Title: ADOPTION OF T G K J P K

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 80-422 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 I N T H E M A T T E R O F T H E ADOPTION O F T.G.K. and J.P.K. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of S i l v e r Bow. Honorable James Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: P a t r i c k F. F l a h e r t y , Boulder, Montana For Respondent: J a r d i n e , McCarthy & Grauman, Whitehall, Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : May 15, 1981 Decided : F i l e d : * .Z Clerk Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. On July 17, 1979, appellant filed a petition for the adoption of his stepchildren, TGK, age 10, and JPK, age 9. Upon filing the petition appellant also filed an affidavit of his wife, the children's natural mother, attesting to her marriage to the appellant in October 1974 and consenting to the adoption. Written consent to the adoption was not obtained from the natural father, respondent herein, but appellant alleged in his petition that it was not necessary by reason of the fact that the father had failed to "provide for the support of the children for the period of one year last past before the filing of this petition, and that he has abandoned said children." Respondent filed an objection to the petition seeking its dismissal. A hearing on the petition was held in the Silver Bow County District Court, the Honorable James Freebourn presiding, on July 1, 1980. During the hearing, testimony was presented showing that the children's natural mother and respondent had dissolved their marriage in April 1974. In accordance with this dissolution the mother was awarded custody of the two children and respondent was ordered to pay $200 per month child support. Respondent has failed to pay the court-ordered support since 1977 but has on occasion bought clothes and toys for the children as well as giving them small cash gifts. As a result of respondent's failure to pay the child support, the natural mother has been receiving aid to dependent children (ADC) assistance since October 1977. The record further shows that during 1977 respondent was unemployed and r e c e i v i n g unemployment i n s u r a n c e . Respondent supplemented t h i s income by making and s e l l i n g wooden f u r n i t u r e . During 1978 respondent worked i n Wyoming on an o i l r i g f o r approximately four months e a r n i n g $800 a month. R e s p o n d e n t c o n t i n u e d t o make u s e o f h i s furniture-making a b i l i t i e s i n 1978 and 1979 a s a s o u r c e of income while l i v i n g r e n t f r e e w i t h h i s g i r l f r i e n d . On June 27, 1979, respondent began s e r v i n g a ten-year s e n t e n c e i n t h e Montana Sta-te P r i s o n f o r armed robbery. While i n p r i s o n respondent e a r n s $1.00 a day. Following t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r , t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r on September 12, 1980, d i s m i s s i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s p e t i t i o n . A s grounds f o r t h e d i s m i s s a l , t h e t r i a l judge concluded t h a t a p p e l l a n t had f a i l e d t o o b t a i n a w r i t t e n consent t o t h e a d o p t i o n by t h e n a t u r a l mother and f a t h e r a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 40-8-111, MCA. Appellant a p p e a l s t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court f i r s t contending t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t of h i s w i f e f i l e d w i t h h i s p e t i t i o n is s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y t h e requirement t h a t c o n s e n t t o t h e adoption be o b t a i n e d from t h e n a t u r a l mother. R e s p o n d e n t , a s w e l l a s t h i s C o u r t , a g r e e s w i t h t h i s argument, and, t h u s , w e need n o t d i s c u s s it f u r t h e r . A p p e l l a n t n e x t contends t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g t h a t consent be o b t a i n e d from t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r . I n s u p p o r t of t h i s c o n t e n t i o n , a p p e l l a n t c i t e s s e c t i o n 40-8- l l l ( l ) ( a ) ( v ) , MCA, which provides: " C o n s e n t -- r e q u i r e d f o r a d o p t i o n . ( 1 ) An adoption of a c h i l d may be decreed when t h e r e have been f i l e d w r i t t e n c o n s e n t s t o adoption executed by: " ( a ) b o t h p a r e n t s , i f l i v i n g , o r t h e s u r v i v i n g p a r e n t of a c h i l d , provided t h a t c o n s e n t is n o t r e q u i r e d from a f a t h e r o r mother : " ( v ) i f it is proven t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e f a t h e r or mother, i f a b l e , has n o t c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s u p p o r t of t h e c h i l d d u r i n g a p e r i o d of 1 year b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n ; " The burden on t h e a p p e l l a n t under t h i s s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n t o consent is c l e a r . I t is e s s e n t i a l he prove t h a t t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r was a b l e and f a i l e d t o g i v e s u p p o r t b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g o f t h e d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f o n e y e a r - p e t i t i o n . I n Re Adoption of B i e r y ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 353, 522 P.2d 1377. T h i s , we f i n d , a p p e l l a n t h a s f a i l e d t o do. A s i n d i c a t e d by t h e s t a t u t e , t h e p e r i o d of t i m e t o be examined is t h e year p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n and n o t merely any one-year p e r i o d , a s submitted by a p p e l l a n t . During t h i s p e r i o d , from J u l y 1978 t o J u l y 1979, t h e evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r ' s s o u r c e of income was t h e s e l l i n g of handmade wooden f u r n i t u r e . How much of an income was d e r i v e d from t h i s n a t u r e is