Court Opinion

ID: 9692226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:47:53.038099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:33.344520
License: Public Domain

CORBIN, J., dissenting. I must dissent in this case because the majority is affirming the circuit court’s order despite the fact that it runs completely counter to this court’s holding in In re Adoption of M.K.C., 373 Ark. 603, 285 S.W.3d 605 (2008) (M.K.C. I), and King v. Ochoa, 373 Ark. 600, 285 S.W.3d 602 (2008). The majority’s total about-face from those decisions truly boggles my mind. The majority concludes that the circuit court did not err in denying the adoption petition because the mother failed to present evidence that the adoption was in the child’s best interest. It is axiomatic that a circuit court must find from clear and convincing evidence that an adoption is in the best interest of a child. See In re Adoption of AM. C., 368 Ark. 369, 246 S.W.3d 426 (2007); Dixon v. Dixon, 286 Ark. 128, 689 S.W.2d 556 (1985). The problem in the instant case, however, is that in evaluating whether adoption |8was in M.KC.’s best interest, the circuit court incorrectly weighed factors that this court clearly held were policy issues to be considered by the General Assembly and not the courts of this state.1 See Ochoa, 373 Ark. 600, 285 S.W.Sd 602. In that ease, the circuit court denied a petition for adoption filed by a child’s biological father. The circuit court concluded that a biological parent was not eligible to adopt his or her own child despite the plain language in Ark.Code Ann. § 9-9-204(3) (Repl.2002) that provides that an unmarried father or mother of the individual may adopt. In recognizing that the effect of section 9-9-204(3) was to terminate the rights of the other biological parent, this court stated: Parental rights and the integrity of the family unit have always been a concern of this state and their protection regarded as a proper function of the courts. See [In re Adoption of] Parsons, [302 Ark. 427, 791 S.W.2d 681 (1990) ]. The conditions upon which parental rights are to be terminated are a question of policy, the resolution of which is addressed in a democracy to the policy-making branch of government, the General Assembly, and it is not for the courts to make a statute say something that it clearly does not. Id. (citing Davis v. Smith, 266 Ark. 112, 583 S.W.2d 37 (1979)). Ochoa, 373 Ark. at 602, 285 S.W.3d at 604. This court further noted that the circuit court also denied the petition because to allow the adoption would have terminated any financial responsibility on the part of the minor’s mother. Specifically, we quoted the following from |9the circuit court’s order: Her consent does not change my mind about this. This is evidently a parent that by virtue of the consent does not want anything to do with the child. And, while this is an unfortunate set of circumstances, she still has the financial responsibility to look to and provide for that child. The state and the custodial parent have the obligation to pursue that, unless they are able to take care of the child financially themselves. In the event that the custodial parent were to pass away, if I were to grant this adoption, there would be no one else out there except you and I and the state to take care of this child. This court then concluded: We hold that this policy concern of the circuit court is a question that should be addressed by the legislature. Id. at 602-603, 285 S.W.3d at 604-605. We further noted that while section 9-9-204 sets forth who may adopt, the other requirements of the Revised Uniform Adoption Act must still be satisfied. Ochoa, 373 Ark. 600, 285 S.W.3d 602. This is where the majority now goes astray. In today’s opinion, the majority quotes only parts of the circuit court’s order on remand and then, in a most strained fashion, attempts to legitimize the court’s analysis by relying on Ark.Code Ann. § 9-9-215 (Repl.2002) for the proposition that the circuit court properly considered the policy issues of support and future inheritance in determining the best interest of the child. The problem is that section 9-9-215 does not allow a court to consider such policy issues, nor has this court ever interpreted it as such — until today. The circuit court sets out the relevant portion of section 9-9-215(a)(2) and then | ¶(Improperly uses it as the guidepost in determining best interest. Specifically, the circuit court stated: This Court then looked at the effect of a decree of adoption applying the results of A.C.A. 9-9-215 (a)(1) analysis weighing such against the benefit to the child resulting from the creation of the relationship contemplated in A.C.A. 9-9-215(a)(2). The child currently enjoys all aspects of the relationship contemplated in that section. The child gains nothing from a decree of adoption under this subsection. The benefits set out therein already exist and, therefore, the creation of the relationship between mother/petitioner and the adopted individual is afforded little, if any, weight in the analysis. It is clear from the Court’s reading of A.C.A. 9-9-215 that the adoption proceedings contemplate a child receiving more than it loses as a result of the adoption. What a child might lose in inheritance or financial support in the termination of a biological parent’s obligations under Subsection (a)(1) could easily be outweighed by the creation of a new relationship under subsection (a)(2) providing care, affection, and guidance even if less money attenuates the “created” relationship. Clearly, the circuit court’s attempted reliance