Court Opinion

ID: 9962978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 14:02:11.148812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:14.221638
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 280
                      ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION IV
                                       No. CV-23-311

                                                 Opinion Delivered April 24, 2024
JUAN FERNANDEZ AND ELISE HARO
                      APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
                                  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                                  [NOS. 04DR-21-1847, 04PR-21-1301]
V.
                                  HONORABLE JOHN R. SCOTT,
STEVE SERRANO                     JUDGE
                         APPELLEE
                                  AFFIRMED

                                  MIKE MURPHY, Judge

        Appellants Juan Fernandez and Elise Haro appeal the decision of the Benton County

 Circuit Court denying Fernandez’s petition to adopt his thirteen-year-old stepdaughter, MC,

 Haro’s child. Steve Serrano, the appellee, is MC’s biological father and contested the

 adoption. On appeal, the appellants argue that the circuit court erred in finding that

 adoption was not in MC’s best interest. We affirm.

                                           I. Facts

        The immediate litigation began in November 2021 when Serrano filed a petition

 seeking to establish paternity and visitation with MC. One month later, Fernandez filed a

 petition to adopt MC. The two cases were consolidated, and a hearing was held over three

 days in July 2022.
       The circuit court heard the following evidence at the hearing. MC testified first. The

hearing took place during summer break; she attended a private school and was a rising

ninth grader. She lives with her mother, Fernandez, and two siblings. She has decent grades,

a lot of friends, and enjoys extracurricular activities like cheer and volleyball. Before moving

to Bentonville, she lived with her family at a religious training camp in Ozark, Arkansas, and

in California before that.

       MC explained that she has a good relationship with Fernandez. She enjoys spending

time with him. He is kind, “the funniest,” and “very smart.” He runs her to practices, he

helps with her homework, and she said that he loves her mom a lot. She testified that she

really wants to get adopted. “[T]o be officially adopted would just be . . . kind of like the icing

on the cake because he is my dad.”

       MC testified that she does not have any relationship with Serrano. She does not want

a relationship with Serrano. She recalls meeting him once, maybe twice. She explained this

is because she already has a father in Fernandez and does not want anyone replacing him.

MC said she knew Serrano had never tried to have a relationship with her because that is

what her mom had told her. She is opposed to even having contact with Serrano: “I’ve

already not had contact with him, any, and I’ve been doing just fine without him.”

       Two witnesses testified on behalf of Fernandez. Their testimony was consistent that

MC and Fernandez have a great relationship. One of the witnesses—an attorney and close

friend of the family—testified that she knew Serrano paid child support, and that was how

                                                2
Fernandez and Haro were able to pay MC’s private-school tuition. Another witness—one of

MC’s teachers—testified that MC is very bright.

       Elise Haro testified. She had met Serrano online in 2007. They both lived in

California. She explained that on the night she got pregnant with MC, she had invited

Serrano to her house, and he had raped her. She told Serrano she was pregnant, but Serrano

did not see MC until she was about six. She testified that Serrano has sent a few gifts over

the years and paid child support. Emails were introduced that showed the two of them

communicated cordially and regularly from about 2011–2015. The last email in that chain

that was introduced was from March 2015, and it was sent by Serrano. In that email, Serrano

thanked Haro for visiting him at work and gave her his updated address.

       Haro testified that she met Fernandez in 2015, the year the email exchanges with

Serrano stopped. Haro and Fernandez were married just over a year later. They moved from

California to Ozark, Arkansas, in 2015 and then later to Bentonville. In 2016, Haro wrote

a book titled Someway Somehow: Rape, Redemption and Radical Hope. There was a Kickstarter

(a type of fundraiser) for the book, and for a $250 pledge, Haro and MC would send a backer

a personalized video message of thanks.

       Haro admitted she had told MC that Serrano had raped her, but Haro did not think

this would affect MC’s opinion of Serrano. She told MC about the rape when MC was “old

enough to know what sex was.” She said she told MC that she was a child of rape because

“it makes her extra special.” Haro said that she had concerns with Serrano being around MC

because Serrano had raped her, but it was also true she had friendly exchanges with Serrano

                                             3
for several years, let MC meet Serrano on a few occasions, and stopped regularly returning

his emails around the same time she met Fernandez.

       Serrano reached out again in February 2021; he emailed Haro at the same email

address he had used previously. MC was twelve. In the 2021 email, Serrano asked if they

could come to an agreement about his being a part of MC’s life. Haro testified that she

“absolutely” withheld information from Serrano, and she did not tell him when they moved

to Arkansas. Fernandez filed the petition for adoption in response to Serrano’s petition for

visitation.

