holding that an unmarried father lacking any substantial relationship with his child is not entitled to notice of the adoption proceeding under the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause
How later courts described this case
- holding that an unmarried father lacking any substantial relationship with his child is not entitled to notice of the adoption proceeding under the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause
- due process did not require notice of adoption where biological father failed to legally establish paternity
- although father was unaware of his child, notice of adoption proceeding was not constitutionally required where “biological father was not interested enough in the outcome of his sexual encounter ... to even inquire concerning the possibility of her pregnancy”
- although father unaware of child, notice of adoption proceeding not constitutionally required when "biological father was not interested enough in the outcome of his sexual encounter ... to even inquire concerning the possibility of her pregnancy"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in R.N. v. J.M.
And In re Adoption of S.J.B. concerned the constitutionality of a statute providing that notice need not be given to a putative father who has done nothing at all to grasp the opportunity to parent. 294 Ark. 598, 745 S.W.2d 606, 607-08 (1988), superseded by statute as stated in R.N. v. J.M., 347 Ark. 203, 61 S.W.3d 149 (2001).
The opinion
Robert H. Dudley, Justice, dissenting. There is no final order in this case as required by Ark. R. App. P. 2(a), and I would dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, I dissent.
David Newbern, Justice, dissenting. I agree with the majority decision as to the merits of the case. However, I would not reach the merits because I would dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. The probate court stayed the adoption pending a showing of notice to the putative father of the child to be adopted. An adoption may be appealed only if a final order has been entered, as in any other civil case. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-216 (1987); Ark. R. App. P. 2(a). While we have ruled that an interlocutory order of adoption qualifies as a final order if no subsequent hearing is required by the decree, In re Appeals from Adoption Orders, 277 Ark. 520 , 642 S.W.2d 573 (1982), here we do not have an interlocutory adoption order. The action is obviously still pending.
When there is no final order, this court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter of the appeal, and we have a duty to raise the issue and dismiss the case. Hyatt v. City of Bentonville, 275 Ark. 210 , 628 S.W.2d 326 (1982); Roy v. International Multifoods Corp., 268 Ark. 958 , 597 S.W.2d 129 (1980).
I respectfully dissent.