## Facts

- Following the parents’ 1982 divorce, the mother had custody and the father was ordered to pay $200 per month in child support.
- The father made minimal voluntary payments and accumulated arrearages; most support collected during the relevant period resulted from state enforcement actions, including wage garnishment.
- The father had little contact with the child for an extended period after the divorce.
- The mother and stepfather decided the stepfather would adopt the child; the father refused to consent.
- A probate master found the father’s consent unnecessary due to significant, unjustified failure to pay support for at least one year, but concluded adoption was not in the child’s best interests based largely on the child’s expressed interest in a relationship with the biological father.
- The superior court agreed that consent was not required, reversed the master on best interests, ordered the adoption, and stated the father could potentially receive enforceable post-adoption visitation.
- The father appealed the consent determination, the best-interests ruling, and the post-adoption visitation ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the father’s consent to adoption was unnecessary because, for at least one year, he significantly and without justifiable cause failed to provide court-ordered support.
2. Whether the superior court erred in reversing the probate master and finding the stepfather’s adoption in the child’s best interests.
3. Whether a court may grant a biological parent enforceable visitation rights after an adoption that terminates that parent’s legal status.

## Decision

- The court affirmed that the father’s consent was not required because his support failure during the statutory period was significant and without justifiable cause, notwithstanding sporadic or involuntary payments.
- The court affirmed the superior court’s determination that adoption by the stepfather was in the child’s best interests, emphasizing the stability and parent-child relationship in the stepfather’s home and the father’s limited involvement.
- The court reversed the portion of the judgment authorizing enforceable post-adoption visitation for the biological father because adoption terminates the parent’s legal rights and the court lacked authority to preserve visitation as a right.

## Legal Principles

- A natural parent’s consent to adoption may be dispensed with when, for at least one year, the parent significantly and without justifiable cause fails to provide support required by law or court order.
- Payments obtained primarily through state enforcement mechanisms may be treated as insufficient to defeat a finding of significant nonsupport where the parent’s voluntary compliance is minimal.
- In step-parent adoptions, the best-interests analysis may prioritize stability, continuity of care, and the strength of the child’s relationship with the proposed adoptive parent over the child’s interest in maintaining a legal tie to an absent biological parent.
- A final adoption decree terminates the legal parent-child relationship with the biological parent whose rights are severed; courts may not confer enforceable post-adoption visitation rights on that former parent absent statutory authority.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court held that a year of substantial, unjustified failure to pay court-ordered child support allowed a stepfather adoption to proceed without the biological father’s consent, upheld the adoption as serving the child’s best interests, and rejected enforceable post-adoption visitation for the biological father because adoption fully terminates that parent’s legal rights.


In re J.J.J., 718 P.2d 948 (Alaska 1986)