|
|
| |
| Thu, Nov. 20, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Supreme Court upholds adoption Friday, Mar 10, 2006 By Rob Moritz Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A woman who has had no contact with the father of her baby since the night the child was conceived does not have to notify the father or receive his consent before putting the baby up for adoption, the Arkansas Supreme Court said Thursday. The 6-1 ruling affirmed a decision by Washington County Circuit Judge Michael H. Mashburn. According to Thursday's high court decision, Rusty Wayne Escobedo and Misty Ford had a brief romantic relationship in March 2004. Escobedo and Ford did not talk after that encounter, and he was not aware that she became pregnant. On Dec. 3, 2004, Ford gave birth to a baby girl, relinquished her paternal rights and consented to the child's adoption by Mark and Jennifer Nickita. Two weeks earlier, the couple had filed a petition for adoption. The petition said the father was unknown. On Dec. 14, 2004, Escobedo was served a summons and petition for adoption. Two days later he appeared at an adoption hearing and a DNA test was administered. On Dec. 20, 2004, another hearing was held and Escobedo was told that the DNA test indicated he was the biological father. On Dec. 30, he filed a petition asking that the adoption petition be dismissed and that he be granted primary custody of the baby. In March 2005, Mashburn approved the adoption petition filed by the Nickitas and dismissed Escobedo's petition for paternity. In his appeal, Escobedo argued that the judge erred in finding that his consent to the baby's adoption is not required. He also argued that the state's adoption statutes violated his right to due process by denying him the opportunity to establish a significant relationship with his biological child. State law requires that men must register as the father of the child before they can be notified if a child believed to be theirs is adopted. Escobedo said he never had the opportunity to register as a putative father before the adoption because he didn't know Ford was pregnant or had the baby until after the adoption process had begun. The Supreme Court rejected both arguments, saying state statutes do not require a biological father to be notified if he has not "legitimated the minor." "Here, not only was (Escobedo's) petition for paternity filed over a month after the petition for adoption, but it was filed over a week after the hearing on the adoption petition," Justice Jim Gunter wrote. Filing "the petition for paternity over a week after the adoption hearing does not sufficiently 'indicate his interest and willingness to confer legitimacy on the child,'" Gunter wrote. On Escobedo's argument that the state adoption statutes violated his right to due process, Gunter cited several U.S. Supreme Court rulings and said that the biological father's rights were protected. Gunter said Escobedo did receive notice of the pending adoption, after the child was born, and that he appeared at the hearing. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Jim Hannah said Oscobedo wasn't given enough time to get to know his daughter before the adoption hearing. "This court concludes that Escobedo's opportunity interest was adequately protected by his receipt of notice four business days before an adoption hearing regarding a child he did not know existed," Hannah said. The chief justice also said common law principles concerning the natural rights of parents were ignored, and that the adoption hearing to determine whether Escobedo had to consent to the adoption "improperly turned into a hearing on his fitness as a parent." |
