LOUISIANA LEGAL SERVICES AND PRO BONO DESK MANUAL 2013

FAMILY LAW
Miller v. Miller, 665 So. 2d 774 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1995) – Statutory presumption
that stepparent adoption in the best interest of the child did not
apply where natural father had joint custody.
In re Landry, 702 So. 2d 1092 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1997) – “Lawfully exercising
actual custody” within the procedural rules governing intrafamily adoptions,
means the parent who has actual, physical custody of the child where
no custody decree exists. La. Ch.C. Art. 1245(C). But it does not apply if
there is an ongoing custody dispute. See In C.D.J. v. B.C.A., 74 So.3d 300
(La.App. 3 Cir. 2011) where the petition was dismissed on an exception of
no cause of action because custody was still being litigated. The party petitioning
the court carries the burden of proving that a parent’s consent is not
required under the law.
In re Bordelon, 670 So.2d 676 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1996) – Adoption of child
over incarcerated mother’s objections.
Leger v. Coccaro, 714 So. 2d. 770 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1998) – Court held that
adoption by stepfather was not in the child’s best interest. This appears to
be a “bad” case where the appellate court engages in speculation about the
mother’s current marriage and problems which may arise in that marriage.
The appellate court noted the father’s failure to provide financially for the
child, and curiously, seemed to be influenced more by the concern shown by
the paternal relatives as opposed to the interest exhibited by the father.
Anderson v. Ramer, 661 So. 2d 584 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1995) – Concluded
that father had failed to provide “significant” child support insofar as he was
in arrears for about $10,000, exclusive of interest, at the time the adoption
petition was filed.
☞While Children’s Code art. 1245’s provision of “refused or failed” does not state
to what degree, the “significant” requirement in at least child support cases is
as a result of Haynes v. Mangham, 375 So.2d 103 (La. 1979). See Myers v.
Myers, 787 So.2d 546 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2001) where “significant” was not
extended to non-support failures.
German v. Galley, 712 So.2d 1034 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1998) – Concluded
that father’s payment of 21% of the child support owed in previous year was
significant enough to prevent application of statute allowing for adoption of
child without parental consent.
In Re G.E.T., 529 So.2d 524 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1988) – Grandparents
sought to adopt. Court found that the grandparents failed to prove that natural
parents presented a risk of physical or psychological harm to the child
and failed to meet their burden of proving the adoption was in the best interest
of the child.
Tutorship of Shea, 619 So.2d 1236 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1993) – Grandparent
adoption permitted where grandparents were awarded the sole custody of
the child in tutorship proceedings and father’s consent not needed as he failed
to provide significant support for 1 year.
☞A child who is of Native American ancestry (Indian) may be subject to the
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) and not subject to state court jurisdiction.
Be careful!
(380)