ADOPTION OF T G K J P K
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-422 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1981 I N THE MATTER O THE ADOPTION F and J.P.K. O T.G.K. F Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f S i l v e r Bow. H o n o r a b l e James F r e e b o u r n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: P a t r i c k F. F l a h e r t y , B o u l d e r , Montana For Respondent: J a r d i n e , McCarthy & Grauman, W h i t e h a l l , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : May 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 Decided : Filed: * .Z C l e r k Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. On July 17, 1979, appellant filed a petition for the adoption of his stepchildren, TGK, age 10, and JPK, age 9. Upon filing the petition appellant also filed an affidavit of his wife, the children's natural mother, attesting to her marriage to the appellant in October 1974 and consenting to the adoption. Written consent to the adoption was not obtained from the natural father, respondent herein, but appellant alleged in his petition that it was not necessary by reason of the fact that the father had failed to "provide for the support of the children for the period of one year last past before the filing of this petition, and that he has abandoned said children." Respondent filed an objection to the petition seeking its dismissal. A hearing on the petition was held in the Silver Bow County District Court, the Honorable presiding, on July 1, 1980. James Freebourn During the hearing, testimony was presented showing that the children's natural mother and respondent had dissolved their marriage in April 1974. accordance with this dissolution the mother was In awarded custody of the two children and respondent was ordered to pay $200 per month child support. Respondent has failed to pay the court-ordered support since 1977 but has on occasion bought clothes and toys for the children as well as giving them small cash gifts. to pay the child As a result of respondent's failure support, the natural mother has been receiving aid to dependent children (ADC) assistance since October 1977. The record further shows that during 1977 respondent was unemployed Respondent and receiving supplemented wooden f u r n i t u r e . this unemployment insurance. income by making and selling D u r i n g 1978 r e s p o n d e n t worked i n Wyoming on a n o i l r i g f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r m o n t h s e a r n i n g $800 a month. Respondent furniture-making continued to make use of a b i l i t i e s i n 1978 and 1979 a s a s o u r c e of income w h i l e l i v i n g r e n t f r e e w i t h h i s g i r l f r i e n d . 27, 1979, his respondent began serving a ten-year t h e Montana S t a - t e P r i s o n f o r armed r o b b e r y . On J u n e sentence in While i n p r i s o n r e s p o n d e n t e a r n s $1.00 a d a y . Following Court entered the an hearing order on on the matter, September 12, the 1980, District dismissing appellant's petition. t r i a l judge c o n c l u d e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t had f a i l e d t o o b t a i n a w r i t t e n consent As grounds for dismissal, t o t h e a d o p t i o n by t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 40-8-111, Appellant the appeals the order of f i r s t c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t of the mother and MCA. the District Court h i s wife f i l e d with h i s p e t i t i o n is s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y the requirement t h a t c o n s e n t t o t h e a d o p t i o n be o b t a i n e d from t h e n a t u r a l m o t h e r . Respondent, as well as this Court, agrees with this a r g u m e n t , a n d , t h u s , w e need n o t d i s c u s s i t f u r t h e r . Appellant next contends that the court erred in r e q u i r i n g t h a t c o n s e n t be o b t a i n e d from t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r . I n s u p p o r t o f t h i s c o n t e n t i o n , a p p e l l a n t c i t e s s e c t i o n 40-8l l l ( l ) ( a ) ( v ) , MCA, which p r o v i d e s : " C o n s e-- r e q u i r e d f o r a d o p t i o n . nt ( 1 ) An a d o p t i o n o f a c h i l d may be d e c r e e d when t h e r e h a v e been f i l e d w r i t t e n c o n s e n t s t o a d o p t i o n e x e c u t e d by: " ( a ) both p a r e n t s , if living, or the surviving p a r e n t of a c h i l d , provided t h a t c o n s e n t is n o t r e q u i r e d from a f a t h e r o r mother : " ( v ) i f it is proven t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e f a t h e r or mother, i f a b l e , has n o t c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e support of t h e c h i l d d u r i n g a p e r i o d of 1 y e a r b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n ; " The burden on the appellant is c l e a r . exception t o consent It under this is e s s e n t i a l statutory he p r o v e t h a t t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r was a b l e and f a i l e d t o g i v e s u p p o r t during a period petition. one year before t h e f i l i n g of t h e of I n Re A d o p t i o n o f 522 P.2d 1 3 7 7 . Biery ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 353, T h i s , we f i n d , a p p e l l a n t h a s f a i l e d t o d o . t h e p e r i o d of t i m e t o be A s i n d i c a t e d by t h e s t a t u t e , examined is t h e y e a r p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h e p e t i t i o n and n o t m e r e l y any o n e - y e a r During this evidence indicates income was much o f period, period, from that an July the t h e s e l l i n g of a s s u b m i t t e d by a p p e l l a n t . natural to July 1979, father's the source handmade wooden f u r n i t u r e . income was d e r i v e d from t h e r e c o r d . 