Opinion ID: 1780026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Abandonment as Grounds for Termination of Harris' Parental Rights

Text: ¶ 21. The chancellor began his Opinion by stating his foundation belief that before you can abandon or desert something or someone, the abandoning or deserting party must or should know that the person or thing abandoned or deserted actually exists .... [3] In other words, the Fosters' claim that Harris abandoned Elizabeth must be examined and judged from the time Harris knew or should have known that Elizabeth was his child. The chancellor then framed the issues before him: [W]hether or not the Father knew or should have known that the Child was, in fact, his child, and, if so, does the statutory and case law allow him to object to the adoption of the Child by the [Fosters]. Further, that if the Father has the right to object, is it in the best interest of the child that the [Fosters] adopt the Child. ¶ 22. The chancellor found Harris became aware that Elizabeth was his child in July 2002, after a chance meeting with Rogers where she showed him a picture of Elizabeth and told him of the adoption proceedings. Immediately thereafter, Harris contacted the Department of Human Services and an attorney to assess his potential parental rights. The chancellor made the following findings of fact which support his determination that Harris had not abandoned Elizabeth: (1) Harris and Rogers engaged in a sexual relationship, and Rogers took birth control pills for a portion of this time. (2) While Rogers did inform Harris that she was pregnant, she never affirmatively stated that he was the father. Rogers later informed Harris that Hicks was the father. (3) Harris took prenatal vitamins to Rogers in September 2000 because he wanted to get back in her good graces. (4) In October 2000, Hicks called Harris wanting money for Rogers to have an abortion. Harris contacted an attorney about his rights concerning an abortion and was told he had none. Harris testified that he believed Hicks and Rogers were trying to scam him for money. (5) Harris tried to contact Rogers through her father, but he was rebuffed. Harris testified that Rogers' father told him that Hicks was the father of her baby. (6) While Harris was in law school (August 2001  December 2001), someone cut out Elizabeth's birth announcement and sent it to him. (7) Harris did not have face-to-face contact with Rogers until July 2002. Rogers showed Harris a picture of Elizabeth, and Harris thought Elizabeth was his because she looked like him. (8) Rogers initially told the Fosters that Hicks was the father of Elizabeth. After seeing Harris in July 2002, she informed the Fosters that Harris, not Hicks, was Elizabeth's father. (9) In the summer of 2002, Rogers told Harris about the adoption proceedings. He immediately contacted the Department of Human Services and an attorney concerning his legal rights. (10) Harris testified that he called the Fosters multiple times trying to visit Elizabeth. Harris also testified that when he refused to sign the adoption papers, the Fosters stopped allowing his visitation with Elizabeth until the Court Order of June 2003. (11) In September 2002, DNA tests established that Harris was Elizabeth's natural father. (12) Harris frequently bought presents for Elizabeth and delivered them to the Fosters. From October 12, 2002, until the last day of trial, Harris regularly paid child support, without a court order, amounting to $1,824.60. He also attended parenting classes. ¶ 23. Chancellor Watts' findings of fact are supported by the record. Based on this evidence, Chancellor Watts arrived at the following conclusions of law supporting his determination that Harris did not abandon or desert Elizabeth: (1) While Rogers was living with Harris, she often stayed out all night, giving Harris reason to believe that Rogers was having an affair with Hicks. (2) Prior to their relationship, both Harris and Rogers had sexual relations with other parties, and Harris questioned Rogers' faithfulness to him. (3) Harris knew Hicks had fathered an illegitimate child with Rogers. After the break-up, Hicks called Harris about money for an abortion, and Harris heard Rogers, clearly intoxicated, slurring her speech in the background. (4) Rogers never told Harris that Elizabeth was his. Rather, Rogers told Harris that Hicks was the father. (5) Rogers' father told Harris that Hicks was Elizabeth's father and that Rogers was living with Hicks. (6) Harris reasonably could have believed that Elizabeth was not his, even though he failed to take steps to determine whether he was actually the father. ¶ 24. The chancellor conceded that Harris could have done more to determine whether Elizabeth was his child. However, the chancellor noted his failure to do so should not cause his parental rights to be terminated, and his child allowed to be adopted. ¶ 25. The chancellor found that, once Harris knew Elizabeth was his, he never evince[d] a settled purpose to forego all duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child, such that he abandoned Elizabeth. See Natural Mother, 583 So.2d at 618. In fact, once he learned about the ongoing adoption proceedings, Harris filed an objection to the adoption and began undertaking the responsibilities of parenthood. See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-17-6. He frequently attempted visitation with Elizabeth, and though there was no court order in place, he provided financial support and bought Elizabeth several holiday gifts. Under the totality of the circumstances, we are unable to find that Chancellor Watts abused his discretion in making the determination that Harris did not manifest[] [his] severance of all ties with the child. See Ethredge, 605 So.2d at 764. ¶ 26. The chancellor concluded that when the Father reasonably determined that he was the Father of the Child, he committed himself to the responsibilities of parenthood. The Fosters failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Harris exhibited the intent necessary for a finding of abandonment, so the chancellor denied the Fosters' petition to adopt and to terminate Harris' parental rights. Because the chancellor's determination is amply supported by credible evidence in the record, we affirm the denial of the Fosters' petition to adopt Elizabeth and to terminate Harris' parental rights on the ground of abandonment.