Opinion ID: 1169302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On August 9, 1981, TG gave birth to a baby boy, GSD. Appellant was the child's natural father who, until two months prior to the child's birth, lived with TG out of wedlock. TG and appellant never married and never resumed their cohabitation. Although appellant never wanted TG to have the baby and suggested an abortion three months into TG's pregnancy, he visited the hospital immediately after his son's birth. He brought some baby toys and clothes as a gift but never offered to pay the expenses of the difficult cesarean birth. He refused to acknowledge his parenthood by signing the birth certificate at the hospital and never tried to establish paternity through any other legal process. From August 1981 until February 1983 appellant visited his son and TG about once or twice a month for one or two hours at a time. TG was living at her parent's house during this period. Although appellant had a moderate income from a steady job, he provided no financial support for the child. TG testified at trial that appellant never offered any support, but he said that he made numerous offers which TG refused. In September of 1982, TG met RG; and, after a nine-month courtship, they were married. TG and her child moved into RG's home, and he supported them by working both a full-time and part-time job. Appellant's visits with the child ended in February of 1983 when it became apparent that TG and RG would marry. TG testified that appellant's visits stopped because he did not want to see his son, but appellant said that she prevented his visits by refusing his phone calls. In any event, between February of 1983 and January of 1985, when the adoption hearing took place, appellant never visited his son. RG filed a petition for adoption and termination of parental rights on October 24, 1984, a little over a year after he married TG and began supporting her and the child. Appellant filed an answer contesting the petition, and RG moved to strike that answer on grounds that appellant lacked standing because he had never legally established his paternity. The district court denied the motion and the case was tried. RG explained at trial that he wanted to adopt GSD because he had been pretty much the father of the child since [he had] known [TG], and because he loved the child very deeply. TG and her mother testified in favor of the adoption, while appellant, several of his friends, and family members testified on his behalf. In a carefully drafted letter opinion, the district court held that appellant had standing to object to the child's adoption but, on the merits, the court held that RG's petition for adoption should be granted and appellant's parental rights terminated. The court based its holding on § 1-22-108(c), W.S. 1977, which states: If the putative father files and serves his objections to the petition to adopt as provided in subsection (b) of this section, and appears at the hearing to acknowledge his paternity of the child, the court shall hear the evidence in support of the petition to adopt and in support of the objection to the petition and shall then determine whether: (i) The putative father's claim to paternity of the child is established; (ii) The putative father having knowledge of the birth or pending birth of the child has evidenced an interest in and responsibility for the child within thirty (30) days after receiving notice of the pending birth or birth of the child; (iii) The putative father's objections to the petition to adopt are valid; and (iv) The best interests and welfare of the child will be served by granting the putative father's claim to paternity or by allowing the petition to adopt. Specifically, the court found that appellant's paternity was established for the purposes of subsection (i) and that he had evidenced an interest in and a responsibility for the child within 30 days of his birth as required by subsection (ii). But the court also found that appellant deliberately and willfully abandoned [GSD] by his actions and [had] taken no substantial action for a period in excess of twenty months    to be a parent to the child in question. Additionally, [n]o evidence was produced by [appellant] that the quality of the relationship between [RG] and the minor child was anything but satisfactory. Therefore, according to the court, appellant did not demonstrate a valid objection to the adoption as demanded by subsection (iii). Finally, the court held that the best interests of the child would be served by permitting the adoption by RG who had already assumed the role of father. Because there were no valid objections to the adoption and because the adoption was in the best interests of the child, the court granted the petition and terminated any surviving parental rights held by appellant.