Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-AD-403 | October 5, 2020 Page 1 of 7

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Ryan D. Bower

New Albany, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Alice Bartanen Blevins

Salem, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

W.M.,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

H.T.,

Appellee-Respondent.

October 5, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-AD-403

Appeal from the Washington 

Circuit Court

The Honorable Larry Medlock, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

88C01-1903-AD-7, 88C01-1903-

AD-8, & 88C01-1903-AD-9

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-AD-403 | October 5, 2020 Page 2 of 7

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Petitioner, W.M. (Father), the biological father of J.K.N.M., 

Z.L.L.M., and M.J.R.M. (collectively, Children), appeals the trial court’s 

Orders, granting the petition for adoption of the Children by H.T. (Adoptive

Mother).

[2] We remand.

ISSUE

[3] Father raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as the following: Whether 

the trial court abused its discretion in granting Adoptive Mother’s petition for 

adoption.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] Daughters, J.K.N.M. (born on September 18, 2003), Z.L.L.M. (born on 

November 15, 2004), and M.J.R.M. (born on January 29, 2007), were all born 

out of wedlock to Father and L.T. (Mother). Father’s paternity was established 

at birth when Father signed the paternity affidavit. In 2011, Father and Mother

separated. Mother thereafter began a relationship with Adoptive Mother and 

the two resided together for a period of two years. On June 27, 2014, Mother 

married Adoptive Mother. 

[5] In August 2017, Father was sentenced to serve a ten-year sentence for his 

conviction for Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, and his projected 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-AD-403 | October 5, 2020 Page 3 of 7

release date is 2023 when the Children will be 19, 18, and 16 years of age

respectively. 

[6] On March 25, 2019, with Mother’s consent, Adoptive Mother petitioned the 

trial court to adopt the Children. Father filed his objection on April 18, 2019, 

and on December 5, 2019, a hearing was conducted. Father testified that the 

last time he had any contact with his daughters was in 2015. At the close of the 

hearing, the trial court ordered a guardian ad litem report which was submitted 

on January 15, 2020. 

[7] In the report, Guardian Ad Litem Diane Haag (GAL Haag) stated that the

Children reported that they loved and were close to Adoptive Mother and

wanted to be adopted. Paternal grandmother stated that she did not agree with 

Mother’s and Adoptive Mother’s sexuality, did not understand why the girls 

had to be adopted, and that the girls were well bonded with Father. Paternal 

grandmother also claimed that the Children were being mentally and 

emotionally abused by Adoptive Mother. Paternal grandfather likewise stated

that he did not agree with the adoption. He claimed that Adoptive Mother was 

a violent person and he believed that the Children were being threatened or 

coerced by Adoptive Mother to say that they wanted to be adopted. Maternal 

grandmother equally stated that she did not agree with the adoption or

Mother’s sexuality, and she believed that Adoptive Mother regularly beat the 

Children with a belt. Mother stated that Father had been in and out of prison 

for most of his daughters’ lives and that the girls did not want to visit Father 

when he was in jail. Mother also claimed that she prevented her daughters 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-AD-403 | October 5, 2020 Page 4 of 7

from being around their paternal grandparents due to them coming back with 

head lice and bed bugs, and that she also did not want them to be around the 

drugs she believed Father was involved in when he was not in prison. 

[8] As to the claims of abuse by Adoptive Mother, the Children confessed to GAL 

Haag that they had lied about the abuse only to make their grandparents happy. 

GAL Haag also determined that much of the opposition to the adoption from 

the grandparents and Father stemmed from their dislike for Mother’s and 

Adoptive Mother’s sexuality and their fear that they would lose the ability to 

see the Children. GAL Haag then noted that Father had not been involved in 

his daughters’ lives. Ultimately, GAL Haag recommended the adoption. On 

January 19, 2020, the trial court entered separate Orders of adoption in favor of 

Adoptive Mother after finding that she was fit to raise the Children, and that it 

was in the Children’s best interest to be adopted.

