Background
Joseph Berney Vasquez sought to adopt his wife Jennifer Lynn Vasquez’s two children without the consent of their natural father, Clay Alan Butler. The petition alleged that Butler had failed both to comply substantially with his child-support obligation and to maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the children during the statutory period.
The district court found Butler’s consent unnecessary on both grounds. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, reasoning in part that Butler had attempted to communicate with or see the children but had been thwarted by Mother. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that Butler failed to maintain the required relationship.
The Court’s Holding
The Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion and affirmed the district court’s order determining that the children were eligible for adoption without Butler’s consent. Clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that Butler failed to maintain frequent and regular contact with either child for 12 consecutive months of the 14 months immediately preceding the adoption petition. His contact with Daughter was almost nonexistent, while his affectionate communications with Son were episodic and minimal.
Although the record supported Butler’s claim that Mother sometimes made contact extremely difficult, Oklahoma law required him to prove that he took sufficient legal action to establish or maintain the relationship before receiving notice of the adoption hearing. Consulting a purported paralegal and speaking with an attorney were insufficient, and Butler did not move to enforce visitation until nearly three months after the adoption petition was filed.
Because one statutory exception was enough to eliminate the consent requirement, the court declined to decide whether Butler’s alleged failure to provide support supplied an additional ground. It remanded the matter for further adoption proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s consent is unnecessary under 10 O.S. § 7505-4.2(H) when clear and convincing evidence shows a failure to maintain a substantial and positive relationship for 12 consecutive months of the relevant 14-month period.
- The statute contains no willfulness requirement; the inquiry focuses on the existence and regularity of the parent-child relationship rather than the parent’s intent.
- A parent claiming that the custodian obstructed contact must show sufficient legal action taken before receiving notice of the adoption hearing; a belated visitation-enforcement motion does not satisfy that defense.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores that sporadic visits and intermittent affectionate messages may not preserve a parent’s right to withhold adoption consent when they do not amount to frequent and regular contact. Courts must assess the relationship with each child separately and within the statutory period.
It also places practical importance on timely court action. A parent who is denied access cannot rely solely on evidence of the custodian’s obstruction but must use available legal remedies before notice of the adoption proceeding to invoke Oklahoma’s denial-of-opportunity defense.