on section 9-9-215 as a basis for denying the petition because of support and inheritance issues was erroneous. The purpose of section 9-9-215 is to explain the effects of an adoption decree, for example, that an adoption decree severs the relationship between an adopted child and his or her biological family. The section provides in relevant part: 9-9-215. Effect of decree of adoption. (a) A final decree of adoption and an interlocutory decree of adoption which has become final, whether issued by a court of this state or of any other place, have the following effect as to matters within the jurisdiction or before a court of this state: |n(l) Except with respect to a spouse of the petitioner and relatives of the spouse, to relieve the biological parents of the adopted individual of all parental rights and responsibilities, and to terminate all legal relationships between the adopted individual and his or her biological relatives, including his or her biological parents, so that the adopted individual thereafter is a stranger to his or her former relatives for all purposes. This includes inheritance and the interpretation or construction of documents, statutes, and instruments, whether executed before or after the adoption is decreed .... (2) To create the relationship of parent and child between petitioner and the adopted individual, as if the adopted individual were a legitimate blood descendant of the petitioner, for all purposes including inheritance and applicability of statutes, documents, and instruments, whether executed before or after the adoption is decreed, which do not expressly exclude an adopted individual from their operation or effect. Thus, section 9-9-215 simply explains that an adoption decree terminates financial responsibility on the part of a biological parent or terminates a right to inheritance from the biological family. It also explains the creation of a new relationship resulting from an adoption decree. In fact, this court has interpreted this statute “as an expression of public policy favoring a complete severance of the relationship between the adopted child and its biological family in order to further the best interest of the child.” Vice v. Andrews, 328 Ark. 573, 945 S.W.2d 914 (1997) (citing Suster v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 Ark. 92, 858 S.W.2d 122 (1993)). My position is further supported by a review of our cases that have involved section 9-9-215. Those cases fall into two main categories. The first involves the propriety of grandparent visitation where an adoption is at issue. See, e.g., Hendrix v. Black, 373 Ark. 266, 283 S.W.3d 590 (2008); Tate v. Bennett, 341 Ark. 829, 20 S.W.3d 370 (2000). The |12second involves issues of inheritance rights. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Myers, 330 Ark. 728, 956 S.W.2d 863 (1997); Sides v. Beene, 327 Ark. 401, 938 S.W.2d 840 (1997). At no time since section 9-9-215 was enacted in 1977 has this court used the language of this section regarding the effect of an adoption decree in the manner that it does today. I suspect that the majority’s attempt to find any way to affirm this case has more to do with a dislike of our rulings in M.K.C. I and King and a disapproval of the fact that the child’s father has never been identified. The majority simply does not think it is right for this mother to adopt her own child, particularly when they know nothing about the child’s father. The father’s identity is wholly irrelevant. It was undisputed that the father had never registered with the Arkansas Putative Father Registry or in any other way attempted to legitimate the child; thus, he was not entitled to any type of notice of the adoption proceeding. See Escobedo v. Nickita, 365 Ark. 548, 231 S.W.3d 601 (2006) (holding that the biological father was not entitled to notice of adoption proceeding where he failed to properly legitimate his child). We are to presume that the General Assembly was aware of the fact that a child adopted by his or her biological parent would lose the right to future support or inheritance, as explained in section 9-9-215, when it provided that a biological parent could adopt his or her child pursuant to section 9-9-204(3). Under the majority’s opinion, however, there will rarely, if ever, be a situation where it is in a child’s best interest to be adopted by his or her biological parent, because support and inheritance from the other biological parent will 1 isalways be terminated and there is not likely to be the creation of a “new” relationship as is the case when a child is adopted by someone other than a biological parent. In short, the majority opinion completely eviscerates the General Assembly’s clear intent to allow adoption of a child by a biological parent. Because the majority’s opinion is clearly contrary to the intent of the General Assembly and in direct contravention of this court’s own precedent, I dissent.  . The majority opinion spends a great deal of time discussing the fact that the trial court found the petitioner to be less credible with regard to allegations she made that the child’s father was abusive, both to her and to his other children, and had substance-abuse problems, but the circuit court's opinion itself acknowledged that its credibility determination was given no weight in its analysis of the child's best interest. As such, it escapes me as to why the majority spends so much time on this issue, other than to divert attention from the fact that it has no support for its conclusion that the trial court correctly analyzed the best interest of the child.