Case Title: In re Adoption of Baby Boy K.B.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 109333

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2011-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF BABY BOY K.B.2011 OK 94Case Number: 109333Decided: 11/01/2011THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN 
THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR 
WITHDRAWAL. 

In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby Boy K.B., a Minor 
Child.
M.B. and V.B., [Prospective] Adoptive Parents,andBaby 
Boy K.B., Appellants,v.T.R., Putative Father, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM ELLIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
¶0 Prospective Adoptive Parents and Baby Boy K.B. sought review of the 
district court's decision, Hon. F. "Pat" VerSteeg, to deny prospective adoptive 
parents' motion to terminate biological father's parental rights and petition 
for adoption. District court also held that physical custody of Baby Boy K.B. 
must be returned to the biological father. 
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT 
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
Susan Meinders, Meinders & Meinders, PC, Woodward, Harvey D. Ellis, Crowe 
& Dunlevy, PC, Oklahoma City, Melanie W. Rughani, Crowe & Dunlevy, PC, 
Oklahoma City, for Appellants M.B. and V.B.Carelyn S. Talley, Foard & 
Talley, PLLC, Woodward, for Appellant Baby Boy K.B.Ryan Meacham, Randolph S. 
Meacham, PC, Clinton, Appellee T.R.
COLBERT, V.C.J.
¶1 The question presented is whether K.B. is eligible for adoption - more 
specifically, whether K.B. is eligible for adoption without the consent of his 
biological father. This Court holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion 
by holding that K.B. is not eligible for adoption because K.B.'s biological 
father exercised his parental rights regarding K.B., including contributing to 
the support of the biological mother during pregnancy.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 T.R., Putative father1 of K.B., and J.B., biological mother of K.B., had a 
physical relationship for several months despite the fact that J.B. was married 
to another man. J.B. and her husband were having marital problems during the 
course of her relationship with T.R. During the majority of the affair, J.B.'s 
husband was working out of town for months at a time. K.B. was born on July 11, 
2010. It was determined by genetic testing that T.R. was the biological father 
of K.B. 
¶3 After K.B.'s birth, J.B. and her husband relinquished their parental 
rights and consented to K.B.'s adoption. J.B. selected M.B. and V.B. as the 
prospective adoptive parents. K.B. went home from the hospital with the 
prospective adoptive parents. Shortly after K.B. was born, T.R. saw J.B. at the 
local grocery store. It was then that he learned that J.B. had given birth and 
that K.B. was to be adopted. T.R. contacted an attorney and filed a motion for 
determination of paternity in Ellis County. T.R.'s paternity was established by 
genetic testing. 
¶4 On October 21, 2010, the parties appeared before Judge VerSteeg and 
stipulated that T.R. was the natural father of K.B. The court then heard 
arguments regarding placement of K.B. with T.R. as the child's natural father. 
Judge VerSteeg denied T.R.'s request for custody at that time. The court did 
award T.R. visitation until the matter regarding the termination of his parental 
rights could be decided. 
¶5 On March 24, 2011, a hearing regarding adoptive parents' motion to 
terminate the natural father's parental rights was held. At the conclusion of 
those proceedings the judge held that T.R. clearly exercised his paternal rights 
and that he made monetary contributions to the natural mother during her 
pregnancy. The court then found that T.R. was entitled to custody of K.B., but 
allowed M.B. and V.B. visitation until the next scheduled hearing. The record 
does not reflect that another hearing ever occurred. 
¶6 In an order on April 4, 2011, the trial court denied the adoptive parents' 
petition for adoption. Adoptive parents appealed that decision and this Court 
granted their motion to retain. 
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7 "An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court exercises its discretion 
'to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and 
evidence. It is discretion employed on untenable grounds or for untenable 
reasons, or a discretionary act which is manifestly unreasonable.'" State v. 
