Step-parent adoption, motion for continuance.

[BrandonsDad]

This is insane. I just today talked with a lady friend of my wife's in Kansas who's husband is Judge there about a somewhat similar situation.

We're in Michigan and none of us have ever moved out of our state, but the no contact or support issues are close to the same, except I am the guy who's going to adopt my son in my case.

Anyways the Judge's wife I talked to in Kansas told me a few things about step-parent adoptions there. I took notes, because I'm trying to find out how it will work here in Michigan. I will try to number the points she made to me today:

1. Step-parent adoptions are "very easy to do in Kansas even when the biological parent is unwilling".

2. Actions such as "incidental visitations, contacts, communications or contributions" are considered to be "token efforts" by courts and don't make a very good defense.

3. If he's not been physically present in the child's life and has known the step-parent to be a parent in the child's life, then in essence, he has already allowed the step-parent to assume the role of the parent and has already relinquished his parental rights to the step-parent.

So basically, he hasn't "assumed the role of a parent".

And speaking of effort, where's this guy's effort right now? Why isn't he the one on here seeking legal advice or responding to these posts?

I'm subscribing to this thread.

Mark

 

[cookie57]

1. Step-parent adoptions are "very easy to do in Kansas even when the biological parent is unwilling".

*False. You need to have grounds to terminate a parents rights. If there is a parent unwilling to contest to an adoption, then an adoption will not happen UNLESS, there are grounds to do so. They vary from state to state.*


2. Actions such as "incidental visitations, contacts, communications or contributions" are considered to be "token efforts" by courts and don't make a very good defense.

*False. Contact is contact. Contact is defined as phone calls, emails, letters, child support, food, clothing, presents, etc. Most states require at least one year or more without contact or support. That means nothing at all during those 12 months or more. Any contact during those months is considered contact and might not be considered abandonment. Now the contact may not help, but it is contact.*

3. If he's not been physically present in the child's life and has known the step-parent to be a parent in the child's life, then in essence, he has already allowed the step-parent to assume the role of the parent and has already relinquished his parental rights to the step-parent.

*Baby you are 3 for 3! No parent can relinquish their rights to a step parent by simply not being present. The only way a parent can relinquish their rights is if A) they willingly sign away their rights through legal channels, or B) a judge terminates their rights. A step parent can not assume the role of legal parent. You can act as a parent, but you hold no legal right to the child and have no legal decision making for child.

So basically, he hasn't "assumed the role of a parent".

*Wrong. Bio dad is the legal father. He might not be acting as a father, but he does have legal rights. Until a judge takes those rights away, he has them.*

And speaking of effort, where's this guy's effort right now? Why isn't he the one on here seeking legal advice or responding to these posts?

* good question*

 

[Kansas Courts]

Actually, even though BrandonsDad was misinformed, mainly by this statement:

3. If he's not been physically present in the child's life and has known the step-parent to be a parent in the child's life, then in essence, he has already allowed the step-parent to assume the role of the parent and has already relinquished his parental rights to the step-parent.

the amount of correct statements that he made regarding the situation of the original poster to this thread are actually a good enough portion to consider.

Here is a portion of the Probate Code for Adoption in the State of KANSAS:


59-2136. Relinquishment and adoption; proceedings to terminate parental rights. (a) The provisions of this section shall apply where a relinquishment or consent to an adoption has not been obtained from a parent and K.S.A. 59-2124 and 59-2129, and amendments thereto, state that the necessity of a parent's relinquishment or consent can be determined under this section.

(b) Insofar as practicable, the provisions of this section applicable to the father also shall apply to the mother and those applicable to the mother also shall apply to the father.

(c) In stepparent adoptions under subsection (d), the court may appoint an attorney to represent any father who is unknown or whose whereabouts are unknown. In all other cases, the court shall appoint an attorney to represent any father who is unknown or whose whereabouts are unknown. If no person is identified as the father or a possible father, the court shall order publication notice of the hearing in such manner as the court deems appropriate.

(d) In a stepparent adoption, if a mother consents to the adoption of a child who has a presumed father under subsection (a)(1), (2) or (3) of K.S.A. 38-1114 and amendments thereto, or who has a father as to whom the child is a legitimate child under prior law of this state or under the law of another jurisdiction, the consent of such father must be given to the adoption unless such father has failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent for two consecutive years next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption or is incapable of giving such consent. In determining whether a father's consent is required under this subsection, the court may disregard incidental visitations, contacts, communications or contributions. In determining whether the father has failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent for two consecutive years next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that if the father, after having knowledge of the child's birth, has knowingly failed to provide a substantial portion of the child support as required by judicial decree, when financially able to do so, for a period of two years next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption, then such father has failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent.

KANSAS is a completely different state when it comes to Adoption, especially step-parent adoptions.

