Adoption of T.H., In re
| Decision Date | 19 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 48A02-9611-CV-695,48A02-9611-CV-695 |
| Citation | 677 N.E.2d 605 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Parties | In re the ADOPTION OF T.H., Stephen Hudson, Appellant-Respondent, v. Steven E. PERRY and Susan J. Perry, Appellees-Petitioners. |
Appellant, Stephen Hudson (Hudson) appeals the trial court's September 17, 1996 order finding that Hudson had failed to communicate significantly with his son, T.H., for a period of a year or more and that therefore his consent was not required for T.H.'s adoption by Steven and Susan Perry (the Perrys) under I.C. 31-3-1-6(k)(1)(B) (Burns Code Ed. Cum.Supp.1996).
We affirm.
Hudson presents two issues for review.
1) Whether the trial court erred in determining that the one year period under I.C. 31-3-1-6(k)(1)(B) could include a period before which Hudson's paternity of T.H. had been established; and,
2) Whether the trial court erred in determining that Hudson had not communicated significantly with T.H. as required by the statute.
During the summer of 1991, Hudson returned home from college and began spending time with Tina Jones (Jones). Hudson and Jones had dated in high school, and they saw each other "three or four times" during the summer of 1991. Record at 63. Jones claims they had sex twice during this time, and Hudson claims they had sex once in order to determine whether or not he might be a homosexual.
Hudson returned to school, and Jones called him in September to tell him that she was pregnant. Hudson stated he doubted whether or not the child was his because Jones had informed him that she had slept with someone else that summer. Hudson expressed these concerns to Jones during their phone conversation.
The pair met again in November with their mutual pastor. Hudson again expressed his doubts as to the child's paternity, and Jones left the meeting after becoming upset. Jones and Hudson never really spoke thereafter, although she kept Hudson's parents informed during her pregnancy and called them when T.H. was born. T.H. was born on May 6, 1992, and Jones subsequently married and moved to Florida until June of 1993, when she returned to Indiana.
When Jones returned from Florida, she voluntarily placed T.H. in foster care. Hudson became aware of this fact and made a decision to establish paternity. He filed in August of 1993 and blood tests were scheduled for that December. However, due to some confusion on the part of Hudson's attorney, Hudson was not present for the blood tests, which were canceled. Hudson decided to simply dismiss the paternity action because Tina had regained custody of T.H.
During 1994, T.H. spent some time with Jones, some with Jones' mother and was finally placed with Shirley Rogers for foster care. While with Rogers, T.H. met the Perrys (Steven Perry and Shirley Rogers are siblings). In March of 1995, Jones decided to allow the Perrys to establish guardianship over T.H., which occurred in April.
In June 1995, Jones filed to establish paternity. After the court ordered blood tests, paternity was finally established on December 22, 1995, and Hudson received notice of the test results on February 1, 1996, along with a copy of the decree establishing paternity. In March of 1996, the Perrys filed a petition to adopt T.H. to which Hudson filed an objection. The court found that Hudson's consent for the adoption was not required.
Under Indiana law "a petition to adopt a child under eighteen (18) years of age may be granted only if written consent to adoption has been executed by:
...
(2) the mother of a child born out of wedlock and the father of a child whose paternity has been established by:
(A) a court proceeding other than the adoption proceeding...."
I.C. 31-3-1-6(c) (Burns Code Ed. Supp.1996).
T.H.'s paternity had been established before the adoption petition was filed; therefore, Hudson's consent is required unless one of the exceptions to that requirement applies.
....
(B) parent of a child in the custody of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.J. v. J.B. (In re Adoption of T.W.), 02A05–1108–AD–451.
...the father in Irvin had signed a paternity affidavit, the court cited as precedent for their ruling the case of In re Adoption of T.H. 677 N.E.2d 605 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). In that case the one[-]year period was applied against the natural father even though he had not had the opportunity to fo......
-
J.W. v. D.F. (In re E.B.F.)
...Id. ; see also J.P. , 713 N.E.2d at 876 ("hardship" of Tennessee-Indiana travel not justifiable cause); In re Adoption of T.H. , 677 N.E.2d 605, 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (father's "difficult time emotionally," child's often changing whereabouts, and general inconvenience involved in contact......
-
Irvin v. Hood
...the father had to communicate with the child in order to avoid adoption of that child without the natural father's consent. 677 N.E.2d 605, 607 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). We find Irvin's situation analogous. Irvin signed a paternity affidavit after J.J.I. was born acknowledging he was the child's n......
-
In re Adoption of JP
...proceedings unless the evidence would lead to but one conclusion and the trial judge reached the opposite conclusion. Hudson v. Perry, 677 N.E.2d 605 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). In Perry, the court determined that the evidence that the father was experiencing emotional difficulties, that the child's......