In re J.J.J. – Adoption
In re J.J.J., 718 P.2d 948 (Alaska 1986).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This lawsuit involved a dispute over adoption by the natural father.
FACTS: The child’s biological parents were divorced and W got custody. H was ordered to pay $200 per month support. H made a single payment three months later and made no further payments thereafter. Eventually $1,000 of his wages were garnished but he otherwise made no other financial contributions.
In 1983, W and H1 wanted to adopt the child and informed H. Shortly before the adoption proceeding, H and his new wife paid $1,800 in child support arrearages but only after being contacted by the enforcement agency. H had almost no contact with his son but had informed W twice that he now wanted to visit his son. W had resisted H’s request for unsupervised visitation after having no contact for such a long period of time.
H refused consent to adoption by H1. The magistrate found that H had failed to support his son for one year and had thus lost his right to withhold consent to the adoption. The magistrate also found that the adoption would not be in the boy’s best interests as he was curious about his father. The Superior Court sustained the lower court findings but overturned the best interest finding as clearly erroneous and that the adoption should be granted upon a proper finding that the biological father can be afforded visitation rights. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE: Does a natural father who fails to make child support payments voluntarily over a one year period lose his right to withhold consent from the adoption of his children?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. A natural father who fails to make child support payments voluntarily over a one year period will lose his right to withhold consent from the adoption of his children.
HOLDING AND DECISION: When enforcing these standards the court must look to the true nature of the facts before it can make a true determination of whether in fact the natural parent has abandoned the child or failed to communicate meaningfully or has failed in support obligations. Under these facts there is no doubt that H has failed in his support obligation in only making one voluntary payment in seventeen months. H argued that his failure to support was the result of W’s resistance to his belated interest in having the boy visit him after more than a year without any communication at all. However, we have held that a parent’s duty to pay child support is not excused by the conduct of others unless that conduct actually prevents performance of the child support obligation. We also agree with the appeals court that the trial court’s determination regarding the best interests of the child was clearly erroneous. The single factor of curiosity is far outweighed by the other significant factors and considering that those other factors weigh heavily in the favor of adoption we find that the trial court’s ruling was clearly erroneous.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed, except for the order of the possibility of post adoption visitation.