Opinion ID: 1342969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: consent to adopt

Text: Bonita L. and Kenneth also argue the circuit court erred in authorizing the adoption of Christina and Kenneth without including their natural father, Paul David L., in the proceedings. We agree. W.Va.Code, 49-6-1 (1992), sets forth specific notice requirements in abuse and neglect cases. [10] The petition filed by the Department states the father of the above-named children is Paul David [L.] who resides somewhere in Parkersburg, but whose exact address is currently unknown; he has had no contact with the above-named children for a number of years. Nothing in the record below indicates the Department attempted to locate the father and notify him pursuant to W.Va.Code, 49-6-1. The circuit court's order authorizing the Department to consent to the children's adoption without addressing the natural father's parental rights strips him of any parental rights without affording him due process. See Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415; In re Willis, 157 W.Va. 225, 207 S.E.2d 129 (1973). See also Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). Perhaps even more importantly, it leaves the status of the children dangling, and the validity of a future adoption subject to challenge. It seems to be a general practice of the Department not to include allegations of abandonment in petitions for abuse and neglect, thus leaving the children in No Man's Land with regard to any resolution in their lives. As we said in Syllabus Point 2 of James M. v. Maynard, supra , abandonment of a child by a parent constitutes compelling circumstances sufficient to justify the denial of an improvement period. Obviously, it also constitutes grounds for termination of parental rights. Thus, when the Department seeks to terminate parental rights where an absent parent has abandoned the child, allegations of such abandonment should be included in the petition and every effort made to comply with the notice requirements of W.Va.Code, 49-6-1 (1992). The failure to give reasonable notice is particularly troubling when we consider the fact that the Department believed Paul David L. also resided in Parkersburg and did nothing to notify him. We found such failure to notify reversible error in In re Sutton, 132 W.Va. 875, 880, 53 S.E.2d 839, 842 (1949): Inasmuch as the record discloses that both parents were within the jurisdiction of the court, and that the welfare agency had knowledge of the marriage of the parents and the fact that the father recognized the child as his, we are of opinion that notice should have been given to the parents of the presentation of the petition to the juvenile court seeking the custody of the child on the ground that it was at the time a dependent and neglected child within the meaning of the statute. A parent, in our opinion, cannot be divested of parental rights without notice and opportunity for hearing. The State argues the natural father can move to protect his rights when and if the Department finds persons to adopt the children. However, we find this argument unpersuasive. It would be ludicrous for this Court to allow this matter to linger while Christina and Kenneth are in foster care. Should they be fortunate enough to form a bond with their foster parents and the foster parents move for adoption, it would be all the more devastating to the children to have to go back into court to litigate whatever rights the natural father may possess. Dangling, unresolved parental rights also have a chilling effect on potential adoptive parents. We choose to resolve this issue in a timely manner rather than to leave this potential timebomb unresolved. Accordingly, based on the above evidence, we find it was reversible error for the circuit court to authorize the Department to consent to the children's adoption without first giving notice to their natural father and attempting to ascertain his rights and intentions.