Steltzlen v. Fritz
2006 OK 20, 134 P.3d 141 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prospective adoptive parent may not dispense with a natural father's consent for adoption by alleging willful failure to support or maintain a relationship, when that parent actively concealed the child's existence from the father, and the father made sufficient attempts to ascertain his paternity.
Facts:
- Merriellen Davenport and Greggory Fritz had a brief sexual relationship in March 2000.
- During her subsequent pregnancy, Davenport encountered Fritz, told him he might be the father, but declined his offer to take a DNA test.
- Davenport gave birth to a daughter, J.E.D., on December 1, 2000, and did not list a father on the birth certificate.
- Shortly after J.E.D.'s birth, Davenport essentially relinquished the child's care to Janelle Steltzlen (the petitioner) and her daughter, Christa Steltzlen.
- For over three years, neither Davenport nor the Steltzlens informed Fritz of J.E.D.'s birth or his paternity.
- In early 2004, Janelle Steltzlen contacted Fritz for the first time to notify him of a guardianship proceeding she was initiating for J.E.D.
- Upon learning he was J.E.D.'s father, Fritz immediately hired an attorney and initiated legal action to establish paternity and seek custody.
Procedural Posture:
- Janelle Steltzlen and her daughter filed an application in a state trial court to be appointed co-guardians of the minor child, J.E.D.
- After being notified of the guardianship, Greggory Fritz filed a petition in the same trial court to establish his paternity of J.E.D.
- The trial court appointed Janelle Steltzlen as sole guardian, finding Fritz lacked standing to object before paternity was legally established.
- After DNA testing confirmed Fritz's paternity, the trial court entered an order establishing him as the legal father.
- Fritz then filed a motion to terminate the guardianship and award him custody of J.E.D.
- Before the hearing on Fritz's motion, Janelle Steltzlen filed a petition to adopt J.E.D., along with an application to proceed without Fritz's consent.
- After a four-day hearing, the trial court denied Steltzlen's application for adoption without consent.
- Janelle Steltzlen, as petitioner-appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
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 natural father's failure to support or establish a relationship with his child permit adoption without his consent when the prospective adoptive parent and the child's mother concealed the child's existence from him, and the father took immediate steps to assert his parental rights upon learning of the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Hargrave, J.
No. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adoption without the father's consent because a prospective adoptive party cannot claim the benefit of the statute allowing adoption without consent when that party has actively concealed the child's existence from the parent. The law provides a defense to termination for non-support if the father can prove he was denied knowledge of the minor or the opportunity to exercise parental rights. Here, Fritz's offer to take a DNA test during the mother's pregnancy constituted a sufficient attempt to discover if he had fathered a child. The subsequent concealment of the child by the mother and the petitioner prevented him from assuming his parental duties. Once notified, Fritz took immediate and all necessary steps to assert his parental rights, thus his consent for the adoption is required.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the due process rights of unwed fathers, clarifying that a failure to support a child is not considered 'willful' when the father is unaware of the child's existence due to active concealment. The ruling establishes that a father's reasonable, even if unsuccessful, attempts to determine paternity can protect his parental rights against a later claim of abandonment. It places a significant check on prospective adoptive parents, preventing them from 'running out the clock' on a father's rights by hiding a child and then using the resulting lack of relationship as grounds for a non-consensual adoption. This precedent emphasizes that a father's prompt action upon learning of a child is critical to preserving his rights.
