Court Opinion

ID: 9705687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:16:25.641222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:13.648679
License: Public Domain

NAJAM, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Modification of the Indiana adoption statutes requires legislative action. There is no statutory authority for a biological parent to maintain her parental rights after the adoption by a grandparent. It is beyond the authority of the trial court or this court to grant such relief. The trial court should be affirmed.
*622In its initial decree of adoption, the trial court stated that "[Mother] is not divested of her maternal rights due to the fact that she and [Grandfather] are not married." The court subsequently vacated the decree concluding that it was "entered in error." In its final order denying the adoption, the court noted that "Mother's consent to the adoption is contingent on maintaining her parental rights," and held correctly that, "Indeed, IC 31-19-15-1 appears to preclude this outcome."
The trial court considered a number of "fact-specific' cases, including KS.P., 804 N.E.2d at 1254, in which a biological parent has been allowed to maintain her parental rights following an adoption by a third party. The court concluded that the common thread in those cases is the requirement that the adoptive parent and the consenting parent cohabitate and that the adults and the child form a family unit. The court then found that Grandfather, Mother and the child in this case do not form a family unit. But under our adoption statutes, whether an adoption is authorized by law does not turn on whether the parents cohabitate and form a family unit with the child. Exeept for a single parent adoption, the law requires that the biological parent and the adoptive parent be married to each other.
This case cannot be resolved by resorting to a recent line of cases that has stretched the adoption statutes beyond their plain meaning. Cases interpreting our adoption statutes are not common law cases but judicial interpretations of statutes enacted by our legislature. In re Infant Girl W., 845 N.E.2d 229, 247 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (Najam, J., dissenting). Our General Assembly has enacted statutes permitting adoptions by single adults, married couples, and stepparents. M.M.G.C., 785 N.E.2d at 270. The parents of an adopted child must be married to each other, whether a husband and wife are joint petitioners, or the petitioner is married to a biological or adoptive father or mother of the child. See Infant Girl W., 845 N.E.2d at 251 (Najam, J., dissenting). The fact that Mother has joined in Grandfather's petition does not change the analysis or the outcome.
The divesting provision of Indiana Code Section 31-19-15-1 applies here. There is no grandparent exception to divestiture. The terms and conditions of adoption represent policy decisions vested in the legislature. Infont Girl W., 845 N.E.2d at 251 (Najam, J., dissenting). It is the legislature's prerogative to establish what policies are to be furthered under the adoption statutes, including whether an unmarried couple may adopt. Id.
The record clearly supports the conclusion that Grandfather's adoption would be in the best interest of the child and that Grandfather is ready, willing and able to assume the responsibilities of a parent. But that is not the question presented. The proposed adoption is simply not authorized by statute and should, therefore, be disapproved.