That said, I think BrandonsDad makes valid points pertaining to this thread with the following statements:

2. Actions such as "incidental visitations, contacts, communications or contributions" are considered to be "token efforts" by courts and don't make a very good defense.

This is actually CORRECT.

and

So basically, he hasn't "assumed the role of a parent".

I AGREE.

And speaking of effort, where's this guy's effort right now? Why isn't he the one on here seeking legal advice or responding to these posts?

Again, I AGREE.

 

[cookie57]

You have to admit, Point 3 is FALSE. No matter how you look at it, it is false. And I agree, he has not assumed the role of a parent, YET, the bio father is still the legal father of this child. He still has legal rights until a judge takes them away.

In determining whether the father has failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent for two consecutive years next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that if the father, after having knowledge of the child's birth, has knowingly failed to provide a substantial portion of the child support as required by judicial decree, when financially able to do so, for a period of two years next preceding the filing of the petition for adoption, then such father has failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent.[/B] [/FONT]

Now, read this first part again. "for TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS". No contact, no phone calls, no emails, no child support. Bio father in this case HAS paid some support and had some contact. The thing you need to keep in mind, a judge might actually see that the bio father is now trying to make an effort. It may or may not hold water in court, but he IS having contact. And NO it has not been 2 consecutive years.

All I am trying to point out here is this. This is what I would consider a bump in the road. My guess bio father will contest this adoption. There is no one here who will be able to say if an adoption will go through. I had an air tight case, yet...it took a lot more time and money than we had thought. It all came down to what a judge decided. Just keep that in mind.

And, this has gotten so off of the original thread!

 

[Kansas Courts]

Of course 3 is a BIG FAT FALSE.

Now, read this first part again. "for TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS". No contact, no phone calls, no emails, no child support. Bio father in this case HAS paid some support and had some contact. The thing you need to keep in mind, a judge might actually see that the bio father is now trying to make an effort. It may or may not hold water in court, but he IS having contact. And NO it has not been 2 consecutive years.

It may not matter if "the bio father is now trying to make an effort" depending on how long he went without making an effort, and even the efforts given here do not sound reasonable, they sound exactly like "token efforts" to me.

How much child support has he paid in comparison to the child's age?

We have the phone bills and certified letters, instant messages, emails...

Read that again.

It looks clearly as though the efforts aren't even coming from the bio father here.

If he cared to see his child, he would have notified police when he had no clue where his child was. They were "already gone for over a month", so how long had it been since he saw his child, and still didn't do anything about it? When people ("mother and boyfriend") hide they don't contact the people they're hiding from as soon as someone passes along a message that those people are looking for them. Did the mom even know how to get a hold of him before they got the message? It doesn't sound like the mother was really hiding, her state has jurisdiction, that says A LOT right there.

Now, Re-read this by the original poster:

His requests at conversations, contact with his daughter he was told "we have mixed feelings about this, we'll get back to you". This is what has been going on for the "second" year that he has supposedly had no contact.

This suggests to me that he has NOT been in contact with the child.

Has he?

It also implies he has not made any REASONABLE EFFORTS to make contact. Yet another year, being content with the "brush off" and not doing anything about it.

It doesn't seem like the bio parent here is interested in this child.. I think someone here is pushing him?

 

[Sortofexpert]

Kansas is an extremely family oriented state, and their first thought is not immediately that the biological father's presence is in the best interest of the child.

Frankly, Shawna, if your husband has ANYTHING in his past or present which might suggest to a judge that he might be a danger to the child, you are royally screwed. Generally that is one of the reasons that preliminary proceedings might be skipped, and you have said nothing that would suggest that you might actually win your case.

If there are negative things about your husband that might appear in court, such as things that might be cause for arrest, I strongly (very strongly) suggest that you approach this situation with extreme caution.

Lots of really scary things happen when two estranged parents are fighting with one another.

I know Kansas, Shawna, and it really sounds to me like you are up **** creek without a paddle. No offense to you.

 

[cookie57]

Honestly, I read this thread and also a thread by Brandonsdad. I did get the two confused quite a bit. I am sorry for that. The two consecutive years without support and contact is in Michigan and that was for Brandonsdad info, not for this original poster.
So sorry for the confusion.


http://library.adoption.com/Termina...of-Parental-Rights-Kansas/article/8511/1.html

Honestly, I apologize for my inability to keep two posts separate. I agree with everyone on Kansas law and bio dad is basically seeking to maintain custody only when it is clear he is about to loose it. It is clear what the law says, and I doubt with or without a lawyer he will be able to win this one.

 

[BrandonsDad]

There are lots of questions given to Shawna and she hasn't answered any more of them.

What happened to the original poster?

I wonder if she took advice on here?

Mark

 

[BrandonsDad]

You said the hearing was for Nov. 2, it's Nov. 4...

I'm very interested to know if you went or was able to actually get a continuance or what happened?

Mark