Court of Appeals o f Indiana | Opinion 20A

- AD

- 403 | October 5, 2020 Page 1 of 7 A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Ryan D. Bower New Albany, Indiana A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLEE 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 o f Indiana | Opinion 20A

- AD

- 403 | October 5, 2020 Page 2 of 7 

### STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant

- Petitioner , W. M

. ( Fa ther ), 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 appea l, which we restate as the following : Whether the trial court abused its discretion i n 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. O n June 27, 2014, Mother married Adoptive Mother

.
[5] In August 2017, Father was sentenced to serve a ten

- year sentence for his conviction f or Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, and his projectedCourt of Appeals o f Indiana | Opinion 20A

- AD

- 403 | October 5, 2020 Page 3 of 7 release date is 2023 when the Children w ill be 19, 18 , and 16 years of age respectively

.
[6] On March 25, 2019, with Mother’s consent, Adoptive Mother petition ed the trial court to adopt the Children

. F ather filed his objection on April 18, 2019 , and o n 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 o rdered 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 gran dmother 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

. H e claimed that Adoptive Mother was a violent person and he believed that the Children were bei ng threatened or coerced by Adoptive Mother t o say that they want ed 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 daughtersCourt of Appeals o f Indiana | Opinion 20A

- AD

- 403 | October 5, 2020 Page 4 of 7 from being around their pat ernal gra ndparents du e 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 t o 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 Moth er’s sexuality and their fear that they would lose the ability to see the Children

. GAL Haag then noted that Father ha d not been involved in his daughter s’ 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, a nd that it was in the Children’s best interest to be adopted.

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

### DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[10] Father contends that the trial court erred in granting Adoptive Mother’s petition to adopt the C hildren. 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 w ill 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 wi ll neither reweigh theCourt of Appeals o f 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 inference s 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

ar e 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 se ction 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 o f Indiana | Opinion 20A

- AD

- 403 | October 5, 2020 Page 6 of 7 (2) A parent of a child in the custody o f 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 d o 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 contain s evidence demonstrating t hat F ather 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 o f 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 p resumably referencing Indiana Code s ection 31

- 19

- 9

- 8(a)(11), which provides another path for dispensing with consent , the trial court failed to make the specific findings requi red 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 whi ch 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 r emand this case with instructions for the trial court to enter such a specific finding s . 

### CONCLUSION
[16] Becau se 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