ADOPTION OF C F B JR

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 83-431 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1984 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF C.F.B., JR., a minor. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable John M. McCarvel, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: J. V. Barron, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent : Brett Asselstine, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: Decided: Filed: ?dAR 2 9 i984 Clerk November 3, 1983 March 29, 1984 Mr. Justice L.C. Court. Gulbrandson delivered the Opinion of the The natural father, C.F.B., Sr., appeals the Cascade County District Court's termination of his parental rights to C.F.B., Jr., a minor. We affirm. The natural mother and C.F.B., Sr., the natural father, were married in Great Falls, Montana, in 1977. One child, a son, was born as issue of the marriage. The marriage was dissolved on October 4, 1979. mother was awarded custody of the minor The natural child and the natural father was ordered to pay $100 per month for his support plus dental, hospital, optical and medical bills for the child. The natural mother married father, on December 21, 1980. petition to adopt C.F.B., J.F.B., the adoptive The adoptive father filed a Jr., on July 8, 1983. The petition alleged that the natural father had not contributed to the support of the child during the previous three years and was $4,200 in arrears in support payments. On July 10, 1983, the adoptive father filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the natural father pursuant to Section 4-8-lll(l)(a)(v), MCA which provides that consent for adoption is not required from the natural father if he does not contribute to the support of the child during a period of one year before the filing of the petition for adoption. The natural father made a support payment of $100 to the Clerk of Court on July 8, 1983, the same date the adoptive father filed a petition for the adoption of the child. H e a l s o made a $150 payment on J u l y 26, $100 payment on A u g u s t 1 6 , 1983. 1 9 8 3 , and a The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s n o o t h e r s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s w e r e made. hearing A on the motion to terminate the natural f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s was h e l d on A u g u s t 2 2 , 1983. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r was a b l e t o p a y c h i l d s u p p o r t b u t f a i l e d t o do s o d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t h r e e y e a r s and n i n e m o n t h s p r i o r for adoption and his t o t h e f i l i n g of consent to the the petition adoption was not r e q u i r e d under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of S e c t i o n 4 0 - 8 - l l l ( l ) ( a ) ( v ) , Hence, MCA. the D i s t r i c t Court ordered that the natural f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s be terminated. The n a t u r a l f a t h e r t h e n a p p l i e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t for a stay parental of execution r i g h t s pending of its this order appeal. terminating The D i s t r i c t his Court g r a n t e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n and t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l r a i s i n g one i s s u e f o r our c o n s i d e r a t i o n : Was t h e r e sufficient that evidence requirements satisfied, of to support Section thus a finding 4-8-lll(l)(a)(v), terminating the parental MCA, rights the were of appellant? Appellant contends t h a t t h e r e is i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t h a t he d i d n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o h i s s o n ' s s u p p o r t d u r i n g t h e year preceding Appellant the f i l i n g of the petition for adoption. b a s e s h i s a s s e r t i o n on t h e f a c t t h a t h e made a $100 payment t o t h e C l e r k o f C o u r t o n t h e d a y t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d and r e s p o n d e n t h a s f a i l e d t o c a r r y h i s b u r d e n o f proof the t h a t appellant has not contributed t o t h e support of child petition. during the year preceding the filing of the Section 40-8-lll(l)(a)(v), MCA, provides: "(1) An adoption of a child may be decreed when there have been filed written consents to adoption executed by: "(a) both parents, if living, or the surviving parent of a child, provided that consent is not required from a father or mother: "(v) if it is proven to the satisfaction of the court that the father or mother, if able, has not contributed to the support of the child during a period of 1 year before the filing of a petition for adoption;" Thus, Section 4-8-lll(l)(a)(v), MCA, sets forth a two-pronged test to determine whether the natural parent's consent is required adoption. whether determined for First, the nonconsenting it must parent has be not contributed to the support of the child during a period of one year before the filing of the petition for adoption and, second, it must be determined whether the nonconsenting parent had the ability to contribute to the child's support. In the Matter of the Adoption of S.L.R. P.2d 886, 39 St.Rep. petitioner to show 4-8-lll(l)(a)(v), 156. that The burden requirements 362, 563 P.2d cases of the Section In the Matter of Challeen (1977), 1120; In re Adoption of Biery (1974), 164 Mont. 353, 522 P.2d 1377. adoption rests on MCA, have been met and strict statutory compliance is required. 172 Mont. the (Mont. 1982), 640 has been that a Our basic policy in statute should not be interpreted in favor of a parent who seeks the benefit of parental rights but shuns the burden of parental I7 4 obligations. 125, 305 P.2d In Re Burton's Adoption (1956), =Cal.App.2d 185; cited with approval in In the Matter of t h e A d o p t i o n o f R.A.S. (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , No. M a t t e r o f t h e A d o p t i o n o f S.L.R., 83-175 and I n t h e supra. I n t h e r e c e n t c a s e of I n t h e Matter of t h e Adoption of s u p r a , w e d e c i d e d a q u e s t i o n t h a t is d i s p o s i t i v e o f R.A.S., the issue presented i n the case a t bar. consent of the natural father was I n holding t h a t the not required for the years and a d o p t i o n o f t h e minor c h i l d w e s a i d : ". . . W hold t h a t t o construe the e s t a t u t e a s requiring t h e nonconsenting p a r e n t t o remain c u r r e n t w i t h i n one y e a r on h i s o r h e r s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s i s i n accord w i t h t h e p o l i c y of t h e a d o p t i o n statutes and the intent of the legislature." In $4,200 the case at bar, appellant was three b e h i n d on h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s . from t h e record payments. Thus, t h a t h e had the ability It t o make is c l e a r support it n e e d o n l y b e d e t e r m i n e d w h e t h e r h e had not contributed t o the support of the c h i l d during a period of one year adoption. prior to the filing of the petition S i n c e t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r ' s payments o f for $100 on J u l y 8 , 1 9 8 3 , $150 on J u l y 2 6 , 1 9 8 3 a n d $100 o n A u g u s t 1 6 , 1983 were insufficient to bring him current in support payments w i t h i n one y e a r p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r adoption o f R.A.S., our decision i n supra, clearly a d o p t i o n was n o t r e q u i r e d . Affirmed. I n t h e Matter of t h e Adoption indicates his consent to the We concur: Chief Justice Justices 1 . Chief M I Justice Haswell, d-issenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I am unable to approve the majori.tyls statutory construction of section 40-8-111(1), MCA. The statute provides in pertinent part: " (1) An adoption of a child may be decreed ... " (v) if it is proven to the satisfaction if of the court that the father able, has not contributed to the support of the child during a period of one year before the filing of a petition for adoption; ... . . ." Here the petition was filed on the same day that the natural father contributed $100 to the support of the minor child. Thus, the father contributed to the support of the child "during a period of one year before the filing of a petition for adoption" and his consent to the ad-option was required. This Court has long required strict compliance with the adoption statute because of the harshness of permanently terminating parental rights. Adoption of Biery (1974), 164 Mont. 353, 522 P.2d 1377; In the Matter of the Adoption of Smigaj (1977), 171 Mont. 537, 560 P.2d 141; In the Matter of Challeen (1977), 172 Mont. 362, 563 P.2d 1120; Matter of the Adoption of S.L.R. (Mont. 1982), 640 P.2d 886, 39 St.Rep. The decision in this case today and in the companion case of Adoption of RAS (1984), No. 83-175, indicate that only lip service will be given to this rule in the future in order to achieve result-oriented decisions. I would reverse the District Court. 3 49.gq4 4 Chief Justice We join in the foregoing dissent of Chief Justice Baswell.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.