In re Adoption of Baby Boy B.

394 S.W.3d 837 (Ark. 2012) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · March 1, 2012

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court held that a putative father’s consent to adoption was required where he made prompt and substantial efforts to establish a custodial, personal, or financial relationship with his child, but the mother thwarted those efforts by concealing her location. The court reversed the finding that consent was unnecessary, vacated the adoption decree, and remanded for further proceedings. The court declined to consider the constitutional challenge because the issue had not been ruled on by the circuit court.

Holdings

  1. A putative father may establish that his consent to adoption is required by demonstrating sufficient prompt and good-faith efforts to assume parental responsibility and establish a significant custodial, personal, or financial relationship when the mother's actions thwart his ability to comply literally with the statute.
  2. The circuit court clearly erred in finding that J.E.M.'s consent was not required because, considering the mother's efforts to thwart him, his efforts to establish the required relationship were sufficient under section 9-9-206(a)(2).
  3. A constitutional argument is not preserved for appellate review unless the circuit court rules on it; because the circuit court declined to rule on the constitutionality of sections 9-9-206(a)(2) and 9-9-207(a)(11), the constitutional issue was not preserved.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a putative father who made prompt and good-faith efforts to establish a significant custodial, personal, or financial relationship with his child, but whose efforts were thwarted by the mother, satisfied Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-206(a)(2) such that his consent to adoption was required.
  2. Whether the circuit court's finding that the father's consent was not required was clearly erroneous.
  3. Whether the constitutional challenge to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 9-9-206(a)(2) and 9-9-207(a)(11) was preserved for appellate review when the circuit court declined to rule on it.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (19)

  • Daimler-Chrysler Corp. v. Smelser, 375 Ark. 216, 289 S.W.3d 466 (2008)(followed)
  • Racine v. Nelson, 2011 Ark. 50, 378 S.W.3d 93(followed)
  • Morningstar v. Bush, 2011 Ark. 350, 383 S.W.3d 840(followed)
  • State Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Morgan, 364 Ark. 358, 219 S.W.3d 175 (2005)(followed)
  • Ford v. Keith, 338 Ark. 487, 996 S.W.2d 20 (1999)(followed)
  • Matter of Adoption of Parsons, 302 Ark. 427, 791 S.W.2d 681 (1990)(followed)
  • In re Adoption of Glover, 288 Ark. 59, 702 S.W.2d 12 (1986)(followed)
  • Woodson v. Lee, 221 Ark. 517, 254 S.W.2d 326 (1953)(followed)
  • In re Cordy, 169 Cal. 150, 146 P. 532 (Cal. App. 1914)(followed)
  • Am. Cas. Co. v. Mason, 312 Ark. 166, 848 S.W.2d 392 (1993)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…