In re Adoption of G.D.J.

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed a consolidated appeal concerning whether a minor was eligible for adoption without the natural mother's consent. The court held that the mother's failure to support the child could not establish the statutory ground because she had relied on a prior order expressly requiring neither parent to pay support, but affirmed the finding that she failed to establish or maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the child. The court also held that the adoption-without-consent determination did not terminate parental rights and therefore did not require the heightened proof and expert testimony provisions applicable to termination proceedings under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Holdings

1. The trial court erred in finding that Stubbs's failure to support G.D.J. established a ground for adoption without consent because she had no explicit support obligation during most of the relevant period and her prior no-support order could not be disregarded under the governing precedent.
2. The trial court properly found by clear and convincing evidence that Stubbs failed to establish and maintain a substantial and positive relationship with G.D.J. during the relevant fourteen-month period.
3. A hearing adjudicating a child eligible for adoption without the natural parent's consent is not a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding under the ICWA, so the state-law clear-and-convincing-evidence standard applies to the eligibility grounds.
4. The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the adoption-without-consent proceeding.
5. The trial court's findings and conclusions were sufficient even though they were not separately labeled and presented in greater detail.
6. The August 11 orders were final appealable orders, and the challenge to the December 2 order was moot because the August orders were valid appealable orders and the Supreme Court permitted supplemental appellate review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Stubbs's failure to provide support during the relevant period established a statutory ground for adoption without her consent despite a prior order stating that neither natural parent owed child support.
2. Whether Stubbs failed to establish or maintain a substantial and positive relationship with G.D.J. under 10 O.S. Supp. 2007, § 7505-4.2(H).
3. Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act required proof beyond a reasonable doubt and qualified-expert-witness testimony at the eligibility hearing.
4. Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction despite a second adoption proceeding involving the same child and parties.
5. Whether the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were legally sufficient.
6. Whether the August 11, 2010 and December 2, 2010 orders were appealable and whether the district court acted beyond its authority after the appeal was filed.

Disposition

other