Case Title: Matter of Adoption of CAM

Citation: 

Docket Number: C-93-2

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1993-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Matter of Adoption of CAM1993 WY 136861 P.2d 1102Case Number: C-93-2Decided: 10/29/1993Supreme Court of Wyoming
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF CAM, a Minor: MKG, 

Appellant 
(Respondent),

 

 v. 

 

CM, 

Appellee 
(Petitioner).

 Appeal from the District Court of 
Laramie County: The Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge Representing the Appellant: 
Carol A. Serelson, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Representing the 
Appellee: Maynard D. Grant of Grant & Newcomb, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming.Before MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, GOLDEN, and TAYLOR, 
JJ.MACY, Chief Justice.[¶1]            
The adoptive father appeals from the district court's order vacating a 
final decree of adoption which had granted his adoption of the natural father's 
son.[¶2]            
We affirm.[¶3]            
The adoptive father poses the following issues for our 
consideration:

I. 
Whether the trial court erred when it ruled that [the adoptive father] was 
required to use due diligence in attempting to locate [the natural father] prior 
to serving by publication.II. Whether the trial court erred when it 
ruled that the [adoptive father] failed to exercise due diligence in attempting 
to locate [the natural father] prior to serving by 
publication.

[¶4]            
The natural father and the mother were married in Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma, in 1979, and the son was born in December 1980. The family lived in 
Oklahoma until October 1981, when it moved to Fort Collins, Colorado. The family 
returned to Oklahoma in December 1981. The natural father and the mother 
separated shortly thereafter. The natural father remained in Oklahoma, and the 
mother moved back to Fort Collins in early 1982. Following their separation, the 
parents informally arranged for liberal visitations with their son. Each parent 
had custody of the son for approximately six months during the first year after 
their separation.[¶5]            
In June 1982, the mother filed for a divorce from the natural father in 
the district court for Larimer County, Colorado. The court eventually dismissed 
the petition for lack of prosecution. Apparently, the mother did not realize 
that a divorce had not been granted because she married the adoptive father in 
Fort Collins on December 1, 1982. Following their marriage, the mother and the 
adoptive father lived in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where the adoptive father was 
stationed at F.E. Warren Air Force Base. In February 1983, the Air Force 
transferred the adoptive father to Germany for four years. The mother and the 
son also moved to Germany.[¶6]            
The mother and the son lived with the adoptive father in Germany for the 
first two years of his tour of duty, and they returned to the United States in 
1985. In 1986, the mother and the adoptive father became estranged. The 
mother became involved with drugs during this time and was unable to care for 
the son. The adoptive father's parents obtained temporary custody of the son 
while the mother was unable to care for him. In May 1987, the adoptive father 
completed his tour of duty in Germany and returned to Wyoming. The son joined 
him in Wyoming a few months later.[¶7]            
On December 3, 1987, the adoptive father petitioned the district court 
for Laramie County, Wyoming, to adopt the son, and the mother filed her consent 
to the adoption. The adoptive father served the natural father with notice of 
the petition by publishing a notice in a Cheyenne newspaper. According to an 
affidavit filed with his petition, the adoptive father and his attorney could 
not ascertain the natural father's whereabouts. On February 19, 1988, the 
district court entered a final decree of adoption granting the care and custody 
of the son with all attendant rights and responsibilities to the adoptive 
father. The natural father was unaware that the adoption proceedings were being 
conducted.[¶8]            
The natural father's last contact with his son was in January 1983 when 
he flew from Oklahoma City to Denver with the son to return him to his 
mother and the adoptive father. At this time, the natural father was not aware 
that the mother and the adoptive father were married. Nor did he know what the 
adoptive father's last name was. The natural father first learned of the 
mother's remarriage in March 1983 when his mother-in-law informed him that the 
mother had remarried and moved from Fort Collins. The mother-in-law would not 
tell the natural father where the mother had moved, and she told him in a letter 
not to bother her family anymore. In the fall of 1991, the natural father first 
learned what the adoptive father's name was and that the mother had died. The 
natural father contacted the adoptive father to request permission to visit with 
his son. The adoptive father refused. The natural father subsequently received a 
letter from his mother-in-law informing him that the son had been adopted and 
that it would not be appropriate for him to visit the son.[¶9]            
On February 27, 1992, the natural father filed a petition to vacate the 
adoption decree. The district court granted the petition on November 17, 1992, 
reasoning that the natural father's due process rights were violated because 
the adoptive father failed to exercise reasonable diligence in attempting 
to ascertain the natural father's whereabouts prior to making service by 
publication.[¶10]          
The adoptive father's first issue on appeal is whether the district court 
erred when it found that due diligence was required prior to making service by 
publication. He argues that the applicable statute, WYO. STAT. § 
1-22-107(a)(1988), did not require him to exercise due diligence when he was 
attempting to locate the natural father. Section 1-22-107(a) provides: 

(a) 
Prior to the hearing a copy of the petition to adopt a child and all orders to 
show cause shall be served on any persons whose consent to adoption is required 
by W.S. 1-22-109 and whose consent has not been filed with the petition to 
adopt. Service shall be made in the same manner as provided for by rule 4 of the 
Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure and shall be accomplished so that a default 
judgment could be rendered at the hearing against the person served. Service by 
publication is specifically allowed where the defendant resides out of state, 
or his residence cannot, with reasonable diligence, be 
ascertained.

