In Re Adoption of JDC
751 N.E.2d 747, 2001 WL 700771 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A putative father is not entitled to notice of adoption proceedings or the right to challenge a finalized adoption if he fails to register with the state's putative father registry within the statutorily prescribed time, even if the biological mother knew his identity but not his precise whereabouts.
Facts:
- In March 1999, Ronald B. Hunter and Carrie Colaric had an intimate relationship, during which Colaric became pregnant.
- Hunter was aware of Colaric's pregnancy.
- On November 26, 1999, Colaric gave birth to a child.
- Two days later, Colaric voluntarily terminated her parental rights and consented to the adoption of the child, also naming Hunter as the putative father but stating she did not know his whereabouts.
- The adoption agency placed the child with the adoptive couple on November 28, 1999.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 23, 1999, John and Jane Doe petitioned to adopt the child in the trial court (court of first instance).
- While the adoption was pending, the putative father's registry was checked, and Ronald B. Hunter had not registered.
- The adoption was finalized on March 9, 2000.
- On September 25, 2000, Ronald B. Hunter filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment with the trial court.
- The trial court denied Ronald B. Hunter's motion.
- Ronald B. Hunter appealed the trial court's denial to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a biological father, whose identity was known to the mother but who failed to register with the Indiana Putative Father's Registry, have a right to notice of adoption proceedings, and can he challenge a finalized adoption after failing to register?
Opinions:
Majority - Vaidik
No, a biological father who fails to register with the state's putative father registry is not entitled to notice of adoption proceedings, and his consent to the adoption is irrevocably implied, thus precluding him from challenging the adoption. The court found that Hunter was not entitled to notice because Colaric did not disclose his address to the adoption agency, and he failed to preserve his rights by registering in the Indiana Putative Father's Registry, as required by Indiana Code § 31-19-4-6. Citing Lehr v. Robertson, the court reiterated that a mere biological link does not require a state to involve a putative father unless he takes advantage of the connection by forming a relationship with the child or by utilizing statutory schemes designed to protect his rights, such as a putative father registry. The court emphasized Indiana's strong interest in providing stable and permanent homes for children, which justifies stringent requirements for putative fathers to assert their rights promptly. Hunter's failure to register within the specified timeframe, or at all, waived his right to notice and implied his consent under Indiana Code § 31-19-5-18, making him legally barred from challenging the adoption.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical importance of putative father registries in adoption law, establishing that a biological father's passive knowledge of a pregnancy is insufficient to trigger notice requirements or protect parental rights. It highlights the state's compelling interest in providing early and permanent placement for children, prioritizing child welfare over the rights of a biological parent who fails to actively assert paternity through statutory means. The ruling clarifies that even if the biological mother identifies the putative father, his non-compliance with the registry still waives his rights, thereby reducing litigation uncertainty and promoting adoption finality. This decision serves as a strong precedent for the strict interpretation and application of putative father registry statutes, placing the onus squarely on fathers to take proactive steps to protect their parental interests.