a b s e n t from t h e r e c o r d . The n a t u r a l f a t h e r was a l s o employed on an o i l r i g f o r four months i n 1978. The r e c o r d , however, d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e what four months t h e f a t h e r worked. Thus, it is p o s s i b l e t h a t t h i s employment was n o t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d i n q u e s t i o n . For t h e remainder of t h e p e r i o d , from J u n e 27 t o J u l y 1 7 , 1979, t h e f a t h e r was r e s i d i n g i n t h e S t a t e P r i s o n e a r n i n g $1.00 a day. Upon reviewing t h e evidence a s p r e s e n t e d , we f i n d i t d o e s n o t a d e q u a t e l y e s t a b l i s h r e s p o n d e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t d u r i n g t h e year p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n . W e must, t h e r e f o r e , a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e j e c t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n t o c o n s e n t . A s an a d d i t i o n a l b a s i s f o r excusing t h e requirement t h a t consent t o t h e a d o p t i o n be o b t a i n e d from t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r , a p p e l l a n t , i n h i s p e t i t i o n , a s s e r t e d abandonment by t h e f a t h e r . S e e s e c t i o n 0 - 8 - l l l ( l ) ( a ) ( i i i ) , MCA. An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , r e v e a l s numerous o c c a s i o n s when respondent e x e r c i s e d h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s w i t h h i s c h i l d r e n . A s a r e s u l t , it cannot be s a i d t h a t abandonment should p l a y a d e c i s i v e r o l e i n r e s o l v i n g t h e adequacy of a p p e l l a n t ' s p e t i t i o n . A p p e l l a n t f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t c o n s e n t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y i n t h i s c a s e p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 40-8- l l l ( l ) ( a ) ( i i ) , MCA, because t h e f a t h e r h a s been g u i l t y of c r u e l t y and n e g l e c t . I n r e j e c t i n g t h i s c o n t e n t i o n we p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e c i t e d s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n t o c o n s e n t is o n l y a p p l i e d t o a p a r e n t "who h a s been j u d i c i a l l y deprived of c u s t o d y . . . on account of c r u e l t y and n e g l e c t . " Here, t h e r e has been no showing t h a t t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r was denied custody of h i s c h i l d r e n , o r h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t e r m i n a t e d , f o r r e a s o n s of c r u e l t y o r n e g l e c t i n a p r i o r j u d i c i a l proceeding. A p p e l l a n t ' s f i n a l argument concerning t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l f o r f a i l i n g t o o b t a i n t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r ' s c o n s e n t is t h a t c o n s e n t is n o t n e c e s s a r y p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 4 0 - 8 - l l l ( l ) ( a ) ( i v ) , MCA. T h i s s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s t h a t c o n s e n t t o a d o p t i o n is n o t r e q u i r e d of a p a r e n t , " ( i v ) who h a s c a u s e d t h e c h i l d t o b e m a i n t a i n e d by a n y p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e c h i l d r e n ' s i n s t i t u t i o n , c h a r i t a b l e agency, or a n y l i c e n s e d a d o p t i o n a g e n c y o r t h e d e p a r t m e n t o f s o c i a l and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n s e r v i c e s of t h e s t a t e of Montana f o r a p e r i o d of 1 year without c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e s u p p o r t of t h e c h i l d d u r i n g s a i d p e r i o d , i f a b l e " . W e acknowledge t h i s c o n t e n t i o n b u t n o t e t h a t it was n o t s e t f o r t h i n a p p e l l a n t ' s p e t i t i o n a s g r o u n d s f o r excusing t h e consent requirement. Consequently, a l t h o u g h some evidence was p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l concerning t h e m a t t e r , t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e argument i n r e s o l v i n g t h i s d i s p u t e a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l . I f t h e a p p e l l a n t wishes t o use t h i s s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n t o c o n s e n t , t h e p e t i t i o n should be d r a f t e d on t h a t b a s i s and a s p e c i f i c h e a r i n g h e l d t h e r e o n t o determine its a p p l i c a b i l i t y . For t h i s reason we f i n d no e r r o r by t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e p e t i t i o n a s f i l e d b u t must r e s e r v e r u l i n g on t h e m e r i t s of t h e above c o n t e n t i o n and conclude t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n h e r e i n is t o i s s u e without p r e j u d i c e t o r e f i l i n g t h e p e t i t i o n on t h i s a s s e r t e d b a s i s . A p p e l l a n t a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of h i s b r i e f a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g t o i n t e r v i e w t h e c h i l d r e n i n c h a m b e r s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i r p o s i t i o n a s t o t h e adoption. W e summarily r e j e c t t h i s c o n t e n t i o n , f i n d i n g it r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time on a p p e a l . Furthermore, t h e f a c t t h a t an i n t e r v i e w was n o t conducted is of no consequence t o t h i s a c t i o n which was dismissed due t o a p p e l l a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r ' s c o n s e n t , t h e r e b y p r e c l u d i n g d e c i s i o n on whether t h e adoption w i l l be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d r e n . The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s i n g t h e p e t i t i o n is a f f i r m e d . W e concur: %&dWU@ C h i d J u s t i c e