[9] Father now appeals. Additional information will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[10] Father contends that the trial court erred in granting Adoptive Mother’s petition 

to adopt the Children. He argues that he did not give his consent to the 

adoptions and that they should be set aside.

[11] As a reviewing court, we will not disturb the trial court’s decision in an 

adoption proceeding unless the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the 

trial court reached the opposite conclusion. In re Infant Girl W., 845 N.E.2d 

229, 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. We will neither reweigh the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-AD-403 | October 5, 2020 Page 5 of 7

evidence nor reassess the credibility of witnesses, and we will examine only the 

evidence most favorable to the trial court’s decision. Id. On appeal, we will not 

reweigh the evidence, instead focusing on the evidence and inferences most 

favorable to the trial court’s decision. J.H. v. J.L. & C.L., 973 N.E.2d 1216, 1222 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2012). We generally give considerable deference to a trial court’s 

rulings in family law matters, “as we recognize that the trial judge is in the best 

position to judge the facts, determine witness credibility, get a feel for family 

dynamics, and get a sense of the parents and their relationship with their 

children.” Id.

[12] The granting of a petition for adoption is a multi-step process. Indiana Code

section 31-19-11-1(a) lists the prerequisites to granting a petition, including that 

“the adoption requested is in the best interest of the child” and “proper consent, 

if consent is necessary, has been given.” If the requirements listed in the statute 

are met, “the court shall grant the petition for adoption and enter an adoption 

decree.” Ind. Code § 31-19-11-1(a).

[13] Generally, the first step in the process is determining whether the biological 

parent’s consent to the adoption is required. Indiana Code section 31-19-9-8 

addresses when consent is not required and provides, in relevant part:

(a) Consent to adoption, which may be required under Section 1 

of this chapter, is not required from any of the following:

* * *
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-AD-403 | October 5, 2020 Page 6 of 7

(2) A parent of a child in the custody of another person if for a 

period of at least one (1) year the parent:

(A) fails without justifiable cause to communicate significantly 

with the child when able to do so; or

(B) knowingly fails to provide for the care and support of the 

child when able to do so as required by law or judicial decree.

* * *

(11) A parent if:

(A) a petitioner for adoption proves by clear and convincing 

evidence that the parent is unfit to be a parent; and

(B) the best interests of the child sought to be adopted would be 

served if the court dispensed with the parent’s consent.

[14] The record shows that the last time Father communicated with the Children 

was in 2015. Adoptive Mother filed her petition to adopt the Children in 2019. 

Though the record contains evidence demonstrating that Father failed to 

communicate with the Children for more than a year which could support a 

conclusion that Father’s consent was not required, the adoption Orders in this 

case fail to explicitly reference that pertinent fact and only denotes the fact that 

Adoptive Mother is a fit parent and that it would be in the Children’s best 

interest to be adopted. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-AD-403 | October 5, 2020 Page 7 of 7

[15] Even assuming that the trial court’s discussion that Adoptive Mother was a fit 

parent was the trial court’s way of presumably referencing Indiana Code section 

31-19-9-8(a)(11), which provides another path for dispensing with consent, the 

trial court failed to make the specific findings required by that provision, 

namely, that (1) Father is unfit to be a parent and (2) “the best interests of the 

child sought to be adopted would be served if the court dispensed with the 

parent’s consent.” Because the adoption Orders failed to specify under which 

of the multiple exceptions provided by Indiana Code section 31-19-9-8(a) the 

trial court was dispensing with Father’s consent to the adoption, we remand 

this case with instructions for the trial court to enter such a specific findings.

CONCLUSION 

[16] Because the trial court failed to make any findings that would support 

dispensing with Father’s consent, we remand and retain jurisdiction to the trial 

court for further findings as required by statute. The judgment of the trial court 

shall be filed with this court within 30 days from the issuance of this opinion.

[17] Remanded.

[18] May, J. and Altice, J. concur