Vaughn, 2000 OK 
63, ¶ 8, 11 P.3d 211, 214 (quoting Patel v. OMH Med. Ctr., Inc., 1999 OK 33, ¶ 20, 987 P.2d 1185, 1194). "In cases where abuse of 
discretion is raised, the discretionary act will be reviewed and if abuse is 
involved, the abuse will be corrected." Broadwater v. Courtney, 
1991 OK 39, ¶ 7, 809 P.2d 1310, 1312.
III. ANALYSIS
¶8 "The importance of the right to consent to an adoption has been recognized 
as an important right in and of itself. The law presumes that consent of a 
child's natural parents is necessary before an adoption may be effected." 
Steltzlen v. Fritz, 2006 OK 20, ¶ 12, 134 P.3d 141, 144. Parents have a right to raise their 
own children. This right is fundamental and protected by the United States and 
Oklahoma constitutions. In re T.D., 2001 OK CIV APP 92, ¶ 14, 28 P.3d 1163, 1167 (citation omitted). However, the 
United States Supreme Court and this Court have found that the rights of an 
unwed parent can be different than the rights of parents that are married. 
See Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983). If for any reason 
the child's parents are unable to raise and care for the child, adoption is a 
viable alternative. Parental consent is required in all adoptions. However, 
consent of only one parent and not the other is acceptable in certain 
situations. In In re Baby Boy W., 1999 OK 74, 988 P.2d 1270, neither the biological mother nor the 
adoption agency notified the biological father that he had a child. Instead, the 
biological mother made a false statement in the district court regarding the 
identity of the father and/or his whereabouts. Consequently, the biological 
father never had the opportunity to exercise his parental rights towards the 
child. The father did not find out he fathered a child until he was served by 
the adoption agency with notice of the hearing to terminate his parental rights 
- more than five months after the baby's birth. The district court entered a 
judgment in favor of the biological father and the adoption agency appealed. 
This Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the father was not 
given proper notice and opportunity to exercise his parental rights. 
A. A minor may be adopted when there has been filed written consent to 
adoption or a permanent relinquishment for adoption executed by: . . . . 
2) One parent of the minor, alone, if:a) the other parent is dead,b) 
the parental rights of the other parent have been terminated, or c) the 
consent of the other parent is otherwise not required pursuant to section 
7505-4.2 of this title . . ..
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7503-2.1(A) (2001).
¶9 If the parents are not married, the rights and responsibilities of the 
biological father are not automatic. He must take certain actions under the 
statute to exercise his rights before he can seek protection of his rights under 
the law. "[T]he married father has legal rights as father from the outset, while 
the unmarried father does not have automatic rights as father, but must acquire 
such rights through his conduct." Adoption of Baby Girl M, 
1997 OK CIV APP 33, ¶ 6, 942 P.2d 235, 239. 
C. Consent to adoption is not required from a father or putative father of a 
minor born out of wedlock if: 
1. The minor is placed for adoption within ninety (90) days of birth, and the 
father or putative father fails to show he has exercised parental rights or 
duties towards the minor, including, but not limited to, failure to contribute 
to the support of the mother of the child to the extent of his financial ability 
during her term of pregnancy. . .. 
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7505-4.2(C)(1) (2001). How much support qualifies as 
"the extent of his financial ability" is "fact driven, to be determined by the 
trier of fact in the first instance, and affirmed by the appellate courts if not 
against the clear weight of the evidence." Baby Girl M, 1997 OK CIV APP 33, ¶ 9, 942 P.2d  at 
240.
¶10 As the parties seeking adoption without consent, M.B. and V.B. bear the 
burden of showing why consent is not needed. Steltzlen, 2006 OK 20, ¶ 12, 134 P.3d  at 144. "The standard of 
proof necessary to establish any of the grounds to permit adoption without 
consent, or for termination of parental rights is clear and convincing 
evidence." Id. M.B. and V.B. failed to meet their burden of proof. 
¶11 The record demonstrates that upon discovering K.B.'s birth, T.R. took 
steps to gain legal and physical custody of the baby. On July 15, 2010, T.R. saw 
J.B. in the local grocery store and noticed she was no longer pregnant. When he 
asked about the baby, J.B. informed him that she had given birth on July 11, 
2010, and had given K.B. up for adoption. T.R. immediately contacted an attorney 
and filed a paternity action within a matter of days. 
