## Facts

- A divorce decree granted the mother and father joint legal custody, awarded the mother primary physical custody, ordered the father to pay monthly child support, and provided the father liberal and reasonable visitation.
- The mother later married the stepfather, who petitioned to adopt the child, B.M.W., without the biological father’s consent.
- The father had a history of inconsistent child-support payments, including a contempt finding and a suspended jail sentence conditioned on future compliance.
- The stepfather alleged the father (1) failed to pay a substantial portion of court-ordered child support and (2) knowingly failed or refused to assume parental duties during the two years before the adoption petition.
- The trial court found that, during the two-year look-back period, the father paid approximately 86% of the support due and had not failed to pay a “substantial portion” as required to dispense with consent.
- The trial court concluded the statutory grounds for adoption without the father’s consent were not proved and denied the adoption petition.

## Issues

1. Whether the father’s child-support payment record during the two years preceding the petition constituted failure to pay a “substantial portion” of support due, permitting adoption without his consent.
2. Whether, during that same two-year period, the father knowingly failed or refused to assume the duties of a parent, permitting adoption without his consent.
3. How statutory requirements for dispensing with consent should be applied given the constitutional protection afforded to a biological parent’s status and relationship to the child.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the stepfather’s adoption petition.
- The court held the evidence did not establish statutory grounds to proceed without the father’s consent.
- Paying approximately 86% of the support due during the statutory two-year period was inconsistent with a failure to pay a “substantial portion” of ordered support.
- The court concluded the father’s conduct during the relevant period did not amount to a failure or refusal to assume parental duties within the meaning of the statute.
- Because the statutory prerequisites were not satisfied, the father’s consent remained required.

## Legal Principles

- Adoption without a biological parent’s consent is permitted only when statutory conditions are met, and those conditions are applied strictly, including the statute’s two-year look-back period.
- A “substantial portion” failure to pay support requires a significant nonpayment during the relevant statutory period; irregular payment history and prior arrearages do not substitute for the required showing within the two-year window.
- The “duties of a parent” standard requires more than limited shortcomings in parenting; it requires proof of a meaningful failure or refusal to carry parental responsibilities during the statutory period.
- A biological parent’s status and relationship to the child is a fundamental liberty interest; termination or bypass of parental consent requires compelling justification and clear satisfaction of statutory grounds.

## Conclusion

The court held that the stepfather could not adopt B.M.W. without the biological father’s consent because the father’s conduct during the two-year statutory period— including payment of most ordered support—did not satisfy Kansas’s narrow statutory grounds for dispensing with parental consent, consistent with strong constitutional protection for parental rights.


In re Adoption of B.M.W., 2 P.3d 159 (Kan. 2000)