Roe v. Reeves
2011 S.C. LEXIS 160, 708 S.E.2d 778, 392 S.C. 143 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an unwed father's consent to be required for an adoption under S.C. Code § 63-9-310(A)(5)(b), he must provide substantial financial support for the mother's pregnancy-related expenses. The requirement of literal compliance with the statute is only excused if the mother actively thwarts the father's efforts to provide support, which requires more than merely refusing some offers of assistance.
Facts:
- In July 2007, Craig Reeves (Father), 19, and Victoria A. (Mother), 15, began an unstable sexual relationship.
- In May 2008, Mother discovered she was pregnant with Father's child.
- When Mother informed Father of the pregnancy, he initially texted her to "Go hav an abortion" and to stop contacting him.
- Mother arranged for an adoption with a couple (Appellants), who thereafter paid for her pregnancy-related expenses and provided an allowance.
- When Father learned of the adoption plan, he texted Mother indicating his approval if it made her happy.
- Approximately five to six months into the pregnancy, Father saw Mother in person, realized she was pregnant, and for the first time expressed a desire to have custody of the child.
- During the remainder of the pregnancy, Father's only direct financial contributions were an $11 T-shirt and sweatpants for Mother and a single offer of $100, which she refused. He also repaired her mother's car.
- In March 2009, Mother gave birth, did not inform Father, and signed an adoption consent form the next day, giving the child to the Appellants.
Procedural Posture:
- Craig Reeves (Father) filed a motion for temporary emergency relief in the family court to prevent the adoption.
- The family court awarded temporary custody of the child to the prospective adoptive parents (Appellants).
- After paternity was established, the family court ordered Father to pay child support and granted him weekly visitation.
- A consent hearing was held in the family court to determine if Father's consent was necessary for the adoption.
- The family court found that Father's consent was required and ordered that custody of the child be transferred to him.
- The prospective adoptive parents appealed the family court's decision to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under South Carolina Code § 63-9-310(A)(5)(b), is an unwed father's consent required for an adoption when his financial support during the pregnancy was minimal, even if he claims the mother thwarted his efforts to provide more substantial support?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hearn
No, the father's consent is not required for the adoption. For an unwed father's parental rights to be constitutionally protected, he must demonstrate a full commitment by accepting responsibility for the child. Under § 63-9-310(A)(5)(b), this requires paying a fair and reasonable sum for pregnancy or birth expenses. The court recognizes an exception where the mother 'thwarts' the father's efforts, but defines thwarting narrowly as actively hiding or avoiding the father, as seen in Abernathy v. Baby Boy. In this case, Mother's refusal of a single $100 offer and her alleged statements about the adoption agency do not rise to the level of thwarting. Since Father was not thwarted, he was required to literally comply with the statute. His contribution of $11 for clothing is not a 'fair and reasonable sum' given his financial capacity. Expenditures for Mother's other child, her mother's car, or a nursery for the baby do not count toward the statutory requirement. Therefore, Father failed to meet his obligations, and his consent is not required.
Dissenting - Justice Pleicones
Yes, the father's consent should be required for the adoption. The family court's finding that Mother thwarted Father's efforts should be given deference, as she told him the adoption agency advised her not to accept his support, effectively refusing his help. This thwarting excuses Father's failure to literally comply with the statute. The majority focuses too narrowly on financial contributions and ignores Father's non-financial efforts to assume parental responsibility, such as immediately asserting his rights upon realizing the pregnancy was real, preparing a nursery, and seeking custody. Under the precedent of Doe v. Queen, Father's actions demonstrated sufficient prompt and good faith efforts to assume parenthood, which is enough to protect his constitutional interest in the parent-child relationship.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the 'thwarting' exception that allows an unwed father to establish parental rights without providing substantial financial support during pregnancy. The court sets a high bar for what constitutes thwarting, requiring active concealment by the mother rather than mere reluctance or refusal to accept help. This ruling strengthens the position of adoptive parents and promotes finality in adoptions by making it more difficult for biological fathers who failed to provide timely, material support to later block an adoption. It effectively mandates that an unwed father's actions, specifically financial support, speak louder than his words or late-term intentions.
