their rights and responsibilities toward their minor children. Although a parent-child relationship was apparently rekindled by a visit after the adoption proceedings were initiated, this cannot justify a period of 18 months where not a flicker of interest was shown. We noted in Simonton: In re Adoption of Simonton, supra at 783-84, 320 N.W.2d at 454. The record shows not a mere inadequacy, but a total parental absence toward a minor child of a young and tender age. The question of abandonment is largely one of intent to be determined in each case from all the facts and circumstances. In re Guardianship of Sain, supra. The county court heard the facts and circumstances in the hearing for appointment of a guardian to give substitute consent for adoption. Under our review for error on the record, we cannot say that the court's finding of abandonment was clearly wrong, nor do we find any other error warranting reversal. The judgment of the district court, affirming the order of the county court, is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED.