Adoption of T.K.Annotate this Case
At trial, the prospective adoptive parents, the B.’s, "pulled out all the stops" in their effort to show that D.N. did not merit the status of a “Kelsey S. father.” D.N. tried to stop the adoption of his child, T.K., by challenging the B.'s assertion that he made no demonstration of his willingness to financially support the child, or a willingness to emotionally support the mother during her pregnancy. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's conclusion that D.N. did not demonstrate the full commitment required to establish either the financial or emotional elements. He did not pay any of the mother’s (K.K.’s) substantial pregnancy expenses. He did not, as was within his power, save up for the future expenses of supporting a child. In fact, he raided the small fund the couple initially established for child expenses and never paid it back. He even falsified his check book register to make it look like he had sent money to her when he had not. As to emotional support, during the pregnancy D.N. engaged in a campaign of cyber-stalking K.K. that in some instances bordered on the downright "creepy." He showed up at a medical appointment he would not have known about unless he had hacked into her cell phone. When she had an appointment with an attorney to discuss this adoption case, D.N. just happened to email the attorney at the moment that appointment commenced. He also used contact information from K.K.’s cell phone to try to block the adoption. Given the lack of a full financial commitment and the negative emotional effect of the cyber-stalking during pregnancy, the Court of Appeal could not say the trial court erred in concluding D.N. did not qualify as a “Kelsey S. father.” Accordingly, it affirmed the order terminating D.N.’s parental rights and freeing T.K. for adoption by the B.’s.