{ "id": 1715520, "name": "Charles Wayne ROBERTS v. James Kenneth SWIM", "name_abbreviation": "Roberts v. Swim", "decision_date": "1980-03-26", "docket_number": "CA 79-45", "first_page": "917", "last_page": "920", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "268 Ark. 917" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "597 S.W.2d 840" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "266 Ark. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717291 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/266/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 Ark. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1664752 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/265/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 Ark. 760", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1715427 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/268/0760-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 Ark. 837", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1467068 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1948, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/213/0837-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 S.W. 2d 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1931, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 Ark. 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1438581 ], "year": 1931, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/184/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 Ark. 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1656510 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/221/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 Ark. 814", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723060 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/266/0814-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 341, "char_count": 4573, "ocr_confidence": 0.892, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5349151846774486e-07, "percentile": 0.8128307866597628 }, "sha256": "9193299ae25ccfa1fd2ba84120826b33dd036d009993bcf2483d61a4c4dd4bb2", "simhash": "1:c5a4c442f9665d34", "word_count": 782 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:03:10.426772+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Charles Wayne ROBERTS v. James Kenneth SWIM" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "George Howard, Jr. Judge.\nThis is an appeal, by the natural father of the minor involved, from a probate court order approving the adoption petition of the appellee, the child\u2019s stepfather, without requiring the consent of the natural father. The trial court found that consent of the natural father was not required in view of the fact the natural father had for a period of at least one year, failed significantly without justifiable cause to communicate with the child or to provide for the care and support of the child as required by the final divorce decree involving the father and his former wife. See: Revised Uniform Adoption Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 56-201, et seq. (Repl. 1977 and Supp. 1979); Brown v. Fleming, 266 Ark. 814, 586 S.W. 2d 8 (Ark. App. 1979).\nSection 56-206 provides:\n\u201c(a) Unless consent is not required under Section 7 [\u00a7 56-207], a petition to adopt a minor may be granted only if written consent to a particular adoption has been executed by:\n(l)the mother of the minor;\u201d (Emphasis supplied)\nIt is settled law that statutory provisions involving the adoption of minors are strictly construed and applied. Woodson v. Lee, 221 Ark. 517, 254 S.W. 2d 326 (1953); Norris v. Dunn, 184 Ark. 511, 43 S.W. 2d 77 (1931); Breithaupt v. Parker, Referee, 213 Ark. 837, 213 S.W. 2d 382 (1948). See also: Nelson, et al v. Shelly, et al, 268 Ark. 760, 600 S.W. 2d 411 (Ark. App. 1980).\nThe mother did not join in the adoption petition with appellee for the adoption of his stepchild; nor is there a written consent in the record by the mother registering her approval of the adoption. Moreover, the trial court\u2019s adoption order nor the oral findings announced from the bench make any reference to the mother as having indicated her approval of the adoption. While the mother testified during the adoption proceedings, she never registered her consent.\nIt is plain the trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed in this matter without the mother\u2019s consent.\nWhile we reverse the trial court on the ground that the mother of the minor did not execute a written consent, we make the following observation.\nIn Harper v. Caskin, 265 Ark. 558, 580 S.W. 2d 176 (1979), the Supreme Court in articulating the heavy burden cast upon one wishing to adopt a child against the consent of a parent quoted from 2 Am. Jur. 2 Adoption \u00a7 60:\n\u201c \u2018. . .In order to grant an order or decree of adoption in opposition to the wishes and'against the consent of the natural parent, the conditions prescribed by statute which make that consent unnecessary must be clearly proven and the statute construed in support of the right of the natural parent. Natural rights of parents should not be passed over lightly, even though the court is given power to enter decree of adoption without the consent of the parent or guardian when the judge considers that the best interests of the child will be promoted. The law is solicitous toward maintaining the integrity of the natural relation of parent and child, and where the absolute severance of the relation is sought without the consent and against the protest of the parent, the inclination of the courts is in favor of maintaining the natural relation.\u2019 \u201d\nThe learned trial judge, in rendering his oral opinion, at the close of the case, registered some concern about appellant\u2019s claim of not being able to visit with his child and his ability to contribute to the child\u2019s support, but found that appellant had forfeited his right to consent to the adoption.\nWe believe that the conduct of a parent who has failed significantly without justifiable cause to communicate with his child or to provide for the care and support of his child as required by law or judicial decree, must be willful in the sense of being voluntary and intentional. It must appear that the parent acted arbitrarily and without just cause or adequate excuse. Pender v. McKee, 266 Ark. 18.\nA trial court may find the resumption of payment of support just prior to or after the commencement of the adoption proceedings, while such resumption is not of itself sufficient as a matter law to preclude the operation of the statute, relevant in considering whether the parent\u2019s conduct was willful or arbitrary.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "George Howard, Jr. Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Baim, Bairn, Gunti, Mouser & Bryant, by: David K. Gunti, for appellee.", "Eilbott, Smith, Eilbott & Humphries, by: Alan R. Humphries, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Charles Wayne ROBERTS v. James Kenneth SWIM\nCA 79-45\n597 S.W. 2d 840\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 26, 1980\nRehearing Denied April 30, 1980\nReleased for publication April 30, 1980\nBaim, Bairn, Gunti, Mouser & Bryant, by: David K. Gunti, for appellee.\nEilbott, Smith, Eilbott & Humphries, by: Alan R. Humphries, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0917-01", "first_page_order": 953, "last_page_order": 956 }