1978 from t h i s nature of How is a b s e n t The n a t u r a l f a t h e r was a l s o employed on a n o i l r i g f o r f o u r months i n 1 9 7 8 . The r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e what f o u r months t h e f a t h e r worked. Thus, it i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h i s employment was n o t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d in question. For t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e p e r i o d , from J u n e 27 to 1979, July 17, the father was residing in the State P r i s o n e a r n i n g $1.00 a day. Upon r e v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e a s p r e s e n t e d , we f i n d i t does not adequately establish respondent's ability provide support during t h e year p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of petition. W must, e rejection of therefore, appellant's to the affirm the District Court's application of this statutory exception t o consent. A s an a d d i t i o n a l b a s i s f o r excusing t h e requirement t h a t c o n s e n t t o t h e a d o p t i o n be o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r , a p p e l l a n t , i n h i s p e t i t i o n , a s s e r t e d abandonment by the father. See examination occasions of when section the abandonment record, respondent with h i s children. 0-8-lll(l)(a)(iii), As should p l a y however, exercised a result, a numerous his visitation it decisive reveals c a n n o t be role in An MCA. rights said that resolving the adequacy of a p p e l l a n t ' s p e t i t i o n . Appellant necessary in further this l l l ( l ) ( a ) ( i i ) , MCA, argues case that pursuant consent to not is section 40-8- b e c a u s e t h e f a t h e r h a s been g u i l t y o f c r u e l t y and n e g l e c t . I n r e j e c t i n g t h i s c o n t e n t i o n we p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e c i t e d s t a t u t o r y exception t o consent is only applied to a parent custody . . . "who h a s been j u d i c i a l l y on a c c o u n t o f deprived c r u e l t y and n e g l e c t . " of Here, t h e r e h a s b e e n no showing t h a t t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r was d e n i e d c u s t o d y of h i s c h i l d r e n , o r h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t e r m i n a t e d , for reasons of cruelty or neglect in a prior judicial proceeding. Appellant's of f i n a l argument concerning t h e p r o p r i e t y the D i s t r i c t Court's order of dismissal for failing t o o b t a i n t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r ' s c o n s e n t i s t h a t c o n s e n t is n o t n e c e s s a r y p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 4 0 - 8 - l l l ( l ) ( a ) ( i v ) , MCA. This section provides t h a t consent t o adoption is not required of a parent, " ( i v ) who h a s c a u s e d t h e c h i l d t o b e maintained by any public or private c h i l d r e n ' s i n s t i t u t i o n , c h a r i t a b l e agency, or any licensed adoption agency or the d e p a r t m e n t o f s o c i a l and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n s e r v i c e s o f t h e s t a t e o f Montana f o r a p e r i o d of 1 y e a r w i t h o u t c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e s u p p o r t of t h e c h i l d d u r i n g s a i d p e r i o d , i f a b l e " . W acknowledge e not set excusing forth the in t h i s contention but note t h a t appellant's consent petition requirement. as i t was grounds Consequently, for although some e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l c o n c e r n i n g t h e m a t t e r , t h e D i s t r i c t Court p r o p e r l y d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e argument i n resolving this dispute at the trial court level. If the a p p e l l a n t wishes t o use t h i s s t a t u t o r y exception t o consent, t h e p e t i t i o n s h o u l d be d r a f t e d on t h a t b a s i s and a s p e c i f i c hearing held thereon t o determine this we reason find no error its applicability. by the District For Court in d i s m i s s i n g t h e p e t i t i o n a s f i l e d b u t m u s t r e s e r v e r u l i n g on the merits of the decision herein above c o n t e n t i o n is t o and issue without conclude prejudice to that the refiling t h e p e t i t i o n on t h i s a s s e r t e d b a s i s . Appellant a t t h e conclusion of h i s b r i e f argues t h a t the District interview position Court the as contention, children to the its abused in discretion chambers adoption. W e to in failing determine summarily to their reject this f i n d i n g i t r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e f a c t t h a t a n i n t e r v i e w was n o t c o n d u c t e d i s of no c o n s e q u e n c e t o t h i s a c t i o n which was d i s m i s s e d d u e t o appellant's f a i l u r e t o obtain the natural f a t h e r ' s consent, t h e r e b y p r e c l u d i n g d e c i s i o n on w h e t h e r t h e a d o p t i o n w i l l be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d r e n . The order of p e t i t i o n is affirmed. the District Court dismissing the W concur: e %&dWU@ C h i d Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