¶12 When the court awarded T.R. visitation, he seized every opportunity to 
spend time with his child.2 The trial court found that T.R. manifested a clear 
intent and complete appreciation of his parental role, including the intent to 
exercise his role in his child's life. 
¶13 The prospective adoptive parents argued that T.R. did not contribute to 
the support of the mother to the full extent of his financial abilities during 
her pregnancy. The trial court disagreed. 
The clause in § [7505-4.2(C)(1)], "including, [but not limited to], failure 
to contribute to the support of the mother [of the child] to the extent of his 
financial ability during her term of pregnancy," must modify each preceding 
clause and therefore requires acknowledgment of paternity, legal action to 
establish same, or exercise of parental rights and duties be accompanied by 
support of the mother during pregnancy.
Baby Girl M, 1997 OK CIV APP 33, ¶ 13, 942 P.2d  at 240. 
The record contains clear and convincing evidence that T.R. gave monetary 
support and exercised his parental rights by giving mother money while she was 
pregnant and filing a paternity action after K.B.'s birth. How much support is 
sufficient is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. 
Id. 
IV. CONCLUSION
¶14 K.B. is not eligible for adoption without the consent of his biological 
father. T.R. exercised his parental rights to his child showing that "he grasps 
[the] opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's 
future." Lehr, 463 U.S. 248, 262. Plus, he provided financial support 
to the biological mother during her pregnancy. The sufficiency of the support is 
a fact to be determined by the trial court. Steltzlen, 2006 OK 20, ¶ 18, 134 P.3d  at 146. T.R.'s parental 
rights remain intact. The record shows that the trial court set a best interest 
hearing pursuant to Title 10, section 7505-6.4, for April 21, 2011, but that 
hearing never occurred. This cause is remanded to the trial court for a hearing, 
as required by statute.3 
AFFIRMED and REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.
FOOTNOTES
1 As used in the Oklahoma 
Adoption code:"Putative father" means the father of a minor born out of 
wedlock or a minor whose mother was married to another person at the time of the 
birth of the minor or within the ten (10) months prior to the birth of the minor 
and includes, but is not limited to, a man who has acknowledged or claims 
paternity of a minor, a man named by the mother of the minor to be the father of 
the minor, or any man who is alleged to have engaged in sexual intercourse with 
a woman during a possible time of conception. 
Okla Stat. tit. 10, § 7501-1.3(12) (Supp. 2002). 
2 The record shows T.R. showed up every visitation day to 
pick up the baby, except for one day. On that occasion the baby was ill. All 
parties believed it to be in the child's best interest to forgo the visit and 
permit K.B. to stay at M.B. and V.B.'s home. 
3 The relevant statute provides: 
A. If the court denies a petition for adoption or vacates a decree of 
adoption, it shall dismiss the proceeding. If no preexisting custody order 
remains in effect, the court shall issue an appropriate order for the legal and 
physical custody of the minor according to the best interests of the minor, if 
the court has jurisdiction to issue a custody order. 
B. 1. If the court has jurisdiction to issue a custody order, the court shall 
schedule a separate hearing to determine custody of the minor. The court shall 
certify that the petitioner for adoption and each parent of the minor has 
received notice of the date of the custody hearing at least fifteen (15) days 
prior to the date of the hearing and that each biological parent who has signed 
a consent or permanent relinquishment has been served in the same manner as 
summons is served in civil cases at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of 
the hearing. The petitioner for adoption shall be responsible for serving any 
parent who has not entered an appearance in the adoption proceeding. If the 
Department of Human Services or any licensed child-placing agency had legal 
custody at the time the petition was filed, the petitioner shall notify the 
Department or agency of the date of the custody hearing. 
2. Upon motion to intervene, the court shall join any person entitled to 
notice under this subsection who is not already a party to the proceeding. 
3. At the hearing, the court may award custody to the biological mother, the 
biological father, the biological parents, if they are married, the prospective 
adoptive parents, or the Department or other licensed child-placing agency if 
the Department or agency had legal custody of the child at the time that the 
petition was filed, pursuant to Section 21.1 of this title, in the 
best interests of the child. 
4. The child shall be represented at this hearing pursuant to Section 
7505-1.2 of this title. 
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7505-6.4 (2001).