Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
M gave birth to C.D.M. Maxwell (F) is the biological father of the child. Since July of 1996, F has had no relationship with C.D.M. On August 2, 1996, a permanent protective order was entered against F in favor of M and the child. The order prohibited any contact or communication between F and either M or the child, with the provision that the order could be modified by an assigned Judge in any domestic proceeding between the parties. In March of 1997, F was arrested and charged with criminal trespass on the property of M, for felony stalking and repeatedly telephoning M, breaking into M's apartment and for hiding in her closet, and violating the permanent protective order. He pled guilty. On June 4, 1997, Fl filed a petition to establish paternity and a request for visitation with the child. On October 29, 1997, a temporary order was entered which denied visitation and ordered child support in the amount of $141.80 per month. On March 12, 1998, F plead guilty to additional charges of assault and battery and another violation of the VPO stemming from an incident in which he assaulted and battered M in a convenience store parking lot and attempted to take the child forcibly from M's car. He was sentenced to one year. A decree establishing F as the father, but denying visitation was filed on December 2, 1999, and child support was set at $125.00 per month. Although he receives between $8.00 and $11.00 a month in wages at the prison, F has never forwarded any portion of his earning to the mother for child support. F's mother did send some money from the sale of F's personal property. M was fourteen when she met F, a twenty-five-year-old, father of four children. They began dating, and the mother gave birth to C.D.M when she was seventeen. F stayed with the mother at her parents' house for about ten days after the child's birth. Although he visited periodically, the parents never married and M and F never lived together after the child's birth. When C.D.M. was six months old, M met and began dating SF. They were married on May 7, 1998, and had a child together on December 14, 1998. At the hearing on the adoption without the consent of the father, the trial judge, based on the stipulated facts and exhibits, ruled in favor of the SF on the issue of whether F had maintained a significant relationship with the child. SF subsequently withdrew and abandoned their argument regarding F's alleged failure to support the child. The trial court then heard evidence relating to whether the adoption was in the child's best interests. The court determined that: 1) the child was eligible for adoption without the consent of F; and 2) it was in the best interests of the child to permit SF to adopt the child. F appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, finding M and SF failed to establish the element of wilful failure to maintain a significant relationship with the child. This appeal resulted.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co