In Re Adoption Of A.A.T.

196 P.3d 1180 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

N.T. (M), became sexually involved with F. M informed F in mid-October 2003 that she was pregnant with his child. Just before Thanksgiving, M left New York to visit her parents in Wichita. She decided to stay in Kansas. M refused to give F the address where she was living, but the couple remained in telephone contact. As early as November 25, 2003, F was making calls to Wichita. In a phone call on January 22, 2004, M falsely informed F that she had undergone an abortion. She later testified that she did so because she knew F would not consent to an adoption. F continued to question M about the pregnancy, doubting her veracity. In May 2004, skepticism led to an argument that temporarily stopped their telephone contact. They began talking again and continued to do so throughout the remainder of the pregnancy and following their child's birth on June 24, 2004, in Wichita. F continued to express his doubts about M's truthfulness. M told her mother, other family members, and friends that the baby died at delivery. She also deceived the adoption agency regarding the identity of F, claiming not to know his last name and to have only vague information about where he lived. The day after the birth, M directed that A.A.T. be given to the adoptive parents, who took the baby home from the hospital. The adoptive parents filed their petition for adoption and for termination of the parental rights of the father on July 1, 2004, when A.A.T. was 1 week old. As part of this proceeding, M again lied. She executed an affidavit that gave a false surname for the newborn child's putative father. She also falsely stated that the father was 'not willing to be of assistance to [her] during the pregnancy and with regard to these proceedings' and that she had no personal knowledge of his background information. A guardian ad litem represented the putative father. After interviewing M, the GAL filed an affidavit with the court, passing on incorrect information supplied by M, including a false surname for the putative father and representations that M had not contacted the father since her second month of pregnancy and that he was aware of her intent to place their child for adoption. M failed to pass along information such as F's address. A notice including the inaccurate name of the putative father and 'To Whom It May Concern' was published in the New York Post on July 30, 2004, and August 6, 2004. It contained A.A.T.'s last name and stated that Kansas was the location of the proceeding. Nothing was done to provide actual notice of the adoption to F. The natural father's parental rights thus were terminated, and the adoption decree was finalized on August 24, 2004. When A.A.T. was 6 months old, M finally told F the truth. F begun this action to set aside the adoption. The adoptive parents moved to dismiss. DNA tests were eventually performed. The results confirmed F's paternity. The district court refused to set aside the adoption decree. The court found that the adoption agency and adoptive parents had acted in good faith in the adoption proceeding. The court found that F 'should have known and did suspect M was still pregnant with his child and she gave birth to his child.' Under these circumstances, F 'should have taken action to determine whether M had had an abortion or was still pregnant ... and... gave birth to his child.' F appealed. The case was transferred to the Kansas Supreme Court.