Court Opinion

ID: 9733967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:21:41.364513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:44.742116
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Acting Justice.
This is an appeal from an order declaring Lance Ronald Sichmeller adopted. We affirm.
Lance Ronald Sichmeller was born on October 8, 1974. His parents, Jill Gross Sichmeller and Ronald Sichmeller, were divorced on August 25, 1975. From August 1975 until August 1977, Ronald visited Lance six times and made sporadic child *873support payments. After Jill married farmer Frank Mills in 1977, however, Ronald ceased all contact with Lance. That year, Ronald developed multiple sclerosis.
On June 24, 1981, Ronald petitioned the court to terminate his parental rights so that Frank Mills could conduct adoption proceedings. In 1983, with the intention of allowing the adoption, he arranged for Lance to receive Social Security benefits and a military ID card allowing medical benefits and college grants. He also gave Jill $1,000 on December 28, 1983.
Frank petitioned for adoption on March 6, 1984. Ronald went to visit Frank and Jill to work out the details of the adoption. Jill was then twenty-nine years old, a diabetic, and blind in one eye and partially blind in the other. She had just been released from the hospital after suffering a heart attack. After observing Jill’s condition, Ronald decided to oppose the adoption.
Ronald admitted that he had not supported, written to, seen, or talked to Lance from 1977 to 1983, in part, because of his deteriorating health. He did testify that he wanted to see Lance during Christmas 1983, but that Jill and Frank would not allow it. He saw Lance at the adoption hearing but did not talk to him. Ronald was concerned and cared for Lance, but because of his lack of contact with Lance, Ronald “wouldn’t go so far as to say I love him.”
Ronald was impressed by the way Frank was raising Lance and recognized that Lance was integrated into Frank’s extended family. If Jill were to die, he did not intend to seek custody of Lance except in the unlikely event that Frank became an alcoholic. Ronald simply wanted to be informed of Lance’s progress and was concerned that the adoption would mean the loss to Lance of the military benefits.
The trial court granted Frank Mills’ petition for adoption. The court concluded that Ronald had consented to the adoption, “but even in the absence of that consent ... the natural father has abandoned said child ... which eliminates the need for consent on the part of the natural father.”
Ronald raises three issues on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court erred by finding that he consented to the adoption. Ronald admits that he did consent to the adoption in 1981. By resisting the petition for adoption, he argues that he withdrew his consent. In light of the trial court’s conclusion that there was abandonment “even in the absence of that consent,” we need not discuss this contention.
Ronald’s second contention is that he did not abandon his child.
Consent to adoption is not necessary if a parent has abandoned his child for one year. SDCL 25-6-4.1 Whether a parent has abandoned a child within the meaning of SDCL 25-6-4 is a question of fact to be decided by the trial court; unless the finding is clearly erroneous, it will not be overturned. Matter of Adoption of Bellows, 366 N.W.2d 848 (S.D.1985).
In Mastrovick v. Mavric, 66 S.D. 577, 579, 287 N.W. 97, 97-98 (1939), this court established the standard for determining abandonment:
To constitute abandonment under our code it must appear by clear and convincing evidence that there has been by the parents a giving-up or total desertion of the minor child. In other words, there must be shown an absolute relinquishment of the custody and control of the minor and thus the laying aside by the parents of all care for it.
There must be a showing of an intent on the part of the parent to abandon and to relinquish parental obligations; this intent *874may be inferred from conduct. In re Adoption of Christofferson, 89 S.D. 287, 232 N.W.2d 832 (1975). In establishing abandonment, factors to be considered include a parent’s presence, love, care and affection, and monetary support. Chris-tofferson, supra. The trial court may consider the subjective statements of the parents in addition to objective factors. Matter of Adoption of Everett, 286 N.W.2d 810 (S.D.1979). An involuntary, temporary inability to assume a parental role is not abandonment. Matter of Guardianship of D.L.L. and C.L.L., 291 N.W.2d 278 (S.D. 1980).
We conclude that the evidence in this case supports the trial court’s determination that there was clear and convincing evidence2 that Ronald totally relinquished the custody and control of Lance. Since 1977, Ronald failed to visit the child, send any card or present, make any call, or pay any child support. He admitted that Lance would not recognize him. In late 1983, Ronald did give Jill $1,000 for Lance and obtained a military identification card for Lance. He did so, however, with an intention of allowing the adoption to proceed, not because of a desire to maintain a parent-child relationship. It was only after he saw Jill’s physical condition that he decided to oppose the adoption. Even then, he admitted that he did not love the child and did not have the ability to care for him. Clearly the evidence in this case supports a finding of abandonment.
Finally, Ronald argues that adoption is not in Lance’s best interest, see Matter of Adoption of Zimmer, 299 N.W.2d 574 (S.D.1980), since he will never attempt to gain physical custody of Lance and adoption may mean the loss to Lance of military benefits. Balanced against this, however, is the fact that Frank Mills has raised Lance since he was thirty-two months old and considers him his son. Lance does not know Ronald and is fully incorporated into Frank Mills’ extended family. In addition, neither Ronald nor Jill is physically capable of caring for Lance alone. While Lance may lose military benefits, Frank Mills has the financial capability of caring for him. We will not disturb the trial court’s determination on this issue. SDCL 25-6-13.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
FOSHEIM, C.J., and MORGAN, J., concur.
HENDERSON, J., concurs specially.
HERTZ, Circuit Judge, acting as a Supreme Court Justice, not participating.

. This case was tried on April 16, 1984. At that time SDCL 25-6-4 provided, in part:
A child cannot be adopted without the consent of the parents, if living, provided that in the following cases consent shall not be necessary:
(2) From any parent who has abandoned his or her child for the period of one year; ... SDCL 25-6-4 was later amended by 1984 S.D. Sess.L. ch. 188.

. Clear and convincing evidence is that "measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.” Brown v. Warner, 78 S.D. 647, 653, 107 N.W.2d 1, 4 (1961). Further definition is found in Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 81 S.D. 324, 134 N.W.2d 777 (1965).