COA upholds dismissal of adoption petition after ‘fraud on the court’

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a trial court ruling setting aside a Lawrence County adoption, finding the child’s mother and grandfather committed fraud on the court by falsely claiming they did not know who the child’s biological father was in an effort to allow the grandfather to adopt the child.

The case of In re: The Adoption of L.g.K.; J.K. v. G.C., 18A-AD-371, began in December 2014, when E.K. informed G.C. that she was pregnant. G.C., who is the child’s putative father, was not listed as the child’s name on the birth certificate when L.G.K. was born in August 2015, and he did not establish paternity or register immediately register with the Putative Father Registry. However, the G.C. claims he took a drugstore test that confirmed he is the child’s biological father.

E.K. and G.C. lived together for about six months after the child was born but eventually separated, with G.C. maintaining regular contact with the child.  Though E.K. did not file for child support, she asked G.C. to pay her $400 per month, which he sometimes agreed to. E.K. also discussed having G.C.’s name placed on the birth certificate, though she never followed through.

Then in February 2017, B.P., the mother’s fiancé, filed to adopt the child, but G.C. was not given notice of the adoption petition. E.K.’s father also filed an adoption petition in May 2017, which B.P. agreed to.

The second petition, which G.C. was also not provided, claimed L.G.K.’s biological father was unknown and had not been disclosed by E.K. The Lawrence Circuit Court eventually granted the maternal grandfather’s adoption petition.

Meanwhile, G.C. moved separately to establish paternity, and he did not learn that the maternal grandfather had adopted L.G.K. until E.K. moved to dismiss the paternity action. When he did learn of the adoption, G.C. moved to set it aside, alleging he had been defrauded. He also registered with the Putative Father Registry for the first time in August 2017.

The trial court granted G.C.’s motion to set aside the adoption, finding E.K. was not credible and that she had committed fraud upon the court by claiming her child’s biological father was unknown. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld that decision on Wednesday, with Judge Rudolph Pyle writing that G.C.’s fraud claim against E.K. and her father “alleges an unconscionable plan or scheme (that) was used to improperly influence the court’s decision… .”

“Putative Father grasped the opportunity to undertake his paternal responsibilities toward Child by exercising regular visitation with Child, paying child support to mother and attending Child’s doctor’s appointments,” Pyle wrote. “At the same time, Mother was holding Putative Father out as Child’s Father, accepting child support payments, and permitting Putative Father to exercise visitation.”

“…In addition, Putative Father was led to believe, and indeed believed, he was Child’s father,” Pyle continued. “Nevertheless, Maternal Grandfather fraudulently presented an adoption petition to the trial court claiming that Mother did not know the identity of Child’s father.”

Thus, even though G.C. waived his right to notice of the adoption proceedings while he was not registered as the putative father, Pyle said E.K. and her father’s fraud kept the trial court from fully considering G.C.’s relationship with L.G.K. when considering the adoption proceedings. G.C. was, therefore, entitled to equitable relief, and the trial court did not err in setting aside the adoption.