In re: The Adoption of C.G.C., M.T. v. C.C. and S.C. (mem dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral FILED
estoppel, or the law of the case. Oct 31 2017, 8:55 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Steven Knecht George G. Ponton
Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Frankfort, Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In re: The Adoption of C.G.C., October 31, 2017
Court of Appeals Case No.
M.T., 12A02-1607-AD-1759
Appellant-Respondent, Appeal from the Clinton Circuit
Court
v. The Honorable Bradley K. Mohler,
Judge
C.C. and S.C., Trial Court Cause No.
Appellees-Petitioners. 12C01-1505-AD-7
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1607-AD-1759 | October 31, 2017 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] On May 27, 2015, Appellees-Petitioners C.C. and S.C. (collectively, “the
Appellees”) filed a petition to adopt C.G.C. On May 14, 2016, Appellees filed
a motion for summary judgment, requesting that the trial court find that
Appellant-Respondent M.T. had given his irrevocable implied consent to the
adoption by failing to register with the Putative Father Registry (“the Registry”)
as required by Statute. Following a hearing on the Appellees’ motion, the trial
court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. M.T. appeals from
this order, arguing that the trial court erred in doing so. Concluding otherwise,
we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] C.G.C. was born on April 8, 2013. O.C. is the biological mother of C.G.C. It
is believed that M.T. is the biological father of C.G.C., but M.T. has never
established paternity or registered as C.G.C.’s putative father.
[3] C.G.C. tested positive for opiates at birth and was removed from O.C.’s care.
C.G.C. was placed with the Appellees in September of 2013. They became
C.G.C.’s legal guardians on June 23, 2014. On May 27, 2015, Appellees filed a
petition to adopt C.G.C. Appellees subsequently filed a motion for summary
judgment, requesting that the trial court find that M.T. had given his
irrevocable implied consent to the adoption by failing to register with the
Registry as required by Statute. Following a hearing on the Appellees’ motion,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1607-AD-1759 | October 31, 2017 Page 2 of 7
the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. This
appeal follows.
Discussion and Decision1
I. Overview of Relevant Authority
A. Standard of Review
[4] Summary judgment is appropriate only where no genuine issues
of material fact exist, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Settles v.
Leslie, 701 N.E.2d 849, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). Genuine issues
of material fact exist where facts concerning an issue which
would dispose of the litigation are in dispute. Settles, 701 N.E.2d
at 852. The moving party has the initial burden of
demonstrating, prima facie, the absence of genuine issues of
material fact. Id. If the moving party does so, the burden then
falls upon the non-moving party to identify a factual dispute
which would preclude summary judgment. Id. Upon appeal of a
grant of summary judgment, we apply the same standard as the
trial court, resolving any factual disputes or conflicting inferences
in favor of the non-moving party. Id. We consider only those
portions of the record specifically designated to the trial court.
Id. Upon appeal, the non-moving party bears the burden of
persuasion and must specifically point to the disputed material
facts and the designated evidence pertaining thereto. Id. We will
liberally construe the designated evidence in favor of the non-
movant, so that he is not improperly denied his day in court. Id.
1
We note that our review of the instant matter was initially hindered because the Table of Contents filed
with Appellant’s Appendix is inaccurate as it contains the wrong caption and does not correctly reflect the
documents contained therein. We remind M.T.’s counsel that one should exercise caution when submitting
documents to the court to make sure that such submissions are accurate.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1607-AD-1759 | October 31, 2017 Page 3 of 7
Nevertheless, we will not become an advocate for a party, and
the trial court’s entry of summary judgment will be affirmed if it
may be sustained upon any theory or basis found in the
evidentiary material designated to the trial court. Id.
Meisenhelder v. Zipp Exp., Inc., 788 N.E.2d 924, 926-27 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
B. The Putative Father Registry
[5] Indiana established the Putative Father Registry (the “Registry”) in 1994. In re
Adoption of K.G.B., 18 N.E.3d 292, 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing In re
Paternity of G.W., 983 N.E.2d 1193, 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)). Statutes
governing registration on the Registry apply to a putative father whenever:
(1) an adoption under IC 31-19-2 has been or may be filed
regarding a child who may have been conceived by the putative
father; and
(2) on or before the date the child’s mother executes a consent to
the child’s adoption, the child’s mother has not disclosed the
name or address, or both, of the putative father to the attorney or
agency that is arranging the child’s adoption.
Ind. Code § 31-19-5-1(a). However, the statutes governing registration on the
Registry do not apply “if, on or before the date the child’s mother executes a
consent to the child’s adoption, the child’s mother discloses the name and
address of the putative father to the attorney or agency that is arranging the
child’s adoption.” Ind. Code § 31-19-5-1(b).
If, on or before the date the mother of a child executes a consent
to the child’s adoption, the mother does not disclose to an
attorney or agency that:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1607-AD-1759 | October 31, 2017 Page 4 of 7
(1) is arranging; or
(2) may arrange;
an adoption of the child the name or address, or both, of the putative
father of the child, the putative father must register under this
chapter to entitle the putative father to notice of the child’s
adoption.
Ind. Code § 31-19-5-5 (emphasis added). To be entitled to notice of an
adoption, a putative father must register with the Registry no later than:
(1) thirty (30) days after the child’s birth; or
(2) the earlier of the date of the filing of a petition for the:
(A) child’s adoption; or
(B) termination of the parent-child relationship
between the child and the child’s mother;
whichever occurs later.
Ind. Code § 31-19-5-12(a). “A putative father who fails to register within the
period specified by [Indiana Code section 31-19-5-12(a)] waives notice of an
adoption proceeding. The putative father’s waiver under this section constitutes
an irrevocably implied consent to the child’s adoption.” Ind. Code § 31-19-5-18
(emphasis added). Further, a person whose consent to adoption is irrevocably
implied “may not contest the adoption or the validity of the person’s implied
consent to the adoption.” Ind. Code § 31-19-9-19.
II. Analysis
[6] In filing their motion for summary judgment, the Appellees requested the trial
court to rule that M.T. had given his irrevocable implied consent to the
adoption by failing to timely register with the Registry. The trial court granted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1607-AD-1759 | October 31, 2017 Page 5 of 7
the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment after the Appellees designated
evidence that M.T. had failed to either register with the Registry or establish
paternity of C.G.C.
[7] M.T. contends that the trial court erred in granting the Appellees’ motion for
summary judgment. In making this contention, M.T. argues that the statutes
requiring registration on the putative father registry did not apply to him
because (1) Mother did not consent to the adoption and (2) Mother provided
Appellees’ counsel with his name and address. M.T., however, did not raise
these arguments below and failed to designate any materials before the trial
court to substantiate these factual claims.
[8] In reviewing an award of summary judgment, we consider only those materials
designated before the trial court. See Meisenhelder, 788 N.E.2d at 926-27. The
Appellees designated materials before the trial court to support their assertion
that M.T. was required to register with the Registry. They also designated
materials before the trial court establishing that M.T. failed to do so. M.T. did
not designate any materials to counter the Appellees’ designated materials. In
fact, he merely responded to the Appellees’ submission of the designated
materials by stating the following: “1. That the Father, [M.T.], has advised his
counsel to take no further action and spend no additional time in responding to
Petitioners’ Motion for Summary Judgment[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 53.
Thus, given the record before us on appeal, we cannot say that the trial court
erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1607-AD-1759 | October 31, 2017 Page 6 of 7
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1607-AD-1759 | October 31, 2017 Page 7 of 7