       Fernandez testified. His testimony was consistent with the other witnesses about his

relationship with MC. They love taking drives, listening to music, and going to the movies

together. He wants to be her legal father. He said no matter what happens with the trial’s

outcome, he will still care for her like he always has. Fernandez thinks MC is raised well but

having “another parent” involved would cause her to be “raised differently.” He thinks

Serrano would be a bad influence on MC because Serrano raped Haro.

       Serrano testified. Haro did not tell him about MC until 2009 when MC was two. He

testified that he saw Haro and MC on multiple occasions from 2014 to 2015. They lived

nearby, and they would meet for walks around Target, bowling, Chuck E. Cheese, or dinner

at a restaurant near Haro’s home. Around this time, there was less need to email because he

and Haro would call and text, but Haro quit responding to Serrano’s calls and texts in 2015.

He did not reach out again via email. For three years, he tried to locate Haro and MC. He

went to legal clinics, hired skip tracers, and hired a private investigator. Even before 2015,

                                              4
he did not know that getting visitation “would be a fight”; he thought he “had to prove

himself” to Haro.

       In 2019, Serrano received a letter from an Arkansas government agency stating that

Haro was trying to set up government assistance. Serrano moved his location efforts from

California to Arkansas, hired an Arkansas attorney, and moved forward with pursuing

visitation with his daughter. Serrano has no intention of getting in between MC and

Fernandez; he thinks Fernandez is a great stepfather, but Serrano wants to have a relationship

with his daughter. He asked that the court deny the petition for adoption. He testified that

MC could have a great dad and a great stepdad. He wants to help financially as MC gets

older; “[S]he’s getting into high school. I’m sure that additional financial help for big epochs

in her life will be needed. You know, I, obviously, have an additional resource in California,

additional home, additional family, who loves her and does not even know her.”

       Serrano is 37, works as a broadcast engineer for FOX and seasonally for Major League

Baseball. He has carried insurance on MC since 2011. He said the night MC was conceived,

he was invited to Haro’s apartment. He said he did not rape Haro. He said he was questioned

but never charged with or arrested for rape. He knows that MC is almost fourteen, she has

her own opinions, and it might be difficult to establish visitation, but he would be open to

anything the court ordered to allow them to connect, including family counseling.

       The ad litem provided his opinion to the court. He explained that he could not make

a formal recommendation for or against the adoption. He said that MC is thriving in the

environment she is in, with a loving mother and stepfather, and on its face, the adoption

                                               5
should be granted. But, the ad litem explained, Serrano had made continuous—not great,

but continuous—efforts to see MC since finding out about her, and he believed MC’s lack of

a desire to get to know Serrano has been shaped by what she was told growing up.

       After taking the case under advisement, the court announced the following findings

from the bench. It found that Serrano did not communicate with MC for almost seven years,

and that failure was without justifiable cause. But regarding the best-interest finding, it found

that granting the adoption was not in MC’s best interest. The court found that the

communication between Haro and Serrano for several years was inconsistent with Haro’s

rape allegations. It further found that it was shocking Haro told MC that MC was conceived

because of rape and that it was equally outrageous that Haro believed this did not affect

MC’s attitude toward Serrano. The court believed Fernandez’s testimony that a denial of the

adoption petition would not change his close relationship with MC. The court said that,

after a full and accurate evaluation of the circumstances, it would not be in MC’s best interest

to grant the adoption. It further awarded Serrano visitation, to be established as the parties

agreed or by court order at a later date.

       On appeal, Fernandez and Haro argue that the circuit court erred in finding that the

adoption was not in MC’s best interest.

                                     II. Standard of Review

       We review the record of an adoption proceeding de novo. Ducharme v. Gregory, 2014

Ark. App. 268, at 6, 435 S.W.3d 14, 18. Generally, consent to an adoption is required by

the father of the minor child to be adopted. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-206(a)(2) (Repl. 2020).

                                               6
Under certain circumstances, however, the consent of the father may not be required.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-207(a)(2)(i) & (ii) provides that consent to adoption

is not required of a parent of a child in the custody of another if the parent, for a period of

at least one year, has failed significantly without justifiable cause to communicate with the

child or to provide for the care and support of the child as required by law or judicial decree.

However, the mere fact that a parent has forfeited the right to have his consent to an

adoption required does not mean that the adoption must be granted—the court must further

find by clear and convincing evidence that the adoption is in the best interest of the child.

Waldrip v. Davis, 40 Ark. App. 25, 26, 842 S.W.2d 49, 50 (1992).