(Emphasis 
added.) The adoptive father contends, relying upon Voss v. Ralston, 550 P.2d 481, 485 (Wyo. 1976), that the first clause of the last sentence is a 
separate alternative which does not require due diligence since that clause is 
separated from the remaining clause in that sentence by the disjunctive "or." We 
disagree because that interpretation is inconsistent with a plain reading of the 
statute.[¶11]          
Section 1-22-107(a) plainly adopts the requirements of W.R.C.P. 4 when it 
provides: "Service shall be made in the same manner as provided for by rule 4 of 
the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure." Before its revision in 1992, W.R.C.P. 
4(f) provided in part: 

(f) 
Requirements for service by publication.--Before service by publication 
can be made, an affidavit of the party, his agent or attorney, must be filed 
stating that service of a summons cannot be made within this state, on the 
defendant to be served by publication, and stating his address, if known, or 
that his address is unknown and cannot with reasonable diligence be ascertained 
. . . .

W.R.C.P. 
4(f) clearly required the serving party to exercise reasonable diligence when he 
was attempting to ascertain a nonresident's address prior to  making 
service by publication. Consequently, if service pursuant to § 1-22-107 were to 
be made in the same manner as required by W.R.C.P. 4, the serving party would 
have to exercise reasonable diligence when he was attempting to locate the 
nonresident's address.[¶12]          
The adoptive father's second issue is whether, if due diligence was 
required, the district court erred in finding that he had failed to exercise 
such diligence in attempting to locate the natural father. In Colley v. 
Dyer, 821 P.2d 565, 568 (Wyo. 1991), we defined due diligence as being 

"'that 
which is reasonable under the circumstances and not all possible diligence which 
may be conceived. Nor is it that diligence which stops just short of the place 
where if it were continued might reasonably be expected to uncover an address . 
. . of the person on whom service is sought . . . . Due diligence must be 
tailored to fit the circumstances of each case. It is that diligence which is 
appropriate to accomplish the end sought and which is reasonably calculated to 
do so.'"

  Carlson 
[v. Bos], 740 P.2d [1269,] 1277 n.13 [(Utah 1987)] (quoting Parker v. 
Ross, 117 Utah 417, 217 P.2d 373, 379 (1950)). 

[¶13]          
Applying Colley's definition of due diligence to the facts of this 
case, we conclude that the adoptive father failed to make a diligent effort to 
locate the natural father. At the hearing on the petition to vacate the 
adoption, the adoptive father explained his efforts to locate the natural 
father: 

Q. 
[The adoptive father], what reasonable, probable efforts did you make to ensure 
that [the natural father] knew that you were going to adopt . . . -- you were 
going to adopt [the son]?A. What did I do to ensure that he was 
notified?Q. Yes.A. I followed what my lawyer had told me to do, 
which was to take out an ad in the newspaper.Q. And that's the only 
thing you did?A. And whatever else. That was it. That's all I can 
recollect right now.Q. Well, do you want a minute to reflect on 
that?Is there any possibility that you did anything else besides put an 
ad in the newspaper?A. Besides look in the phone directory down in Fort 
Coffins, that was the extent of it.

 The 
adoptive father also testified that he questioned the mother about the natural 
father's whereabouts but that she was unresponsive due to her involvement with 
drugs.[¶14]          
The district court found that merely questioning his wife as to the 
natural father's location and examining the Fort Collins telephone directory did 
not constitute due diligence. We agree. Several factors indicated that the 
Oklahoma City area was the logical place to locate the natural father. The 
adoptive father knew that the son visited his natural father in Oklahoma City 
during the summer of 1982. During that same summer, the adoptive father traveled 
to Oklahoma City for a wedding, and during his visit he met the natural father 
in Midwest City, which is a suburb of Oklahoma City. In January 1983, the 
natural father flew from Oklahoma City to the Denver airport with the son to 
return him to his mother. As stated by the district court: "It makes no sense to 
limit the search to Ft. Collins when the last actual contact took place at the 
airport with [the natural father] flying from Oklahoma City."[¶15]          
The adoptive father also could have attempted to contact the natural 
father's relatives. While the adoptive father was in Oklahoma City during the 
summer of 1982, he and the mother visited Tommy Leisy, the natural father's 
cousin, at his house. Even though the adoptive father was under the erroneous 
impression that Mr. Leisy was the son's uncle, attempting to contact Mr. 
Leisy in order to discover the natural father's address would have been 
logical.[¶16]          
Under the Colley test, the adoptive father was not required to 
exercise all conceivable diligence prior to making service by publication but 
rather was required to exercise that diligence which was reasonable under the 
circumstances. That meant making sincere efforts to secure the natural father's 
address. TG v. Lee (Interest of SVG), 826 P.2d 237, 242 (Wyo. 1992). The 
adoptive father failed to exercise the requisite level of diligence in this case 
when he made no effort to locate the natural father in the Oklahoma City 
area.[¶17]          
Affirmed.