       Here, the finding regarding consent is not disputed. The circuit court found that

Serrano’s consent to the adoption was not required because he had failed without justifiable

cause to communicate with MC for over a year.

       Nonetheless, it found that the adoption was not in MC’s best interest. Concerning

best interest, specifically, we will not reverse a circuit court’s decision unless it is clearly

erroneous or against the preponderance of the evidence. Ballard v. Howard, 2018 Ark. App.

479, at 4–5, 560 S.W.3d 800, 802–03. We have said that in cases involving minor children,

a heavier burden is cast upon the circuit court to utilize to the fullest extent all its power of

perception in evaluating the witnesses, their testimony, and the child’s best interest; that the

appellate court has no such opportunity; and that we know of no case in which the superior

position, ability, and opportunity of the circuit court to observe the parties carry as great a

weight as one involving minor children. Ducharme, supra.

                                               7
                                         III. Discussion

       The appellants begin their argument by explaining that the circuit court’s best-interest

analysis fails to consider the evidence that demonstrates the adoption is in MC’s best interest.

This argument asks us to reweigh the evidence.

       It is true that the circuit court’s recited findings regarding best interest are sparse. But

the circuit court also explained that it considered all of the circumstances. Furthermore, our

de novo review allows us a complete review of the record and evidence to determine whether

the circuit court clearly erred in either making a finding of fact or in failing to do so. See

Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 375 Ark. 446, 291 S.W.3d 573 (2009). We presume that the circuit

court acted properly and made such findings of fact as were necessary to support its

judgment. Holmes v. Jones, 2022 Ark. App. 517, at 2, 658 S.W.3d 462, 464.

       Therefore, while the findings of the circuit court may have been limited to its

conclusion that it did not find Haro’s rape allegations credible, disclosing those allegations

to MC negatively affected MC’s opinion of Serrano, and that denial of the adoption would

not change Fernandez’s relationship with MC, when opening the entire case for review, we

hold that there was ample evidence presented that could have additionally supported the

finding that denial of the adoption was in MC’s best interest. See Hamilton v. Barrett, 337

Ark. 460, 466, 989 S.W.2d 520, 523 (1999) (stating that “[w]here the chancellor fails to make

findings of fact about a change in circumstances, this court, under its de novo review, may

nonetheless conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a chancellor could have

found a change in circumstances”).

                                                8
       The following additional evidence from the record supports the circuit court’s finding

that the adoption is not in MC’s best interest. To begin, the record demonstrates that Haro

thwarted Serrano’s relationship with MC from the outset; Haro did not even tell Serrano

about MC for the first two years of MC’s life. Second, Serrano has regularly paid child

support, was current on that payment, and has carried insurance on MC since 2011. Haro

testified that the child-support payments allowed MC to attend what the record

demonstrated is an academically rigorous private school. Third, Serrano’s testimony

established that he was willing to accept any form of a relationship with MC that might be

tenable, which shows the depth of his understanding of their unique circumstances.

       Furthermore, the facts here are similar to those in In re Adoption of LZ, 2021 Ark.

App. 63, at 2, 616 S.W.3d 695, 696. In LZ, as here, there was evidence that the mother did

not initially tell the father about the child and took steps to limit the father’s ability to

develop a relationship with his child—to establish visitation, the father had to agree to the

mother’s terms. Here, Haro moved across the country and then told MC that she was

conceived by rape. And in LZ, we acknowledged how important it was that the circuit court

clearly recognized the potential for a positive relationship between a father and his child. And

the evidence supports the same here. By not granting the adoption and strongly emphasizing

in its findings what efforts Serrano did take to see MC and what steps Haro took to prevent

that, the court tacitly recognized a potential for a positive relationship between Serrano and

MC if given the opportunity.

                                        IV. Conclusion

                                               9
       Adoption proceedings are in derogation of the natural rights of parents, and statutes

permitting such are to be construed in a light favoring continuation of the rights of natural

parents. Ducharme, 2014 Ark. App. 268, at 6, 435 S.W.3d at 18. Given Serrano’s consistent

support that Haro testified contributed to MC’s well-being, Haro’s actions in preventing a

relationship between Serrano and MC, and Serrano’s readiness to develop a relationship

with MC in whatever form that it may take, we are not left with a firm conviction that a

mistake has been made. See In re Adoption of T.A.D., 2019 Ark. App. 510, at 6, 588 S.W.3d

858, 862.

       Affirmed.

       ABRAMSON and THYER, JJ., agree.

       Graves Law Firm, by: Josie N. Graves, for appellants.

       Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure & Thompson, P.A., by: Sarah L. Waddoups and

Edwin N. McClure, for appellee.

                                              10